Confiscatory Public Sector
My letter appearing in today's Financial Times:
Sir, Although I endorse Sir Samuel Brittan's call to distinguish between Santa Claus and government "handouts", his analysis is seriously flawed ("There is no such thing as the state", December 17 [$link]). Sir Samuel's description of the state, specifically "a mechanism for transferring claims to income or property from one citizen to another" is as salient as it is mischaracterised.Uniquely empowered to exact property from individuals by virtue of its monopoly over defence, justice and coercion within a geographical area, government is a vehicle by which individuals in the state's remit can seize resources from one another. This coerced appropriation, however subtly packaged in democratic phraseology, is nonetheless theft.
As for a systematic definition and defence of private property, Sir Samuel is advised to consult not neo-liberal doctrine but the Austrian School of economic thought. Murray Rothbard and others have established a straightforward and comprehensive case for property rights that refutes every statist and socialist critique.
The distinction between free markets and government redistribution is stark. In the former both parties to an exchange of goods and services are better off, as opposed to government intervention where property is seized from one and handed to another through a Byzantine administrative process that is unconnected to voluntary agreement. Verily, the law of the jungle exists not in competitive markets, where buyer and seller profit, but in the confiscatory public sector.
Concerning a minimum standard of living, the free market furnishes a solution. Insurance guards against unforeseen catastrophe; charity possesses the same compassionate qualities as state welfare, albeit without government confiscation and redistribution of wealth and the cultivation of a corrupting sense of entitlement in the recipient.
No man is a priori entitled to live at the expense of another; but through voluntary grace can a man assist another.
Grant M. Nülle, Research Fellow, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL 36832, US
Comments (3)
Bravo Grant! So well explained. I hope some people listen.
Jon
Published: December 27, 2004 9:27 AM
I’d like to see government reduced to an absolute minimum, but I get the horrors when I hear suggestions that roadways should be privately owned. This could be the most powerful natural monopoly ever devised.
Whoever owns the streets surrounding my home could extract horrific tolls to allow me to get to work, to shop, etc, up to the point where, in desperation, I would resort to travel by helicopter.
Furthermore, the owner of these roads could charge tolls on water, gas, and electric power, which must pass through his property to get to mine.
Private ownership of roadways might be feasible with adequate limitation of the owners right to charge for entry and exit, but any such effective limitation essentially nullifies the meaning of ownership.
Roadways, then, must be communal property, or at least communally regulated. And as with all communal activities, our best defense against government abuse is to make the ownership, or regulation, as local as practical. The city would own the city streets, the county would own county roads, and the state would own the highways.
This does not preclude operation and maintenance of roadways by private contractors, selected by open bidding.
I travel often on toll roads in the Chicago area, which, I believe, are so operated. I find the tolls reasonable and the service adequate, and with an electronic toll collection system, (I-Pass), convenient. Such a toll collection system could be extended to all roadways.
Published: December 27, 2004 2:44 PM
"Whoever owns the streets surrounding my home could extract horrific tolls to allow me to get to work, to shop, etc, up to the point where, in desperation, I would resort to travel by helicopter. "
You mean, the ones who currently own the streets surrounding your home don't already extract horrific tolls, to the effect of thousands of dollars per year?!
Published: December 28, 2004 3:20 AM