To Get Economic Growth, Shrink The State

You are absolutely on the proper track. Government MUST be the proper size.

 

Great analogy of what's gong on!!

 

Well, what we've been trying to say all this time is that the government shouldn't be trying to govern the economy.

 

That doesn't sound wise, though, does it? It has a certain philosophical appeal, but it doesn't seem practical in the context of national security, public works, all kinds of things.

 

I agree. Still, the large technocratic nature of China's government prevents major economic issues more often than not.

 

Oh. I thought you were talking about the economy in general. I didn't know you were only thinking of things for which the government has an explicit constitutional mandate.
On that note, though, everything that is provided through government is provided by the people. Isn't it conceivable, then, that we, the people could provide for ourselves roads and courts, security and defense without having to do it through some entity that monopolizes the initiation of force and always accumulates more power without ever relinquishing any?

 

You believe the "people" can handle spending 16 trillion dollars?

Private sectors get corrupted just easily as goverment there is one fundamental difference in goverment we can vote out the corruption.

Sadly the US goverment has been corrupted to its roots and complete goverment cleansing would be the only thing that could repair the 60 years of greed imposed upon us.

 

Can we handle spending it? We've produced almost twice that amount over just the last two years!
Yes, any private company can be just as corrupt as any government. The difference is that we can compete against any company. The more corrupt the company is, the easier it is to drive them out of business, sans government. (I understand that that sounds counter-intuitive after, at least 12 years of "public" indoctrination, but it's true.) A government, however, corrupt as it is, we can never compete against, ever, under any circumstances. It necessarily monopolizes its own industry.
"complete government cleansing" I like that.

 

I won't say it's inconceivable, but I've never heard that plan. It seems more likely that by eliminating the current government, bound by the constitution and elected by the people (at least in theory), we would only end up replacing it with another government that couldn't care less about the constitution and has no interest in the interests of the people.

 

If the government shrinks to the point that it can't regulate the economy, or so corrupt that it won't, what prevents some other entity from declaring itself the government and enforcing its own monopoly on force?

 

Apparently you read a lot of Tom Friedman.

I don't think your thesis has been fully tested yet. We don't really know how the current leadership would handle a major economic crisis or recession yet.

 

Yes, all the governments that I know of that have been overthrown by force were replaced by worse governments. Force doesn't seem to be a good way to do anything.

I think a better constitution would be far less vague. If the constitution says "commerce among the several states", it should define "commerce" and "among" or use less ambiguous terms. If it says "general welfare" it should define welfare. Also the constitution is supposed to be law. If we you or I break the law the government will take more money from us or put us in a cage, or kill us. If elected officials break the "law" they might not get re-elected. If they could go to jail for violating the constitution they would probably be more careful about the laws they write.


Private Roads, Walter Block, Essay
Private Law, Bob Murphy, Audio
Private Defense, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Essay
Private Defense, Bob Murphy, Audio
Private Roads, Jeff Tucker, Article

 

Once again, I agree. If China emerges from an economic downturn unscathed, my thesis will stand. If not, then we realize their leadership is not as knowledgeable as they are believed to be.

 

No. There has to be a governmental structure representing the interests of the people. The only way to get anything done without government is to allow private industries to build the infrastructure and charge for its use.

Fire departments are a good example of how well that works.

Take it back to the latrine you dug it out of.

 

Neat idea. I could get behind that.

 

That money doesn't just disappear. In fact, it's the reason production was that high in the first place. Do you think roads, railways, and bridges just magically appear on their own? And the actual amount paid in taxes isn't near as high if you look at effective tax rates.

 

That's funny, because that is exactly what both sides do.

 

I don't even like the Constitution, but it's supposed to be vague so that the current politicians can determine what the best laws are in the future. That is why we have the legislative branch; to make new laws that are beneficial for the present. Do you think the founders of the Constitution even thought it was possible to reach space, let alone all the laws needed for it. Did the founders imagine there'd be a bomb with the potential of eliminating almost the entire human population. There are many laws needed for that as well. How are they supposed to make laws for something when they don't even know something was possible?

 

I can see some truth to the concept of private roads and private defense. There is already significant structure for such industries. However, the concept of private law makes no sense. Once there is law, there is government. Private law, unless it is natural law, which requires no governmental structure, therefore, makes no logical sense.

 

Do you think government needs to grow bigger relative to the economy? Some systems experience diseconomies of scale, but I've never thought of the government in that light (or seen any data to support that claim). That is, do you think government should grow (and shrink) alongside the economy or do you think that as the economy grows, the government should make up an ever-increasing proportion of GDP. Because it seems to me that the latter scenario more accurately describes today's reality.

 

None of them make any sense and won't work on the scale that government is currently at.

 

We could be improving the efficiency of our economy and bearing true witness to our own laws, at the same time. We could also be solving official poverty for our State.

What excuse could a person have for staying poor, if they are no longer in official poverty?

How much time must pass before we can rightfully call our War on Poverty, a booddoggle, if not a generational form of theft?

 

And yet these "small" states have public healthcare?

 

I'll give a rough sketch of how something like what we think of as law could exist in a stateless society. Here are a couple of hypothetical scenarios.

Insurance firm X will guarantee recompense for any damage done to you or your property for $1000 per year. In the event that Bob breaks into your house and steals all of your stuff insurance firm X will pay you the value of your stuff. In order to mitigate fraud and moral hazard firm X may require that your property be monitored by surveillance equipment. Once you report the crime, firm X will investigate the scene to gain information about Bob. If a surveillance record exists they will take that. If firm X can identify Bob, they will then attempt to apprehend him. If they apprehend him, Bob will likely deny his guilt. Arbitration firm Y will then hear cases from firm X and from Bob and will likely rule in favor of firm X. Firm X will then demand that Bob pay all that they have spent to settle your case. Bob will likely be unable to pay. Firm X will then turn Bob over to detention firm D. Firm D will then house, feed and employ Bob in a secure location until his liability to firms X and D has been satisfied.

Insurance firm X will insure society for any damages caused by you for $50 per year since you're such a nice person, and have such a good reputation. Most people and companies refuse to do business with any uninsured person. Since you have insurance, you have a pretty stressful job. One day you lose your mind and kill ten of your coworkers. Firm X apprehends you. Firm Y finds you guilty of ten counts of murder. A beneficiary of each of your ten coworkers is paid a predetermined amount, say $1,000,000. Any assets you own are seized by the insurance companies of your coworkers, assuming they were insured against damages by society. You are tuned over to firm D. You receive a letter at your new address from firm X which notifies you that firm X will continue to insure society against damages by you for $50,000 per year. In the event that your coworkers were insured against damages by society their insurance companies would pay beneficiaries of your coworkers, and firm X would pay their insurance companies. You may or may not be executed. That would probably depend on the various insurance policies.

The job of the arbitration agencies is to settle disputes. They determine when damage has been done. The ones with a reputation for rendering the most reasonable decisions would be the most successful. Their decisions would be what could be called law.

 

I think Auterity at this point is the only hope for the US economy. We're flat out broke, and we're not growing. If we cut government in half, it would most likely remove the artificial brakes on the economy and allow people to develop new technologies and new industries. As it stands now, government mostly stands in the way of such things. So get them to back off, and let the people work again.