Logic vs. Faith

For a long time I have found it difficult to understand how otherwise intelligent people can honestly believe that any government is able to create prosperity or even security. To a large degree it seems that those who are the most educated (and therefore presumed to be highly intelligent) are the most likely to argue that government is the solution to every problem and the great provider of greater prosperity and justice for all.

I have developed a litmus test with respect to the honesty of politicians based on their promises about what the government can do for their constituents. When a candidate for President claims that he will be able to "fix the economy", I regard him as either a fool or a lier. The government can impose laws and regulations and they can impose taxes or create new money through cooperation with the Federal Reserve. They can create an environment that encourages entrepreneurs but they can't create prosperity. That can only be done by private industry.

More laws and regulations rarely solve more problems than they create. The regulations consume resources to fund the bureaucracy and they restrict or inhibit industry in a variety of ways. They create distortions in the economy and cause industry to divert resources to deal with whatever mandates are imposed. For every useful law or regulation, there are a dozen others that are politically motivated and pander to the goals of various special interest groups. Government benefits for various constituents inevitably lead to an expansion of the intended scope of the program.

The laws and regulations inevitably require more taxes or more "funny money". The progressive income tax provides an incentive for those who are excluded from the tax (the bottom 50% of households) to demand more government benefits at the expense of those who do pay income taxes. It is a simple truth that whatever we tax, we get less of. When we tax income we end up with less income. When we tax assets, the assets always evaporate. When higher taxes become unproductive, the government resorts to the debasement of the currency. In a country with a central bank that simply involves the issuance of government bonds in exchange for newly created money. And that leads to inflation, which diminishes the purchasing power of the currency.

But the advocates of more government and central planning are immune to this kind of logic or common sense. They seem to base their decisions on blind faith that a few people with concentrated power can somehow produce a better result than millions of individuals who are motivated to find solutions for whatever problems they may face. The advocates of bigger government believe that centralized power and planning can force people to do what they would otherwise not do. But force is never a motivator. It does not lead to maximum effort. It only leads to the minimum effort required to avoid punishment.

In a controlled economy, the government pretends to pay the workers and the workers pretend to work. Eventually the entire system begins to fade the way a battery operated appliance does as the battery loses its power. History is full of failed attempts at managing an economy. But the proponents seem to believe that they have the magic missing ingredient to force people to be more productive.

Faith in the flawed concept of economic equality is the cause of untold misery. The advocates of more government operate on faith and blindly ignore the many clear lessons of history and logic.

Just my two cents.

Vern

Fallacy of the Progressive Ideal

Those who adhere to a Progressive/Liberal/Socialist philosophy appear to believe that government is both benevolent and omnipotent. (Even the leaders of the movement who don't really believe it, promote that message to the masses.)

But this belief in the benevolent power of government to regulate every human activity for the benefit of all is predicated on a serious logical fallacy.

The Liberal or Progressive presumes that whatever the government commands will and can be done. The problem is that there are two sides to the equation. For every right or benefit, there is an obligation or burden on someone. For every form of property that is confiscated to be re-distributed, there is someone who has lost that property by force or the threat of force. Thus, the premise of a benevolent government is destroyed.

The majority of people living in a totalitarian system will comply with the demands of the government but only to the minimum extent required to avoid punitive treatment. A few members of the society will strive and aspire to become one of the leaders who always manage to enjoy a much better life style than everyone else. But the nature of their effort is to be a loyal member of the system rather than to be a productive member of society. Those who are the most productive are expected to be even more productive but are rarely rewarded for their effort. So in time, those are able to be productive give up and produce the minimum that is required to survive.

What if there was only one person on a remote island who knew how to obtain food? If the other residents on that island confiscate what has been obtained, the one who knew how would have little incentive to secure more food than he could eat while out hunting. And he might have a lot of incentive to move to some part of the island away from the others.

Little by little, the level of productivity throughout the entire economy begins to diminish and everyone must cope with fewer of the essentials and comforts of life.

To forestall this decline in productivity, the government begins to impose more and more harsh regulations and punishments for non-compliance. In time, workers are hard to distinguish from slaves who toil for a bare minimum of what is needed for them to continue working.

Those who believe that government can solve problems that have not been solved by free citizens will soon learn that government can only issue laws and regulations that can be enforced at the point of a gun. Force is not an incentive to do well. It is an incentive to become obscure.

Vern