When do YOU need to be punished?

Ayn Rand had it right. You hear people quote Tacitus saying "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Then they end things there. Rand took it further and hit the nail on the head. Yes corrupt states do have more laws. The why is where life gets spooky. The goverrnment has a monopoly on the use of force. The monopoly is codified in the rule of law. No one is supposed to use force on one another, if you do the government has the right and responsibility to use force to stop you. The insidious nature of this is shown when the laws extend beyond people using force against each other. If someone violates another persons rights but does not use force then the civil courts can help that person with their greivances. But the laws Tacitus speaks of give the government the ability to use force against more people that are classified as criminals. The state really only has power over criminals. So, if the government decides it needs more power, it creates laws that create more criminals. We now have traffic laws and drug laws, which is were most citizens will encounter the tyranny of our ever expanding government. They are not using force to harm someone else. There is merely a behavior that MAY lead to someone else being hurt. While some may say that the government needs to stop these individuals to keep people safe. The folly in this is that the government outlined in the constitution is only supposed to protect our rights not to provide for our safety. The reason why the government was not tasked with keeping us safe is because it is a never ending task that by definition will completely destroy our liberties because liberty includes the right to make bad decisions. You may hurt yourself through your actions and the Constitution is OK with that. You may hurt someone else through your actions, then the Constitution says that you will be held responsible for violating someone elses rights. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you need to be stopped before you violate someones rights, just that you will be held responsible.

Why can't we all just get along?

One word. Rules. In a world with such a large population it becomes increasingly difficult to keep everyone playing nice with one another. This is not to say that you need a new law for every thing you think someone may do to someone else. It does mean that everyone needs to play by the same rules. This is made simpler by keeping the rules simple. People instinctively adapt to whatever system they are placed in. If you create rules that promote fair-play, then you will get fair-play. If you create a system that benefits one group to the detriment of another, then the people benefiting will defend the system and the people oppressed by the system will first try to limit how much the other group benefits from the system and then try to dismantle the system entirely. Right now we have a system where the government has grown beyond its intended limits.

The Dismal Science in action

I have always wondered why economics is called 'the dismal science'. I know that my beginning economics course in college was taught by a man who had all the charisma of a polyester leisure suit. When I took a macroeconomics course at a community college it was taught by a retired Marine officer and more often than not the lectures sounded like a hellfire and brimstone sermen. At that younger age I enjoyed the lectures but did not fully appreciate that the instructor was passionate about economics because of the overwhelming effect it has on everyones lives. I would liken it to any other science, just because you never learned about gravity in school does not give you the ability (a la Bugs Bunny) to walk off of a cliff with no ill effects. Likewise, just because 'the dismal science' bored you to tears in school (if you toook the course at all) does not give you the ability to ignore the market forces that economics study. I would especially like to point this out to anyone who thinks that companies are their just to employ people. Companies are there for just one reason, to make a profit. Your employment is a favorable side effect of your companies success, but it is NOT the reason for your companies existance. In Colorado we have a looming grocery workers strike. Why? Because the union workers in the big chain stores are demanding insurance benefits and the stores are not willing to put them on the bargaining table. Why are the stores not willing to provide their workers with company paid insurance. The reason is called Wal-Mart. This huge 'evil' non-union shop does not pay for insurance for their employees or even pay union wages to its workers. By doing this Wal-Mart is able to gain a significant competitive advantage over the chain stores. The thing that makes this possible is because the labor market will support Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has no problem hiring workers with little or no skills and offering them jobs that do not provide insurance benefits. The chain stores are hiring out of the same labor pool and if they are required to provide their union employees with insurance benefits they will suffer another competitive disadvantage to Wal-Mart. The unions have adopted the idea that companies are their to provide workers with jobs and in pursuit of this idea they may destroy the companies that provide their union members with jobs because they are attempting to ignore a basic law of a market economy. The companies are there to make a profit and by taking on too many comparitive disadvantages the companies will not make a profit because their customers will have gone to Wal-Mart and the company will have to close up shop. There are some sectors of our economy where the unions can and do control the labor pool and can call their own shots but grocery stores workers are not one of those labor pools and the unions are dancing dangerously close to destroying the companies their workers depend on.