A great many people — more than ever, probably — describe themselves as supporters of the free market today, in spite of the unrelenting propaganda against it. And that’s great. Those statements of support, however, are followed by the inevitable but: but we need government to provide physical security and dispute resolution, the most critical services of all.
Almost without
a thought, people who otherwise support the market want to assign to government
the production of the most important goods and services. Many favor a
government or government-delegated monopoly on the production of money, and all
support a government monopoly on the production of law and protection services.
This isn’t to
say these folks are stupid or doltish. Nearly all of us passed through a
limited-government — or “minarchist” — period, and it simply never occurred to
us to examine our premises closely. To
begin with, a few basic economic principles ought to give us pause before we
assume government activity is advisable:
Monopolies (of which government itself is a prime example) lead to
higher prices and poorer service over time.....To Read More....
My Take - This
is one strange article! He makes the comment, "monopolies (of which government
itself is a prime example) lead to higher prices and poorer service over time." That’s partially inaccurate. That is only true of monopolies that are
sanctioned by the state, such as the railroad monopolies. Standard Oil of New Jersey, owned by
Rockefeller, not only stabilized the price of oil, but he maintained a high
quality of service and caused the price of oil to drop dramatically. So why did I post this article? Two reasons. It's good
intellectual exercise and I like his explanation of the parasitic relationship
between government and humanity, laying good intellectual foundation for some inspiring thought. Unfortunately, he then he leads the reader to a lala land
conclusion that begs definition.
No comments:
Post a Comment