The ying and yang of government

People join societies to protect their individual self-interests: self-interest in defense, resolution of fraud, and protection of personal and real property. The minority forms government (usually in the name of the majority) in order to keep the majority in check. The majority is kept in check by limiting the amount of capital that can be accessed by it. It’s why you register your property with the state. It’s why you need a license for the particular occupation you are engaged in. It’s why you need permission from the state before putting an addition onto your house. It’s why you need a license to drive in order to get to work. It’s why you are compelled to buy insurance to protect your vehicle, the other guy’s vehicle, and pay for your health care.

The consumer protection argument for these rules is just an excuse; a mask; a distraction from the fact that your access to capital is being rationed through the bottleneck people mistakenly refer to as virtuous government. It’s ironic that the faction of government, the progressive faction, uses the argument of consumer protection to implement these rules knowing that the primary effect is to limit access to and use of capital and liberty.

The progressive and the conservative hence join forces to create this ying-yang; a tug-of-war where you as the citizen are held (better yet stretched) in the balance.

I don’t know about you, but being drawn and quartered by competing factions in government is the last thing I need ….

About Alton Drew

Alton Drew brings a straight forward and insightful brand of political market intelligence. Alton Drew graduated from the Florida State University with a Bachelor of Science in economics and political science (1984); a Master of Public Administration (1993); and a Juris Doctor (1999). You can also follow Alton Drew on Twitter @altondrew.
This entry was posted in capital, civil rights, commerce, consumer protection, consumer welfare, Political Economy and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The ying and yang of government

  1. Ken Ciszewski says:

    “The majority is kept in check by limiting the amount of capital that can be accessed by it. It’s why you register your property with the state. It’s why you need a license for the particular occupation you are engaged in. It’s why you need permission from the state before putting an addition onto your house. It’s why you need a license to drive in order to get to work. It’s why you are compelled to buy insurance to protect your vehicle, the other guy’s vehicle, and pay for your health care.”

    As conspiracy theories go, this one sets records. Also, it’s a greatly oversimplified explanation of what’s going on, because it tries to reduce everything to capital, or money. This reduction of everything to capital or money as the only values worth worrying about is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in today. But I digress.

    It may be that one of the consequences of doing the things listed above is that it puts some limitations on capital access by citizens. I would like to suggest that there is more to all of this.

    “It’s why you register your property with the state.”
    “It’s why you need permission from the state before putting an addition onto your house.”

    These two items are partially about taxes, since many people pay real estate tax and personal property tax on some states in the USA. Taxing property is a very old tradition in the USA At one time, only property owners could vote, since they were the one’s who paid most of the taxes.

    That said, there are other things involved. Having spent a number of years in the construction industry doing work providing fire alarm systems for commercial buildings, I have a good view of building codes and standards. Building codes and standards have a couple of very important purposes: (1) production of buildings that are structurally sound and safe; (2) protection of buildings, occupants, neighborhoods, and even whole cities from destruction by fire. Most people don’t know that at one time in this country about 150 years ago, whole cities in the eastern US had serious problems with being destroyed by fire because buildings were mostly of wood construction, and there was no attempt at fire prevention. Many cities and towns now have a method of review an approval in place to look at building plans to see that they meet applicable codes and standards for construction, safety, and fire safety. As a result, we have a lot fewer cities that burn to the ground today.

    There is at least one capitalist interest in all of this—the companies who provide homeowners and business insurance for fire loss and storm destruction loss obviously have an interest in safe buildings. And since this is in favor of capitalists, who can argue with that?

    “It’s why you need a license to drive in order to get to work.”

    If people drove safely, we wouldn’t need this, except for taxing reasons, but we found out a long time ago that driving a car requires some training and understanding of the rules of the road and how to drive safely.

    “It’s why you are compelled to buy insurance to protect your vehicle, the other guy’s vehicle,…

    This is about responsibility and the protection of others. If someone causes an auto accident and destroys your car and has no money to make it good to you, which only seems reasonable and fair that he should, you’re out of luck. We don’t have debtor’s prisons any more (a wise choice), so what do we do? As part of the privilege of driving (it’s not a fundamental right), we have required that people have means of financial responsibility in place. And of course, insurance companies (capitalists) make good money off of this.

    “It’s why you are compelled to …pay for your health care.”

    I understand the heartburn with this—it’s Obamacare, which many feel is so close to socialism as to be communism. They are wrong—it will be socialism and communism when Single Payer health care set up by the government comes into being.

    This healthcare mandate may or may not be necessary, I can see this argument both ways. We probably don’t absolutely need health insurance, but unless we are very rich, we can be at serious risk of becoming poor or going bankrupt should a serious health crisis arise. Of course, we could just do away with health insurance and let those who can’t pay suffer and/or die. Why not? Isn’t it a “Let the fittest survive, let the devil take the hindmost” world? Is that what we want?

    I am personally in favor of Single Payer health care, because I believe it will be less costly, more effective, and provide more care. It was recently revealed that Medicare can process a claim for around 90 cents, and that health insurance companies spend around $18.00 to process a claim. Do the math—we could save about $17.00 per claim, or get about $17.00 more care for what we pay.

    “The consumer protection argument for these rules is just an excuse; a mask; a distraction from the fact that your access to capital is being rationed through the bottleneck people mistakenly refer to as virtuous government.”

    I think what is really going on is that capital is “rationed” by those who gobble up large amounts of it so that very little is left for others. Government participates in that via legislation that favors business, but it is business itself that does most of the “gobbling up”.

    “People join societies to protect their individual self-interests: self-interest in defense, resolution of fraud, and protection of personal and real property.” If we want these protections, we have to give up some rights and some capital. That’s the tradeoff between a reasonably ordered society and the chaos of anarchy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s