I agree with the author on some points, but some of this is pretty hyperbolic. Even so, what bothers me most about critiques of this nature is that the size and reach of goverment is what is considered to be the problem rather than the principles that the government is operating under. Take the government control of the radio spectrum, for instance. Without control of broadcast footprints, private operators can broadcast over each other's signals, making the medium ineffective. If left to private enterprise alone to divide the spectrum, monopolization could easily limit access and diversity, since the largest players can suppress competition. However, when operating in the public interests, the government can provide access and diversity, through regulation. Unfortunately, when the government works for the interests of the industry rather than the public's, we can once again end up with monopolization, this time backed by law. In many industries in the West, this is where we are at. In many industries, it is not so much the size and scope of government, but the motivating interests of government that represent the problem. In the West, large industries have entrenched political power, and wield it to their advantage. Limiting the size and scope of government will not necessarily remedy the monopolization of markets or advance the interests of individuals. Although in some cases limiting the size and power of government might be beneficial, in many sectors, the real solution is to alter the motivations of government power, and to wield in the interests of the people for which it has been established.
Its necessary to regulate spectrum by the government. I disagree with the author on his point there. As well as other shared resources, like land, air/water quality etc. As well as shared services that we would not be able to provide on an individual basis, defense, security, infrastructure, rule of law, etc. What concerns me and I see as an example in France is the government will decree something and expect there problems to go away. The solution is not to tell stores to turn their lights off at night its to raise energy prices and then allow businesses to chose when and how much they are willing to pay for energy. I suppose you would be tying the danger of nuclear or the environmental cost of Carbon to the price of energy. Some sort of quasi market solution. Here is a good talk on a quasi market solution to lower traffic in switzerland Ted. France is continually implementing new laws for the sake of fairness. They are considering banning homework NPR. Making things fair will kill your economy. By banning homework you are limiting those who would do amazing things, those who would add extraordinary value to your economy. By taxing the highest earners, Zero Hedge again, you are telling the most productive members of your society that their work is not appreciated and will not be rewarded. What kind of people do you expect to persist in such a society? I know that I'm not hopping over to Paris to give my valuable time to them and their society. Although the US may not exemplify this the most in the modern world, I feel we still have an ideal that your work is appreciated and that whoever you are if what you did is valuable you will be rewarded for it. That said I do have a fear of government overreach. I think its a matter of self selection. The people who go into government are those who want to gain power by connections, by politics. These people tend to be of a certain type. As they build their power structure they are destined to grab for more. I believe that this is the same reason that cops are often the exactly the kind of people who would abuse authority because they tend to be the self-selected group of people who want to gain power by authority (I'm not saying all cops are bad but who hasn't had an encounter with a cop who wants to fine or arrest you just for the sake of his own power). As far as hyperbole goes, I wasn't trying to be inflammatory, but I was trying to present some new ideas to the forum. I don't agree with everything in this article and I tried to direct the conversation towards the parts that I found most poignant. I'm not about to unfollow kleinbl00 but I will say he brought the quality of our conversation down a little bit with the profanity. Its OK kleinbl00 I forgive you, can we still be friends?
Let's be honest - anything that starts with "Posted by Tyler Durden" can't be brought down by profanity. It can only be illuminated as the horseshit that it tends to be. Point by point: 1) Government cannot raise energy prices unless they are the monopoly sellers of energy. As the French nuclear reactors were sold off to private consortia, all they can do is increase taxes on energy. Which is not a "market solution." Market solutions are either free-market, in which case things quickly slant towards monopoly, or regulatory, in which case libertarians start tying energy policy into drug abuse. 2) The economy isn't the be-all, end-all measurement of happiness. The point of working for a living isn't to increase productivity, it's so you can live a long and happy life and raise a family. If my family fucks with your productivity, too fucking bad. 3) "Banning homework" is a far f'ing cry from "Banning homework in elementary school and junior high. You really think a 13-year-old is going to suffer by not having any homework after rolling out of school at 5:30pm? And, by the way, has nothing to do with the economy or legalizing heroin. "Limiting those that would do amazing things." I'd rather have kids surf Wikipedia all night than fill out busywork for their teachers. Hell, I'd rather have them watch Dr. Who. 4) Historically, the price breakdown between the wealthiest and the poorest in any healthy social structure is 20:1. check academia, check the clergy, check the military - that spread goes back before Charlemagne. Meanwhile, Esquire did a profile on someone who make 20k, someone who made 200k, someone who made 2m, someone who made 20m, someone who made 200m and someone who made 2b a year. That's a fuckload more than 20:1. Know what? Tax that sucka. Their work is not appreciated and they will not be rewarded because if you're making $2b a year there's a whole bunch of people who aren't being paid commensurately with their contributions. Period. Full stop. 4) Ever worked with the government? Ever worked with anyone in the government? The guys who go into public service are the slow, the middle management, the initiativeless. If you're doing civil service for more than a half decade it's because you're comfy with scads of bureaucracy. A lobbyist on their first tour through K street can effect more change than a lifetime civil servant. What you "believe" is far less relevant than what I can prove. Go ahead and find parts poignant. I'm here to knock 'em down. That entire article was tinfoil hat terk er jerbs John Galt BS. You wanna talk government overreach? We can talk government overreach. But when some wingnut wants to tie energy policy to drug abuse through a long chain of Fountainhead, I'm not going to let it stand. Tell you what: Find something that demonstrates, with numbers, that productivity and quality of life are tied. We'll talk. Until then, Dan Pink speaks for me.
The real problem is that the reductio ad absurdum of "free market" is feudalism and that if you look at it, the Magna Carta absolutely limits the rights of free enterprise. John Lewis Gaddis makes a great point in "The Cold War: A New History" that both the US and the USSR ground their economies to nibs championing one form of extreme government of the other while the rest of the world settled on some form of happy medium... and that since there are so many points on the spectrum between capitalism and communism, it's safe to assume that not all systems work the same for all societies.
And to add to your point about free markets leading to feudalism: This has been a known phenomenon since the dawn of modern capitalism. Yet, somehow, libertarians and free market worshipers pretend that Ricardo and Malthus didn't exist (or they willfully ignore everything they wrote), and that the free market experiment has never been tried in earnest. Ask a five year old chimney sweep how well the pure free market works.
The Magna Carta could be looked at in a couple ways. To the nobles that forced the King to sign it, it was guaranteeing freer enterprise, insofar as it made it impossible for him to arbitrarily tax them without consent. But I suppose that's the point of regulation, to ensure that those with less power have a chance against those with lots of power.