People's understandings of the role of government in the economy appear to form an ordered series ranging from those at one end in which government is conceived as the essential source in producing the common good of society to those understandings at the other end in which government is understood as unnecessary or even as hindrance to citizens' construction of a society. Socialists and government activists more or less hold beliefs in government having a dominant and necessary role in the construction of a society while libertarians express the belief that government is unnecessary and mostly harmful.
Murray Rothbard expressed this libertarian belief in minimal government and the idea that government is the problem by presenting government in a challenging problem for pro-government folks to addres:
The argument is simple: If a private individual did what governments do, almost everyone would call him a criminal. If I took your money without your consent, I'd be a thief. If I forced you to work for me, I'd be slaver. If I killed you, I'd be a murderer - even if you 'provoked' me by resisting my demands for your money and labor. Note further: We'd still make these judgments even if I was acting if 'for your own good' or 'to help the poor.' (scare quotes optional!) But somehow when government does it, we change the names and our moral evaluation.
The psychological problem then not to determine who is right but to determine if in fact this ordered series of views of government are a result of development or whether they are simply learned in some manner or other.

No comments:
Post a Comment