"The government that governs best is the government that governs least." That means that the best situation would be no government at all. "The free market will take care of things if the government would just get out of the way. Everything would be fine (and much better) if the government would just stop interfering in the market." These are common sentiments I hear from my friends who advocate the free market. So how far does that go?
The Free Market is unregulated. If you have an advantage, you should use it. If you are publicly traded you MUST use it. So if I have extra cash (which must be deserved, because wealth proves worth- those with money are better than the rest of us because that money proves that they are smart, innovative, hard working, risk-takers and job creators (while having a lack of cash proves that you are none of those things)). So if I have the advantage of extra cash, what should prevent me from giving a bribe to public officials to direct public tax dollars towards my company? I can use my money to buy commercials to sway public opinion, but that is very inefficient. It is much cheaper and more direct to give that money directly to a politician to ensure that he votes in my favor, regardless of public sentiment (or impact). Should that be allowed in a Free Market arrangement? If not, how do you prevent it if not through government regulation?
Why are we assuming there are officials to bribe if the government has been cut back? Doesn't cutting government cut such corruption? We certainly have cronyism and corruption in spades, now. And they are spending money to ensure that remains the case.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the kind of hardcore free marketer you're probably addressing this to, but... I'm sorry to tell you that government does fuck things up, and the more it tries to do, the more it fucks things up. Less control might mitigate the damage it does.
I agree that the government does fuck things up. But I don't think that means that it should be eradicated. I think it needs greater accountability, transparency, and turnover; but I think the public need some protections from the most powerful among us.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your prescription is that no one in government really wants that kind of accountability. Obama's Administration was supposed to be transparent. The hypocrisy is palpable, given how abysmal they've actually been.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I understand you take comfort in the idea of government. I see the appeal, but I don't share your faith. The institutions are corrupt, and I'm skeptical you can get the reforms you'd like to see.
I'm also skeptical of big business for the same reasons. As I said, I don't think I'm the person you're addressing with this complaint. The state isn't going away, and to pretend otherwise is just a game of make-believe.