Alypius Skinner wrote: > This brings up the larger question of whether the economy experiences a net > gain or a net loss from constant government tinkering, taxes, regulation, > bureaucracy, paperwork, and general added complexity. Of course, some of > this nanny state tinkering will provide a net benefit, even if only a slim > one in many cases, but other cases will provide a net loss to society, and > it is usually impossible to know which clever government program will result > in net gains and which in net losses beforehand. It is even either > impossible or difficult and expensive to discover which clever government > programs are worthwhile after the fact.
[...] Of course, since some role for the state is indispensable, > such excesses cannot be entirely avoided, but I do think we need to ask > whether, on balance, government micromanagement of the *private* sector is a > net gain or a net loss or simply too close to call. Of these three > possibilites, only one justifies the type of government program suggested by > Fred Folvary. Evaluating proposed government schemes for further "managing" > the free sector of the economy on a case by case basis is a well > demonstrated failure. > Correct: the choice is not one of no (little) government v. government mnaking the right descisions; but no (little) government v. government having the power to make certain descisions (whether these are on average right or wrong is an empirical answer, which I believe has been firmly established as on average: wrong!) - jacob braestrup
