Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The When, Where and Why of Government Involvement in Commerce


When Republicans are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites. When the Democrats are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites.  While neither party will constructively work  along side the party in power in fear that good government will lead to the reelection of their nemesis,  American citizens drown in rhetoric and double speak from both parties about what good government looks like. Regardless of one's political affiliation, this blog attempts to engage readers with the logical, not partisan, discussion of what is necessary government involvement in commerce.

First, let us start with an irrefutable fact of the order of operations.  Government is the first step in economic activity.  Government is necessary to provide at a bare minimum: property rights, police protection, infrastructure and recognized mediums of exchange, or currency.  Yes, I am aware that many anti-establishment Locke Liberals and libertarians would argue against the last two, but in our current developed state these two are enough established to be considered necessities of commerce (i.e. roads, electricity, water, etc.)  They are essential because without any of them, commerce would subside as a matter of natural progression from its current state. 

What levels of commerce would we have if one could take property from another by force?  If there were no roads?  If the electricity was not delivered? If agreements were not binding or valid? If we had to barter with goods to make a purchase?  Certainly not an economy the size, strength and complexity as ours.  Whether it is good or bad, it's where we are at. 

So, the right question is not where government involvement should or should not be, but rather how far should government go?   In a credit based economy, like ours, the government speaks for and develops the value of the assets in our economy (i.e. the government borrows notes from the Federal Reserve, or dollars, at a rate if interest in exchange for true "dollars" that the Fed holds as collateral along with all assets held within the Country).  Oh by the way, for those of you conspiracy theorists, the same is done by many States with Motor Vehicles ( A state takes a manufacturers' "statement of origin" from the maker of the vehicle and in exchange delivers a "title," or license for use, and the ability of that vehicle to be used within that State through the process of registration.  As a result, that State then issues a Driver's License so that it has jurisdiction over the driving patterns of the user thereby controlling the licensee, or "owner," to use that " registered motor vehicle" on their publicly owned streets and highways.  But I digress.

The simple answer is that the proper role of government in commerce is the amount necessary for commerce to "work."  By work, I mean that citizens can effectively participate in the money multiplier and achieve, or reasonably believe that they can achieve, their personal goals and happiness.  This ability, or  at a minimum the belief in this ability, allows the society to function in a peaceful manner as its citizens have an outlet to achieve there desires, or work.  After all, and I recognize people who quote the Declaration of Independence as an authoritative document are annoying, the point of America is the right to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness," right.  The key is for people to have the freedom of the pursuit, that's right THE PURSUIT, of happiness.

In closing, I recognize that the Declaration of Independence is not authoritative in nature.  That said it carries persuasive authority into the intent of our Founders.  Government's role in commerce is the creation and maintenance of channels for commerce so that Citizens can access and thrive in that system.  The government is there to provide and maintain the artery, so that the heart, or private commerce, can pump blood and that blood can freely flow without blockage or interference.  The artery must be maintained though, to maintain its shape so that blood doesn't spurt every where thereby killing the body; as well as, ensuring clear passage.  Further, the artery is to be for the benefit of one's own body.  Should the artery be ruptured, by outside attack or internal disruption, its integrity must be put back in tact to ensure survival of the being.  That said, at no time shall the artery be altered outside its purpose of a conduit and shall never alter the course of which platelets cross its path.  

Now that it is defined in theory, I let you decide the application of this framework in practice.  


2 comments:

  1. Exactlty! Without a governement to provide the boundries, the free market cannot exist! Listening to these people who say that every company should furnish its own public access and military support is like listening to fairy tails. At least this blood through the vein talk is realistic in its theory.

    TLD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's take a walk down Logic Lane, shall we? Let us contemplate government and governance. When we examine the root of both words, "govern", we know that Webster defines it as "to rule over by right of authority". In the case of government, it is a ruling body. In the case of governance, it is the action. As an electorate, we should be looking at the action more than the body.

    Would you agree that the larger a governing body gets, the more it must restrict and regulate in order to justify it's existance?

    Would you agree that the more it restricts and regulates, the less free you are?

    Would you agree that once in power, a government official will be driven to keep his power by consistently expanding his role in the government?

    Would you agree that since being on the publics dole, it will benefit him/her to make sure his/her bureaucracy is funded?

    Would you agree these actions will help him/her keep his job?

    Would you agree that if if were your job, you would not want to give it up?

    Do you anyone who works in government that is more interested in you as a taxpaying citizen or his job?

    I am not exactly sure why many people (52.7 percent of the electorate) believe in a benevolent government that will exercise compassion and fairness, but I don't. Frankly, I think the electorate will find shortly that funding compassion and fairness will be unbelievably expensive.

    Just remenber, when these elected officials talk in "trillions" of dollars to fund this or that, you, the citizen, just got handed a tax bill for $3278.69. Or, $13,114.75 for family of four. Can you or your family afford that?

    Getting back to David's question about how far governemnt should rule over your world. please remenber how much it will cost in dollars, and freedoms forgiven for the priviledge of the elected official to rule your world.

    James D. Negrete

    ReplyDelete