Jim Mork wrote: > The only difference from the way business takes money and government takes > money is that we elect officials collectively.
Mark Anderson replies: Jim, I was getting all ready to defend your economic knowledge. Someone on this List seems to think it's a great idea for the Minneapolis community to sue itself, and so move its money from one pocket to the other. Of course a bunch of the money disappears in the process, into the hands of the lawyers egging everyone on. But this person still thinks it's a good idea, because it punishes the filthy rich fortress neighborhoods, such as Cooper and Bancroft, even though it also means less money for "impacted" neighborhoods. I was going to defend you, but then you wrote the doozy above, and now I see I've got bigger fish to fry. I think you've put your finger on the biggest problem with the self-described "progressive" movement these days. How many other people on the Mpls List agree with Jim Mork on his comment above? Coming from such a point of view, the crazy things I've heard "progressives" say sound perfectly logical. If government spending is morally equivalent or even superior to spending by individuals of their own money, then for sure Republicans are evil, support of lower taxes is the sign of a degenerate, and spending ever more public money on education, health care, welfare, etc. is a portent of a more just and ethical society. I'll even agree with those sentiments if someone can show me that Jim's comment is correct. But I've just set up an impossible task because Jim's comment makes no sense at all. First of all, unlike government, business doesn't take anyone's money. Business only gets your money if you agree to buy the product they're selling. I'm not counting subsidies that government sometimes give to business, because that's the government taking our money; the businesses are simply accessories. It's government whose services we are forced to buy -- it truly does TAKE our money. Jim also implies that government services are determined "collectively." Well, the government workers who provide these services are hired by those that are appointed by those who are elected. And those candidates elected are selected by those who decide they favor him or her over the other candidate. The usual two candidates to be voted for are selected by a small cadre of activists from each respective party. In most jurisdictions, one of those parties almost always wins, so the activists from that party are responsible for almost all of the elected officials. So perhaps government services consist of what the majority wants, but I suspect that is a very unusual circumstance. Government policy is determined by the status of the war of activists within and between the major parties. And in actual practice, government service is run by long-term civil servants, which is one (or two) step(s) away from the elected folks. On the other hand, when you go to a store to buy some bread, or you rent or buy a house, or even telephone service these days, you can spend your money exactly the way you want. To my mind, this is far superior to even the supposed majority rule of democratic theory. "Progressives" often seem to think that the mob rule of government will result in more ethical spending than that spent by each person on their own. I don't think it works out that way. The people I've known in government, whether elected or hired, are no more (or less) ethical on average than anyone else. (And similarly for people in business.) If everyone just spends their own money, it will be spent at least as ethically as the mob will spend it. And the person spending it will likely take more care than someone spending others' money. So usually the best result will occur when people spend their own money on their own needs and values (including the amounts each person believes should be spent on helping others). Spending of our own money is a much more effective way of putting our money where we want it; better than sending it to the government and hoping that institution will agree about the best way to use it. Of course if you want OTHER people's money spent differently, then government can be a pretty efficient mechanism. But I don't consider spending other people's money as an ethical proposition. There do exist some public goods that are more efficiently bought or protected with public money and enforcement power. Examples of this are: 1) the court system which sets the rules for private transactions, and 2) the health of the air that everyone breathes. But such products are few. Most goods are more effectively bought privately -- that way the buyer gets exactly the amount he/she is willing to pay for. The usual rule of government economics is "from him with little power, to him with lots of it." So the most ethical level of taxes is the lowest that can be achieved while maintaining sufficient spending on truly public goods. Mark V Anderson Bancroft REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
