Is Having A [Big] Government Really Worth It?

[TripleB]

Is having a government that does more than the absolute bare minimum of coining money and defending the borders really worth it? I'll concede that there's things we wouldn't have today if not for the big unconstitutional government.

However, let's look at some examples of the costs and wastes:

1) I received a traffic camera ticket once for going 11 MPH over the speed limit on an interstate in the middle of the night with no traffic on the road. 66 in a 55. I spent 2 whole days reading traffic laws, eventually figuring out how to avoid paying the ticket. I won.

2) The state of California bans "assault weapons." People still want to own them, They develop a system called the Bullet Button that lets they legally have an assault weapon through a "loophole" in the law (essentially, the law says something to the effect of defining a "detachable magazine" as one that you can detach without tools, so they made a mag release that requires a very precise, high pressure to open... which can easily be accomplished by using the tip of a bullet in a small hole to actuate the mag release... completely legal... intent of the law destroyed).

3) People want to smoke pot and do drugs so they drive long distances to drug dealers and go through vetting processes.

4) You get a parking ticket because the meter broke, so to fight it, you have to call out sick, take the day off work, and spend the day waiting your turn in traffic court to argue with the judge.

5) Going to the DMV to show your proof of residency every few years thanks to the new Patriot Act Real ID requirements. - A few hours down the drain each time.

6) Government passes CARB environmental regulations. A person drives to Canada to buy the good fuel cans and reimport them into the US because the CARB compliant gas cans are garbage.

Imagine all of this wasted effort was used towards something productive. These are just a few examples off the top of my head where the government is essentially wasting your time and resources when the net result is the same. You STILL own an assault weapon, use a non-compliant gas can, drive 11MPH over the speed limit, buy marijuana. The behavior is not changed, but thanks to the government, we waste significant resources looking for "loopholes" around their silliness.

So while there may be a benefit to society for being organized and having rules of law, how about the negative impacts and economic waste created?

[Benko]

No.

There are people who have personality "traits" such that they WANT this.  It serves some psychogical need, irrespective of whether it produces the results they claim to desire.

NB: Doodle in some reply to one of todays threads quoted someone very smart or some words to that effect.  High intelligence says nothing about whether the person has good judgement, or is street smart.  People who want big gov't often have laudable sounding goals and reasonable sounding plans.  Of course they don't work as planned and have unintended consequences from hell.

[FarmerD]

The air Force always made us fly commerial air while in full uniform.  Imagine the stupidity of me being patted down, felt up, and anal probed because the metal egglets on my shoes set off a sensor or the medals on my service dress coat lit up the metal detector. "Excuse me Major FarmerD, please step this way so we can show how idiotic we are by groping a major in full dress uniform with a military ID showing he has a top secret security clearance." 

In my earlier days on the farm, I used to love all the agricultural surveys the USDA or whoever asked us to fill out every year.  They always included some question like "How many grain consuming animal units do you maintain on your farm?

[TripleB]

Here's one way to look at it. HB frequently says that regulation adds an average 10% tax on everything we purchase. In other words, in order to comply with FDA, OSHA, EPA and countless other agencies/regulations, corporations have an increased "cost of goods sold" that raises the price by 10% (according to a study HB cited).

I can extrapolate that out and say that "living in a society with a government imposes a regulatory cost on individual efficiency."

In effect, it's a flat tax because everyone has to go to the DMV equally, regardless of how much they earn, and they have to forgo productive economic activities to comply with government regulations. (I'm ignoring the fact that 1 out of 4 drivers in Florida doesn't have a license or insurance because if they are caught, their "overhead" will be to get their car out of impound).

However, because a high-priced doctor/lawyer has a higher opportunity cost for the value of their time, the "tax" of government regulation on individuals hurts him harder than a lower/middle class individual who can skip work for a few hours and not be out as much. Thus, "flat tax" rate.

[MachineGhost]

But on the other hand without that so-called 10% tax added to the cost of goods or services, we wouldn't be a model beacon in terms of safety protection and rights for the disadvantaged/minority to the rest of the world.  If the so-called "free market" was composed of 100% just and honorable individuals that always did the right thing for themselves and indirectly to the collective, there would be no need for coercive intervention and its infrastructure against the bad apples.  You cannot make blanket statements that government is everywhere and always 100% bad, otherwise the market would have eliminated that metaphysical concept long ago.  Voters are a market just as consumers are a market.  Coercion and persuasion both fill different roles and needs.

I think government should be limited to just using coercion where it makes utilitarian or just sense (ultimate judicial authority, citizen's dividend, executive intervention to protect exploited, etc.), not the socialist corparatism, regulatory capture model it has evolved into today.  This reality is what the average voter doesn't recognize yet.  Americans still think their government is the most honest in the world and want it to provide them with OBAMA! phones.  Jaw dropping stupidity.

You need to recognize that HB was an non-voting, libertarian extremist.  The actual real world is vastly different from any kind of utopianism that is predicated on perfectly behaving human beings.  The "free market" is no panacea for kowtowing them all into line.

[doodle]

I've been doing quite a bit of reading on quantum physics lately and the latest breakthrough in this field of research...the Higgs Particle took nearly 30 years of work and thousands of people's careers to discover. The discoveries of quantum physics have revolutionized the fields of communication, computing, and one day might lead to teleportation. This research has been funded generally by large government grants over extensive periods of time with uncertain outcomes. The benefit of this research to humanity and it's application to the private sector has been enormous. Yet, because the research is so lengthy and expensive and uncertain no private entity would ever undertake it in a for profit fashion.

The libertarians love to tout the technological wizardry of the private sector, but they always manage to overlook the fundamental role that government played in getting this technology off the ground and ready before anyone could of conceived of a way to make money off of it.

[notsheigetz]

The reason we libertarians don't like to see government involved in technology is because it is usually undertaken for the purpose of blowing people to kingdom come.  For example, the first massive government-sponsored research project in quantum physics, known as the "Manhattan Project".

I've been doing quite a bit of reading on quantum physics lately and the latest breakthrough in this field of research...the Higgs Particle took nearly 30 years of work and thousands of people's careers to discover. The discoveries of quantum physics have revolutionized the fields of communication, computing, and one day might lead to teleportation. This research has been funded generally by large government grants over extensive periods of time with uncertain outcomes. The benefit of this research to humanity and it's application to the private sector has been enormous. Yet, because the research is so lengthy and expensive and uncertain no private entity would ever undertake it in a for profit fashion.

The libertarians love to tout the technological wizardry of the private sector, but they always manage to overlook the fundamental role that government played in getting this technology off the ground and ready before anyone could of conceived of a way to make money off of it.

[Pointedstick]

You need to recognize that HB was an non-voting, libertarian extremist.  The actual real world is vastly different from any kind of utopianism that is predicated on perfectly behaving human beings.  The "free market" is no panacea for kowtowing them all into line.

The only objection I have to this is that if we acknowledge that humans are flawed and some in particular are greedy, impulsive, capricious, cruel, ignorant, lazy, reactionary, or stupid, what prevents these people from gravitating toward government where after all they are insulated from the consequences of their bad behaviors?

Having a government to use coercion to clamp down on people's bad traits without abusing that coercive power seems to require that government be free of the people with those bad traits, and the choosing and sorting mechanisms of government employment (voting, political appointment) results either in a random distribution of types of people, or a concentration of people with the bad traits.

If we were perfect angels, we would not need government, but since we aren't, can we stand a government populated by people who are as flawed as the ones whose flaws they are trying to ameliorate through coercion?

[doodle]

The reason we libertarians don't like to see government involved in technology is because it is usually undertaken for the purpose of blowing people to kingdom come.  For example, the first massive government-sponsored research project in quantum physics, known as the "Manhattan Project".

People have been devising bigger and better ways to dominate and kill each other since the dawn of time. Why do you blame government for problems that exist with human nature? Go to the root cause. Al qaeda is not a democratically elected government but they would love to blow a lot of people to kingdom come.

Back to my original point though. Technology is somewhat like a tour de france racing team. All of the glory might go to the winner Lance Armstrong. But his victory was only possible because of the team that he drafted off, relied on for food, protection etc. One man gets the glory, but the victory is only possible because of his team.

[notsheigetz]

People have been devising bigger and better ways to dominate and kill each other since the dawn of time. Why do you blame government for problems that exist with human nature?

As you stated with technology, big government allows us to harness human energy to accomplish things on a massive scale that individuals can't do on their own. This could conceivably work to the betterment of mankind as you suggest but I see little evidence from the big governments of the 20th century that the good generally outweighs the evil. Consider the big government efforts of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, to name only the major players.

[TripleB]

The problem with thanking the US Government for technology advances/scientific research is that you're focusing on what's seen and ignoring what's not seen. You see the government money going to research and you see the results.

You do not see what the money could have done if it was not forcibly stolen from people through taxes and redistributed to science research.

You do not see what scientists might have invented if not driven by government mandates and restrictions.

You do not see what private enterprises might have sprung up to perform research in absence of a government-funded research program, using the capital that otherwise was sucked into the government through taxes.

That is the ultimate failure of government. Scientists can only get money to do research through the government because taxes are high and ultimately less private capital is available to go to scientists privately.

Suppose taxes were cut and government stopped funding research. Would the same amount of private money that otherwise was taxed have gone to science? Possibly not. That simply means people don't value science research as much as other things. And why not let people choose how they want their money to be spent?

One might argue that science trumps all and we need to allocate as much resources as possible. However, what if someone simply wants to work part-time and spend more time with their family? And values that over working full time with his money going to science? Is that wrong?

We work half the year just to fund the government and its programs. Only a small part of those government programs is science however it doesn't change the fact that we could only work 6 months a year and have the exact same lifestyle as working full time affords now, if not for government stealing and reallocating our money.

[Benko]

To give you an example of what TripleB is talking about look at NASA.  It has accomplished some things, but is really a disaster, because it has screwed up repeatedly big time and wastes lots of money.  Jerry POurnelle (computer columnist, hard SF writer) points out a better way is for the gov't to offer prizes.  For example to the company that successfully builds a moonbase and keeps people alive for 365 consecutive days on the moon, the go'vt offers (insert large amount of money).  The company get zero money UNTIL the 366th day.  Pick any goal you wish.  Competition will produce better results than anything the gov't can do.  And avoid e.g. solyndra.

This does have the "downside" (for some) of not growing the gov't.

[murphy_p_t]

BBB....excellent comments. Your most recent about opportunity costs...I read this exact thing in a book...forget the name...maybe something like "Everything about economics in one lesson"?

[Pointedstick]

BBB....excellent comments. Your most recent about opportunity costs...I read this exact thing in a book...forget the name...maybe something like "Everything about economics in one lesson"?

Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It's quite good. I believe TripleB just recently finished it, which is perhaps why the subject is fresh in his mind! 

[moda0306]

Anything that says things like "everything you need to know about economics" or "inflation everywhere is a monetary phenomenon" always strike me as pretty annoying concepts when trying to understand the world around us.  The best lesson in money and economics is a lot more complicated than the extension of household finance that some people make it sound.

[MediumTex]

Let's assume that NASA and the space program have been smashing successes and humanity it vastly better off as a result of what NASA has done over the decades.

Here's the question:

How many positive NASA-type government experiences would it take to make up for a World War II negative government experience?

Since one of the indispensable ingredients necessary for war on a multinational scale is big government, what conclusions should we draw about the usefulness of big government when you net out all of the bad stuff that big government gives us?

It's sort of funny, but what the government has been calling an "arms race" all of these years might actually be more accurately called a "big government race."

Crisis is a friend of the state.

[RuralEngineer]

To give you an example of what TripleB is talking about look at NASA.  It has accomplished some things, but is really a disaster, because it has screwed up repeatedly big time and wastes lots of money.  Jerry POurnelle (computer columnist, hard SF writer) points out a better way is for the gov't to offer prizes.  For example to the company that successfully builds a moonbase and keeps people alive for 365 consecutive days on the moon, the go'vt offers (insert large amount of money).  The company get zero money UNTIL the 366th day.  Pick any goal you wish.  Competition will produce better results than anything the gov't can do.  And avoid e.g. solyndra.

This does have the "downside" (for some) of not growing the gov't.

What people don't understand is that even the successes NASA has credited to it are mostly the work of the private sector.  I used to work for a company called Ball Aerospace that builds satellites and other technology (telescopes, phased-array antennas, etc.).  Two of the projects I worked on while there were the Deep Impact and Kepler spacecraft.  Deep Impact was built entirely by Ball under contract, however, here is the start of the Wikipedia entry:

Deep Impact is a NASA space probe launched on January 12, 2005. It was designed to study the composition of the comet interior of 9P/Tempel, by releasing an impactor into the comet. At 5:52 UTC on July 4, 2005, the impactor successfully collided with the comet's nucleus. The impact excavated debris from the interior of the nucleus, allowing photographs of the impact crater. The photographs showed the comet to be more dusty and less icy than had been expected. The impact generated a large and bright dust cloud, which unexpectedly obscured the view of the impact crater.

There is at least a mention of Ball in the Kepler Wiki entry, but this is primarily attributed to NASA who actually contributed very little.  Both spacecraft were built at Ball's facility in Boulder, CO.

My point is that NASA already farms out its successes to the private sector.  However, instead of doing it through a competition or some other efficient manner, it takes bids on a particular project based on theoretical designs and chooses a winner based on the submitted proposals.  What happens is that all of the bids are severely under estimated on both time and budget(I worked on one for the Air Force, complete farce) but the eventual overruns are ignored for the most part because "it's government money."  The final product is usually late and then gets rebranded as NASA's work before launch.

NASA is just an expensive and inefficient way to deliver extremely marginal results.

[doodle]

Let's assume that NASA and the space program have been smashing successes and humanity it vastly better off as a result of what NASA has done over the decades.

Here's the question:

How many positive NASA-type government experiences would it take to make up for a World War II negative government experience?

Since one of the indispensable ingredients necessary for war on a multinational scale is big government, what conclusions should we draw about the usefulness of big government when you net out all of the bad stuff that big government gives us?

It's sort of funny, but what the government has been calling an "arms race" all of these years might actually be more accurately called a "big government race."

Crisis is a friend of the state.

Horrible civil wars and conflicts occur in some of the anarchistic societies. Governments don't cause war....people do. Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc...these are tribal and ethnic wars that would exist irrespective of big national governments.

[doodle]

I would make the argument that if governments disappeared tomorrow and the forces of nationalism withered, humans would begin to organize and band together along religious, cultural, ethnic etc lines and we would still be going about the exercise of killing each other. Libertarians look for a top down approach to solving issues. By abolishing the structure at the top (government), all human problems will resolve themselves and society will be full of industrious market participants looking to satisfy each others needs and wants. That is the most utopian vision I can possibly conceive of. One day man might not need government, but that day will come from a bottom up change in social consciousness. Governments will dissolve themselves when people are ready.

What libertarians are advocating is the mirror opposite of the communist revolution...but they are blinded by the same dangerous utopic vision. Communist revolutionaries tried to force their utopic vision on society through the apparatus of the state....many millions died in the upheaval. Libertarians are trying to push their utopic vision by abolishing the state. If this happens unenlightened people will simply go about coalescing into groups based on other definitions of identity and resume the business of killing each other like they have been doing since the beginning of time. The difference is that in this morally relativistic world, when one group is inflicting genocide on another, no one will intervene until the smell of the corpses begins to sully their fresh air.

[MediumTex]

Let's assume that NASA and the space program have been smashing successes and humanity it vastly better off as a result of what NASA has done over the decades.

Here's the question:

How many positive NASA-type government experiences would it take to make up for a World War II negative government experience?

Since one of the indispensable ingredients necessary for war on a multinational scale is big government, what conclusions should we draw about the usefulness of big government when you net out all of the bad stuff that big government gives us?

It's sort of funny, but what the government has been calling an "arms race" all of these years might actually be more accurately called a "big government race."

Crisis is a friend of the state.

Horrible civil wars and conflicts occur in some of the anarchistic societies. Governments don't cause war....people do. Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc...these are tribal and ethnic wars that would exist irrespective of big national governments.

doodle,

I didn't say that war wasn't possible without big government.

What I said was that BIG war wasn't possible without big government.

War has always been with us and will always be with us.  It's the BIG wars that require big government that bother me.

[MachineGhost]

Libertarians are trying to push their utopic vision by abolishing the state. If this happens unenlightened people will simply go about coalescing into groups based on other definitions of identity and resume the business of killing each other like they have been doing since the beginning of time. The difference is that in this morally relativistic world, when one group is inflicting genocide on another, no one will intervene until the smell of the corpses begins to sully their fresh air.

you seem to be confusing libertarian with anarchist.. they are not the same or even close to the same.... libertarians want to LIMIT the state not ELIMINATE IT, they want to err on the side of to little government, and add back in that little bit necessary to correct it, instead of falling prey to its faulty nature of "all government all ways gets bigger".
you make this same mistake every time you try to bash libertarians they are not anarchists don't confuse the philosophical understanding of fundamental problems with the nature of government with wanting to do away with all government..

Indeed, libertarianism is a realistic approach to real-world politics.  Anarchism is the relative utopia.  When people are ready for it, we'll have the latter.  But first people have to get ready for libertarianism which is essentially anti-crony capitalism.  Voters are not awake to that fact of reality yet or simpy choose to not care.

[Benko]

Indeed, libertarianism is a realistic approach to real-world politics.  Anarchism is the relative utopia.  When people are ready for it, we'll have the latter.  But first people have to get ready for libertarianism which is essentially anti-crony capitalism.  Voters are not awake to that fact of reality yet or simpy choose to not care.

Or voters simply want their free stuff.  I work for the gov't and have personally watched lots of people gaming the system. 

"A democracy... can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits ....
(unlear who first said this from the wikipedia reference)

[MachineGhost]

Or voters simply want their free stuff.  I work for the gov't and have personally watched lots of people gaming the system. 

"A democracy... can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits ....
(unlear who first said this from the wikipedia reference)

Then increase oversight and regulation.  It seems to me that either the government is simply incapable of doing a thorough job on means-testing or applicability (which is disproven by a number of other countries), or we are now all so bought into the system that we are lazy about strict enforcement.  A government is only as good as the people it is composed of.

Due to Monetary Realism, I actually find it a waste of time now worrying about voters and citizens getting what they should be getting anyway via a Citizen's Dividend.  Much more productive to work on reforming institutional corruption than worrying needlessly about the little people.  There's no hope for reforming people that want an OBAMA! phone.

[doodle]

Would your perspective on government change if someone came to you with the following proposal:

1. First you will design the form of government that you think society should live under...

2. You will roll the dice two times 1 being the worst and 6 being the best. The first role will determine your IQ and genetics, the second role will determine the family and socio-economic class you are born into. 

How would you feel about your first decision if you just rolled a pair of snake eyes?

[doodle]

Let's assume that NASA and the space program have been smashing successes and humanity it vastly better off as a result of what NASA has done over the decades.

Here's the question:

How many positive NASA-type government experiences would it take to make up for a World War II negative government experience?

Since one of the indispensable ingredients necessary for war on a multinational scale is big government, what conclusions should we draw about the usefulness of big government when you net out all of the bad stuff that big government gives us?

It's sort of funny, but what the government has been calling an "arms race" all of these years might actually be more accurately called a "big government race."

Crisis is a friend of the state.

Horrible civil wars and conflicts occur in some of the anarchistic societies. Governments don't cause war....people do. Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc...these are tribal and ethnic wars that would exist irrespective of big national governments.

doodle,

I didn't say that war wasn't possible without big government.

What I said was that BIG war wasn't possible without big government.

War has always been with us and will always be with us.  It's the BIG wars that require big government that bother me.

BIG war is possible when people organize themselves into large groups based on any arbitrary set of differences that they choose...

The Mongol Conquests, the Crusades, the 30 Years War...these are wars fought along tribal, cultural and religious lines...

If you were a small group living peacefully on the plains of northern China, what exactly would your course of action be when Ghengis Khan came into town and started cracking skulls and dismembering people? I think you would be wishing that a big government had spent the money to build a great big wall so that you wouldn't be watching your neighbors heads being piked.

Sometimes it is the big governments that bring the peace....like the Pax Romana