I love it when people look at me like I'm crazy, or an idiot, or a crazy idiot. I was talking about how absurd is the federal post office. There is no reason whatsoever why the delivering of mail must be done by the government, but there are plenty of reasons why the government should not do it--the most obvious is that private companies would do better. This one guy actually thought that I was threatening his wife's job (she, apparently, works for the USPS). It took him a second to see that I wasn't saying that she should be unemployed, but that her bosses should be businessmen and not politicians and political appointees.
Next came the fire department. Again, homeowners insurance would either provide or require subscription to a fire-fighting service, so why must it be controlled by local politicians? The same goes for a police department (and this is where I lose those who had been with me thus far).
Seriously, the more important something is to us the less we should want the government to provide it. The police department is so important, so let's not leave it to municipal officials. The same is true for school districts, health inspectors, air-traffic controllers, etc. If we're going to let the government do something, then it should be something that we can afford to be done inefficiently. It could be allowed, for instance, to secure crowd control at the Goldenhawk golf course, where I will be golfing tomorrow afternoon. There is a good use of the government. They can have agents deployed throughout the course, keeping fans, well-wishers, and Brad Pitt (he's still jealous about that "thing" I had with Angelina) away at a safe distance. The only problem with this scenario is that it would cost everyone money in taxes, and no one else should have to pay for freaking security that I don't need. Supposing I should need the security, and more security than the average person, then I should be the one to cover it.
If I'm not willing to pay for it myself, then I obviously don't need it bad enough to pass the bill on to others. If I need it, then I'll pay for it.
The point is, the government is not the best option for those things that we (for some reason) think that only a government can do. Supposedly, government exists to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look at history. Governments are horrible at protecting life (though they are rather good at taking it). Where people do not have liberty, who's to blame? The government. As for the whole pursuit of happiness thing, anyone who's ever tried to start a business or do anything that requires cutting through "red tape" knows that governments impede happiness.
"So," the guy says to me, "why even have a government?"
"Exactly," I said, smiling.
There doesn't seem like a viable alternative now because the state has assumed a monopoly on law enforcement. Consider security firms, contracted by property owners. They work, and they're private. If they stink, then they lose their contracts. Who holds Detroit's police department for its utter failure to enforce laws and protect citizens from harm?
ReplyDeleteIn a free society (in which we do not live), people would be protected by insurance companies. These companies would have a vested interest in securing their clients' lives and property. Exactly how they would go about it is theoretical, at this point. But when the demand for something exists, history shows that it is soon supplied (if it's possible to supply, that is--e.g. I'd love to fly by flapping my arms, but that won't happen).
Reporting from the Onion...
ReplyDeleteLibertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department
April 21, 2004 | Issue 40•16
CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service