MLDS - All the Webhost You Will Ever Need

This Post by Arnold Kling reminded me of something I have to explain to people who don’t agree with my small government stance.

A very common assumption, of people who don’t agree with me, is that because I am for small government, and therefore implied anti socialist. That I am against any type of non-profit organization of services, and that everything must be for profit. This could not be further from the truth. This stems from my view of the power of choice, and to expand the availability of choice.

History shows that when you provide say non-profit health care, the result is fewer choices for the sick, government schools results in fewer choices for students and parents. In the end we all end up with only one choice which is not what I want. I am for choice, I just think history shows that when you provide services via government it crowds out options.

That is what I am for, If private people want to get together and form non-profit health care for people, fine, but you must do this on a same field as everyone else, so that people may choose between your plan, and others offered. The best for those seeking those services should (most of the time) be chosen by them. At no point does making a one size fits all hammer result in better services for the majority.

In summary, government crowds out other options, if similar systems are put in place outside of government and must compete with other similar services on equal footing (no special treatment from government as there is now). Choice for everyone, the availability and discovery of doing new things. When was the last time a government agency was shrunk or shut down? They last for forever if they do their purpose or not, that is not healthy and prevents newer better things to rise from there ashes. This concept is only and always has been a government phenomenon.

Over the last two years I have really started to question a lot of my thinking. Not so much as what I believe but my right to impose my thinking on others. This has brought up a number of interesting topics, and while has not changed my views on issues (not to be discussed in this post), changes what “should be done” about them.

An wonderful example is gay marriage. Many activist messages want to pass laws or amendments to enforce anti or pro positions. What is interesting about this, is that the laws part in the hetero marriage is ok the way it is.

My change in thinking made me question if there is a right to impose actions on others to enforce a view (pro or anti) on the entire public. This got me thinking, should there be any law involving hetero marriage?

Think about this, while it has been common practice for years, you need a “License” to get married. You have the option to file taxes “married” or not. What does any of this have to do with life long commitment between two people? You can get a name change without first marriage to someone with that name. Heck marriage done outside the country is observed when people move. It is more of a social creation, than a law one.

Many if not most couples still get married in religious gatherings, and from the point of view that religious authorities (god or gods) are always higher than the flesh (thus people and government, an creation of people), why do you need the law to accept you, if your god figures do?

I really think there are more issues out there where we have let laws and government have more power over natural rights, that we have just grown accustom to, but should maybe not be in place, in modified, or any form. I think this also solves (a natural rights) question to some of these topics, even if people don’t like it. The question of do I have the power (maybe) or the right (probably not) to impose via law (go to jail) beliefs of others.

Let me point out that people do and should have the right in their own forum promote, with reason their views. Not only do they have the right to express their ideas, they should. Competing ideas are needed for a best outcome and understanding, even if you end up not agreeing.

When thinking about the problem of “it has always been this way, therefor it is right”, or that “change is always good and for the better” I should paraphrase Ayn Rand, if you like her or not she got this right:

…[It is irrational to] defend a political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old. … It is irrational to use the new as a measure of value, to believe that a policy is good, merely because it is new.

Real quick, I created a new category, Rant(Politics), because no post ever labeled politics I see is not a rant to someone.

First read this great letter from Dr. Steven Horwitz. When I read this there was nothing new I didn’t already know. I knew the data on incentives put in place by Congress to increase home ownership and how this caused the bubble that we are all complaining about now.

These incentives are always the same, good intentions, it’s the unseen incentives that come out latter, that are the problems. It is in my study of history of what has and has not been accompleshed by government that I know fully agree with the statement:

My point is that hoping that having the “right people” in power will avoid these problems is both naive and historically blind

So my focus turned to what will history be going forward? This is the sad part. History shows that we will (as a country) continue to try to improve our selves via public collective action (Government). While history (damn history) proves this to be an awful approach, we will continue to do this, always have always will. The insight I had was, we are ofcourse going to focus on the things we care about most. These are the basic needs of life, food, shelter, and clothing. Well no one argues that government makes better closes or food. We are lucky to be developed beyond that point. What about things like water, health care? Government already had a monopoly on water in domestic populous areas, and the results are not that bad (so far, I expect big problems in CA, NM, and NV, in the next few decades). Health care though is something we are all talking about. Now I know government already has jacked up health care pretty bad (via taxes and regulation of providers). I will not go into this.

Well that was it really, just that the last place (in my understanding) where we want government screwing things up, we are going to ask for it, on the things we care about most. It is not going to be pretty. This is not a huge insight, but I tend to generalize things to much.

The glad future, is that how on earth if government is so bad did we get this far? We are much better off than we were just a generation ago. I think it is because people are good. Even with the weight government has, spending 50% of GDP still does not give it 50% power over our lives, and the small grouping of people with specific information can make a better outcome even after feeding their families. The history of the United States has been this so far. So I expect to make good stock market returns, I expect there to be another Apple, Google, and Wal-Mart. People are just to smart and clever.

While my rosy picture may not be 100% probable, history also gives us the USSR, and many other countries that make it impossible for people better their own lot. We could do this here also. I just think we will continue to have better outcomes and organization than the rest of the world. Just because we have a history of it.

History is important, it is the only data we have for judging outcomes. And trust me for many of the things proposed by government are not new, and have been tried before.