Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:19:07 PM
I am amazed I still need to repeat this, but just because you can see some sort of benefit from government spending does not mean it is a good idea. I wrote earlier
a very long essay about the hidden costs of specific programs, but people still don't seem to get it. On blogs and in comments, I see people saying "look how well this government program works", I even engaged
in a debate yesterday where someone claimed Carter was right to create the Department of Energy because it helped create solid state lights.
Let us make this very basic. Yes, the government can confiscate money and use it to produce results. I do not dispute that. It can even take money and conduct research and produce new useful scientific knowledge. All of that is true, but, to quote Chris Rock, "you can drive a car with your feet, it doesn't mean it's a good idea."*
Let me give a simple example. The state could simply confiscate the money from every individual and redistribute it, giving everyone a fairly sizable check. As wealth is a bit skewed, for many people this would represent an improvement on their current finances. So, it is a great idea, right? Well, until day two, when there is no more money to invest in business, and the economy collapses.
And that is the truth of government spending. It may produce results, but at what cost?
The market operates by each individual assigning his money to those things he wants the most. In other words, each individual's money is assigned according to his desires. As the individual knows his own desires best, the market produces the greatest net satisfaction, by giving those who best serve others' need the most money.
So, if the market produces the most satisfaction, government spending either does what the market does, in which case it is useless, or else it does not, in which case it produces a net decrease in satisfaction.
The only justification of government investment is that there is some "higher good" than individual satisfaction, that the economy has some objective goal that only some elite sees, and so the money has to be spent by this elite and not by the riff raff. If you believe that, that elected politicians are smarter than you, so should be entrusted with your money, then go ahead and support government spending. But I have to ask, if there is an elite and a mass of morons, how do you justify democracy? Why let individuals vote if they are so foolish? Shouldn't the elite just rule by right?
In other words, if you believe in government spending because the government knows best, how do you justify any individual freedoms at all? Either people are competent or stupid, and if they are stupid, then democracy and freedom make no sense. That is the truth, no matter how much some try to evade it.
So, support government spending if you want, but realize it is but the happy face put on totalitarianism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I am amazed Rock has not been beaten up by some leftists for the joke from which I stole this, as the original opening is "Sure, you can raise a baby without a father..." If I said that, the left would be screaming for blood. The guy may say some things with which I disagree, but when he says things like "If a kid calls his grandmother mommy and his mother Pam, he's going to jail", you really can't argue with him. Or maybe "The kid might know something if you said something else besides 'Momma be back' ". He certainly manages to get away with pointing out some truths the right isn't allowed to mention. Just check out his routine on racist old black men.