But what about governments...

A recent thread caused me to start thinking about taxes of all things. The particular topic of taxes is divisive obviously. The truth is that if we remove self-interest, the conversation should be more abstract.

Taxes are necessary in order for a government to operate. Governments are necessary for the continuation of human civilization and for a number of other reasons. Those other reasons are what we pay for.

The preamble of our constitution spells out many of these reasons. These reasons are the very reasons why anarchy is not a realistic goal. Governments are designed to provide services individuals cannot provide for themselves. They are designed to take care of our infirmed. They are designed to build infrastructure. Interstate commerce would be impossible without a federal government. Further international relations are facilitated by governments.

Governments vary. Their involvement varies. But their goal is to provide those things individuals cannot provide for themselves. I cannot build a bridge. I cannot gather a coalition of individuals to build a bridge. Without a government of some sort, no bridges would be built.

Many of the debates currently going on involve economic oversight by our government in particular. I hate to say it, but that's not the government's job. The government's job is to provide an environment that allows individuals the opportunity to rise and fall. The government's job is to setup the criteria under which commerce can take place. They are not a bank. They are not an entrepreneur. They are not a safety net.

That being said, they cannot be uninvolved. They must regulate. They must decide the laws. They must protect consumers. They must keep the game fair. The alternative is unbridled capitalism. This simply doesn't work. It is unsustainable. We see it's effects everywhere. An asbestos plant long since closed that still negatively effects the ground water. Thousands of acres of land which will never allow growth again due to the slag piles left there. Debts that have caused international incidents. Thousands dead in fires, explosions, and other accidents which could easily have been prevented.

Some may argue this, but I have met very few people who believe that some regulation of commerce isn't necessary. The robber barons had to be stopped. The Pinkertons needed to be disbanded. Children have no place on assembly lines. You may note that the tactics of the Pinkertons and use of child labor is illegal. Yes, it is.... now.

The truth is that energy companies are not going to stop burning coal of their own volition. Laws and regulations must be passed banning its use. There is no reason to aid companies in transitioning. There is no need for levying or tariffing. The simple approach is the most straightforward. No need to measure output levels etc.

But there are issues which are not as cut-and-dry. Let me take the simple example of high fructose corn syrup. I have attempted to avoid the product for years. Why? Simply because I don't need any more corn in my diet and I would prefer less chemicals in my food. It is clear however that there was some reason why companies making consumer products began using it en masse. I have heard it noted that it is cheaper and easier to process. By and large studies regarding high fructose corn syrup have revealed no health concerns. For this reason, it is not the government's job to limit its use. If it is found to have harmful effects, its use should be prohibited. But, I must wonder whether it is cheaper as a result of the ridiculously subsidized corn industry or simply because it is. We made an error in the past. We had our reasons for this error but in truth we confused aiding our fellow men with aiding an industry.

An industry has no rights. It can live and die. Humans banding together do not provide them with any different protections than their members. I realize that without subsidy, many companies would fail. They would simply be replaced by other companies. Humans need very little corn in their diet. It is not the job of our government to control what people do and do not grow. Does this mean that human stupidity can lead to widespread failures? Yes. I see no problem with this. Would I prefer that we use ethanol as a fuel? Yes. Do I therefore feel that ethanol production should be subsidized? No. A requirement on utilization will suffice.

I am not saying that regulation is simple. The production of ethanol is a perfect example. Does one first require car manufacturers to produce vehicles that can use it? Or simply require that only a certain amount of fossil fuels can be burned by vehicles? Do we require gas stations to pump a certain percentage of it? Do we require that they offer an alternative pump? We cannot require consumers to purchase it. What if they do not? Do we then subsidize its creation so that it is economical for the purveyors?

I do believe that the government should be less involved in the inner workings of industry. I feel that market correction does happen. I feel that a "free market" economy is a good approach. However, I have very little interest in reducing regulation. I am interested in reducing subsidy, tariff, and price control. It is the government's job to protect your person. It is the government's job to protect your freedom. It is the government's job to protect your rights. It has never been the government's job to protect your income or your share price. At least not the government of this country.