Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Arriving in the middle of an interblog discussion, I catch this gem from John Constantine at Hellblazer:
And the point of the TAP article is that RoveCo has taken extraordinary actions in regard to civil rights. Amazing, extra constitutional actions. Justified on a state of "war" with a noun. Get that? A noun.
I think democracy will find the fastest, most accurate political result. Left to it's own devices that result will be achieved by shooting one's opponent.
John's problem is that he is confusing voluntary exchange( market) with force. Both exist of course but the latter is a violation of the former, not the definition of it. The Free Market and Democracy are both fine things and both of them work best when supported by the Rule of Law that prevents private individuals from using force on others to get their way.
To attribute to the market the failure of society to establish rule of law - usually this point is made in order to justify some wholly unrelated transfer-of-wealth scheme - is a logical error. Generally people who make this error in an economic context do not do so in a political context.
Definitional bait and switch, but often an unintentional one.
Okay, this one's got my head scratching. Granted I'm not such a great writer and I don't produce the greatest transitions there. I wasn't intentionally trying to conflate markets and the government. And attribute the failure of civil rights to the free market In fact, I thought I was making a good case for why they shouldn't be conflated. I just can't write...
But so you pointed out the bait, where's my switch? What tax payer funded boon doggle do you think I'm trying to pull here?
The only thing I'm trying to say is that ignoring the economic impact of a policy that starves government services that already exist is a pretty large shock to your economic system. If nothing else, it's living in a fantasy land that doesn't exist.
And if you're a fan of tough love, "kill them all and God will sort them out", "better dead than government spending", kind of person... then this is okay. It's a useful "illusion".
I just think it's irresponsible and shows a complete lack of competence in governance.
I think John's definition of market is "human interaction with the intent of gaining value" or some such. It strikes me as being broader than voluntary exchange, force or rule of law.
"But so you pointed out the bait, where's my switch? What tax payer funded boon doggle do you think I'm trying to pull here?"
Sorry John, I should have been more clear in my answer that you yourself did not make that connection or have that motivation. Having encountered variations on this argument before I was generalizing ( Evidently you are not the only writer on the net who needs some help with transitions ;o) )
"And if you're a fan of tough love, "kill them all and God will sort them out", "better dead than government spending", kind of person... then this is okay. It's a useful "illusion".
Basically I'm a moderate libertarian in economics - there's a point beyond which the electorate is not going to accept Free-market purity in policy prescriptions. Better to work to the point where Free-market is the accepted standard and deviations from that are purposeful, focused, temporary and in the response to an acute problem that defies a market approach - like police services or interstate highways ( as opposed to say, larding pork into the Federal budget to put naval training facilities in West Virginia or pay farmers not to grow food or corporations to ship jobs overseas or other stupidities). Libertarians who advocate say, private competing police forces are in my view, unrealistic and a little off the beam.
<heh> No worries.
I do have a hidden liberal agenda, though. . .
"Better to work to the point where Free-market is the accepted standard and deviations from that are purposeful, focused, temporary and in the response to an acute problem that defies a market approach."
That's the ideal I'd like to see myself. I'm not sure about seeing it in my lifetime, but things can change remarkably fast, given the right conditions and will of the people involved.
But I'm not holding my breath. Unless we start spending money vastly differently, I don't think the result is going to be pretty. Things are getting really ugly out there.
There are those whose rhetoric suggests there's nothing beyond the market approach. And sadly a lot of them are in decision making capacities.
I think the rhetoric goes in that direction because free-market solutions are most often applied selectively on a political basis - government programs or subsidies that are sacred cows with powerful defenders aren't touched no matter how goofy the rationale for their existence. The Federal Government for example, really doesn't need to own a railroad in the 21st century or fund PBS or maintain a " National Helium Reserve" ( I guess the Kaiser and von Zepplin might attempt to storm Omaha someday with dirigibles)
Where the government should get involved is in " public goods" too large or with too long a time horizon for the private sector to fund. A superconducting supercollider makes more sense for federal expenditure than dairy supports ( let's tax poor people and use the money to make sure they pay higher prices for milk). The post office and TVA could probably be privatized without doing much harm but something like the CDC could not be because the color of federal authority is a requirement for gaining compliance from state and local health authorities in the interest of preventing pandemics.
There's a National Helium Reserve?
Truthfully, I'll give up PBS when I have a dependable, independant source of infrmation to counter the infotainment presented strictly for commercial reasons. Call me selfish.