Throughout life, Humanity has been used to have very powerful governments, be that monarchs, dictators, or whatever name they prefer. It is no coincidence, that the smaller (less powerful) the governments have become, the better off their citizens have been. Governments usually accomplish wars, destruction, theft, corruption, and little else.
I strongly believe governments ought to be as little as possible. Their only duty is to allow people to pursuit happiness and their interests without interfering, and protect them from others, by means of Police and Courts, who may wish to interfere.
No group of individuals may tell somebody else how to live their life. They may beg or implore them, but the choice is up to them.
That means that the government should not be able to prohibit anything to anyone (provided it causes no harm to others).
Governments don't own money. They use money of productive people by means of coercion. As it is not their money, they tend to think of it as unlimited (If they want to pay for X, just take more away from Y.) That means that they make first the plans AND THEN see how to get the money (Let me stress out, money that's not theirs!) That's why they take debt. To pay for it, either they take more money from more people, or just let human beings that have not been born pay for it.
I think governments should make their plans ACCORDING to their budget (Not spend more money than they should). To get the money, they have to tax citizens. These taxes ought to be as small as possible. If they don't mess with the economy, it will grow. It is more to have 10% of 1000 than to have 50% of 100. In other words, By lower taxes, the tax revenues will grow, and the government can afford to pay the police men,teachers, judges, etc.
If by any chance, some natural resources monopoly (For example Oil) is already in hands of the government, they should keep it that way, running it as a for-profit organization with the government as shareholder. And then don't charge taxes at all.
Good article! I share most of your views but would linke to know your opinion on the following:
ReplyDelete1) Is it justified that government prohibits the use of weapons, drugs and other things that may hurt others?
2) You are talking a lot of what we economist call adverse selection in governmental action, for "it is not their money" (government) but governments have to display all plans when building the projects and isnt the fact that the people (through votes of first and second degree) have power over government budget enough to regulate it, if wanted?
Just some queries;
Cheers
Thank you for the Feedback!
ReplyDelete1) With gun control, I have not made up my mind yet. Citizens should have the right to defend their private property from third parties and have guns as a certain protection from the government (Which has monopoly on force) (For example, almost all Independence wars have had guns on both sides).
But allowing people to have guns makes it more harder to protect the private property from others (for example through theft).
This is a question I am not yet ready to answer. It mainly depends on what facts you handle.
Drugs should be all legalized, first of all for a legal/philosophical reason: Everyone should have the right to pursuit happiness in the ways he sees fit (If that's consuming cocaine, so be it). Second of all is an almost utilitarian argument. The most people who die or get hurt because of drugs, do not die directly from the consumption of said drugs, but because of Drug-Wars. Legalizing them would not only lower the amount victims (Thus raising utility) but would also change a perfectly profitable business from the hands of a criminal to the hands of a businessman.
2) The answer to the question lies in what you call "The People". Although it may be true that a significant amount of people may stop a given plan, the individuals could not scape the tyranny of the majority by subsidizing a project they don't wish to. The Individuals that on the contrary, may wish to subsidize those projects may do so by means of charity. Or in more controversial matters see my Blog post on Taxation (With the Opt-Out tax)