Since I’m an out-of-the-closet libertarian, it goes without saying that I’m not favorably disposed to government intervention. As far as I’m concerned, Washington’s an inherently corrupt town filled with people seeking unearned wealth.
But even if I didn’t have any underlying philosophical or moral principles, I think I would still favor small government.
Why? Because just about everything government does turns into a bloody cluster-you-know-what, so there’s also a utilitarian case for libertarianism.
I discuss the reverse Midas touch of government with John Stossel.
The theme of Stossel’s show, by the way, was looking at how good intentions lead to bad results. I actually think that’s too optimistic.
Most government intervention is driven by sordid insider scheming, not good intentions. The politicians merely pretend they have noble-sounding goals when peddling their manure to the public.
But regardless of the goals, the result is still the same.
I point out that if the burden of government spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than Mitchell’s Golden Rule), bad things inevitably will happen.
Other points from the interview:
- Green energy programs led to Solyndra-style scandals.
- Pro-housing policies led to a destructive bubble.
- Special tax preferences led to a monstrous tax code.
- Welfare programs trap people in poverty.
I suppose a more interesting program would be to identify things that the government does intelligently and effectively.
Any suggestions?
P.S. According to Greek mythology, anything Midas touched turned into gold. But since the fable also says that this blessing turned into a curse, perhaps this post should have been titled the “The Midas Touch of Government” rather than “The Reverse Midas Touch of Government.” But since I’m already trying to restore the good name of Robin Hood, I’m going to leave it to others to decide how to characterize Midas.
[…] net result is that government involvement is a bad recipe for higher costs and poor performance (click here for another example from New York […]
[…] net result is that government involvement is a bad recipe for higher costs and poor performance (click here for another example from New York […]
[…] net result is that government involvement is a bad recipe for higher costs and poor performance (click here for another example from New York […]
[…] net result is that government involvement is a bad recipe for higher costs and poor performance (click here for another example from New York […]
[…] All that I’m really doing is highlighting a very compelling example of how politicians make a mess of just about anything they touch. […]
[…] All that I’m really doing is highlighting a very compelling example of how politicians make a mess of just about anything they touch. […]
If something is not broken, then don’t fix it. Everything government touches it breaks.
[…] also posed a rhetorical question in another post from […]
[…] It’s always great to do a show with Stossel since he genuinely care about freedom and wants to explore the details. In previous appearances on his show, I’ve discussed dishonest fiscal policy in Washington, the differences between Texas and California, and the reverse Midas touch of government. […]
[…] The Reverse Midas Touch of Government […]
[…] The Reverse Midas Touch of Government […]
[…] other words, government is far more likely to have a “reverse Midas touch” when it is too big to […]
[…] It’s always great to do a show with Stossel since he genuinely care about freedom and wants to explore the details. In previous appearances on his show, I’ve discussed dishonest fiscal policy in Washington, the differences between Texas and California, and the reverse Midas touch of government. […]
[…] It’s always great to do a show with Stossel since he genuinely care about freedom and wants to explore the details. In previous appearances on his show, I’ve discussed dishonest fiscal policy in Washington, the differences between Texas and California, and the reverse Midas touch of government. […]
This is why I’m likely neither a libertarian, nor religious. I believe that utilitarianism makes the morals over time, through natural selection of what we perceive as moral frameworks. Morals do not evolve independent of utilitarianism but rather derive from it. Morals that are not conducive to success (slow economic growth in our world) simply fade away, drowned in a rising sea of more utilitarian morals/cultures — whether we like it, or not.
So now that I have offended libertarians its religion’s turn. Religion plays exactly the role of being a vehicle to faster cultural evolution in response to a much-much faster changing world. A world that moves too fast for the archaic mechanism of gene evolution (which in itself evolved in response to a much-much slower changing world, 99.8 of humanity’s existence) to keep up with. Religion speeds up the inherently slow molecular evolution process, by introducing a mechanism for faster evolving diversity in the cultural domain and thus the faster selection of cultures that exhibit the most utilitarian morals. Just think about it. When you are alone, in the secrecy of the polling booth, what is predominantly going to deter you from taking someone else’s money/effort/talent other than religion? And that is why the ascending religions are successful. They encourage you to let successful people keep the fruits of their exceptionalism while, at the same time, encourage voluntary compassion which does not generally affect incentives to remain exceptional.
P.S. Needless to say, the morals of mandatory equality of outcome are very detrimental from a utilitarian perspective, given current human DNA. They WILL decline. But don’t take my word for it. Just watch what happens in the world in the next three decades.
[…] The Reverse Midas Touch of Government « International Liberty. […]
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
When you left you’re mamma’s house you thought you’d be free. No, Big Brother still wants to tell you what to do.
Interesting article by Stanislav Mishin in the Russian Newspaper Pravda re: Gun Ownership