Efficient Government, Not Anarchy
The Anti-Government Straw Man
Last week, Congressman Paul Ryan and I published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Size of Government and the Choice This Fall.” The article argues that Americans must make a choice in favor of their traditional free enterprise system or else they will lose it. Why? Because otherwise the choice will be made for them—a rejection of free enterprise and an embrace of big government, not in one fell swoop but one seemingly small, creeping government expansion at a time.
I linked the article being referenced a week ago, and was following some of the articles written in reaction to it. I think Brooks makes an important point. We are not choosing between anarchy and utter totalitarianism, but between views which can pull in those directions. Now, I don't completely buy the Republican ...line on wanting smaller government, again they like big government meddling in your personal life even if you aren't harming anyone, in contrast to the Libertarian platform. But the idea is good if usually flawed in Republican execution.
But limited and smaller government do not mean anarchy, and those who would try to spook you away from that liberation by invoking it's spectre usually do so maliciously. Those seeking smaller government are not looking to become a failed state like Somalia, as is often times the usual joke made on the far left these days.
There is a place for the State to enforce just law, law which protects the people from which it derives it's legitimacy from harm from each other or outside forces while maintaining their freedom of those people so long as they do not violate others rights - part of which includes enforcing property rights. There is a place for government to step in when private markets fail to deliver due to various market failures as Brooks makes mention of in his piece. There is a place for fire & police protection, for public education, protecting consumers against monopoly power, or negative externalities like pollution... as well as having a minimal and efficient social safety net.
What becomes problematic is when the government tries to expand beyond these sensible limits. When that happens, tyranny begins to become a factor. Special interest groups either with money or a direct line to powerful ears start to take more from people than they'd otherwise be able normally - leading to abominations like the auto-bailouts and other forms of corporate welfare. It will lead to others feeling like they are entitled to make other decisions for you, like what kinds of chemicals you are allowed to imbibe or smoke so long as you don't act in ways which are dangerous to others - or what kinds of health care decisions you are allowed to make... "Death Panels" were overblown and still are for now, but it's only a matter of scale and scope when you get down to it, being forced to wait for treatments on the say so bureaucrats is a step in that direction ultimately. And, though I lack the time to write more as I need to get to class, there are many many other examples I'm sure you've read me ranting about over the course of my posts.
And so this is why it's necessary to tangle with keeping the government under control. Again, handing power to the Republicans certainly doesn't guarantee that will happen, but presently they seem to be listening to the deafening demand of the electorate to at least do this economically and get their crap in line.
The alternative is to just keep walking down the road to eventual serfdom unless you are one of those ruling elites.
Last week, Congressman Paul Ryan and I published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Size of Government and the Choice This Fall.” The article argues that Americans must make a choice in favor of their traditional free enterprise system or else they will lose it. Why? Because otherwise the choice will be made for them—a rejection of free enterprise and an embrace of big government, not in one fell swoop but one seemingly small, creeping government expansion at a time.
I linked the article being referenced a week ago, and was following some of the articles written in reaction to it. I think Brooks makes an important point. We are not choosing between anarchy and utter totalitarianism, but between views which can pull in those directions. Now, I don't completely buy the Republican ...line on wanting smaller government, again they like big government meddling in your personal life even if you aren't harming anyone, in contrast to the Libertarian platform. But the idea is good if usually flawed in Republican execution.
But limited and smaller government do not mean anarchy, and those who would try to spook you away from that liberation by invoking it's spectre usually do so maliciously. Those seeking smaller government are not looking to become a failed state like Somalia, as is often times the usual joke made on the far left these days.
There is a place for the State to enforce just law, law which protects the people from which it derives it's legitimacy from harm from each other or outside forces while maintaining their freedom of those people so long as they do not violate others rights - part of which includes enforcing property rights. There is a place for government to step in when private markets fail to deliver due to various market failures as Brooks makes mention of in his piece. There is a place for fire & police protection, for public education, protecting consumers against monopoly power, or negative externalities like pollution... as well as having a minimal and efficient social safety net.
What becomes problematic is when the government tries to expand beyond these sensible limits. When that happens, tyranny begins to become a factor. Special interest groups either with money or a direct line to powerful ears start to take more from people than they'd otherwise be able normally - leading to abominations like the auto-bailouts and other forms of corporate welfare. It will lead to others feeling like they are entitled to make other decisions for you, like what kinds of chemicals you are allowed to imbibe or smoke so long as you don't act in ways which are dangerous to others - or what kinds of health care decisions you are allowed to make... "Death Panels" were overblown and still are for now, but it's only a matter of scale and scope when you get down to it, being forced to wait for treatments on the say so bureaucrats is a step in that direction ultimately. And, though I lack the time to write more as I need to get to class, there are many many other examples I'm sure you've read me ranting about over the course of my posts.
And so this is why it's necessary to tangle with keeping the government under control. Again, handing power to the Republicans certainly doesn't guarantee that will happen, but presently they seem to be listening to the deafening demand of the electorate to at least do this economically and get their crap in line.
The alternative is to just keep walking down the road to eventual serfdom unless you are one of those ruling elites.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home