The controversy rages on about the
"flood" of immigrants and, as Trump says, "America is full". This whole issue brings up, yet again, the
argument that we cannot afford to take care of these people. That is true.
However, as I've oft repeated, this is not an immigration issue; rather
this is argument is all about socialized services via the "Public Sector".
The Public Sector is all the services
that are provided by government and paid for via taxes. It includes education, transportation, police
& fire departments, retirement benefits, the "safety net", some utilities,
and a few other goodies.
There are many reasons why there should
not even be such a thing as the Public Sector.
I mentioned one of them above: how
do you determine who is, and who is not, eligible to receive said services? The simple answer "everybody" does
not work, especially when some of the "everybodies" includes folks
who have contributed nothing, such as immigrants.
One of the enduring arguments for having
a Public Sector is that some services are "natural monopolies". That phrase has always left me scratching my
head. What the heck is a "natural
monopoly"? The best answer I can
conjure up is that the government will prosecute you if you try to compete with
them. If you do attempt to, for example,
deliver mail, provide electricity, or put out fires where only an officially
certified and authorized agency may perform such services, then armed
government agents will arrest you, charge you with a crime, and shut you down. What the heck is "natural" about
that?
Another enduring argument for a Public
Sector is that no private business could make a profit providing certain services.
Since nobody would provide it, the
government must. Again, a totally bogus
argument. If people truly want and need
something and are willing to pay for it, then some enterprising entrepreneur
will figure out a way to make it profitable.
Innovators, inventors, and marketers never cease to amaze me how they
keep coming up with clever business ideas.
(See: Shark Tank) And what if consumers are unable or unwilling
to pay for it? Well that simply means
that it was not such a great idea. Or perhaps
it was not cost-effective, which is a nice way of saying it was a wasteful. This is all the more reason why taxpayers should
not be forced to cough up money for wasteful stuff nobody wants.
Finally, many claim that some services
are so "important" that they cannot be left up to the whims and uncertainty
of the free market, where an economic downtown or other calamity could leave
the public with no options. A
government-run service, so the argument goes, never stops working. Again, see my argument above about what
entrepreneurs actually do and why they do it. But one problem is: government DOES sometimes stop working. Our illustrious President has no qualms about
shutting down the government to make a political point.
But
there is another strong rebuttal to this "too important" claim, and
that centers around public sector labor unions.
These days, many public sector employees are unionized. If a public sector labor union decides to go
on strike - for more pay or whatever - then the taxpaying public is left
holding the bag with no zero options. All
the otherwise competing businesses have been outlawed! The very existence of public sector labor
unions kinda negates that whole "too important" argument, wouldn't
you say?
For all its faults, the free market is
still the best thing out there for providing the goods and services that people
want and need for the lowest cost. Is it
perfect? No. But it always works better than government,
for the simple reason that the free market relies on peaceful, voluntary
cooperation between willing participants.
Free marketeers say: buy our
product, or come work for us, and we will make your life better. But government says: obey or we will punish you - violently, if
that's what it takes. In short: the free
market uses positive incentives; government uses negative incentives.
No comments:
Post a Comment