Anarchy

Anarchy

by Owen Suvar -
Number of replies: 2

Suppose the government was taken out of the market completely.  What would happen? Would there have been as much progress towards key projects, such as infrastructure and military? How would America look today if the government did not implement these projects?

I think that the government should have as small of a role as possible in the market. As much as some might think regulation is important to keep scammers and exploiters out of the system, I believe the exact opposite is true. Government regulation IS the scam. When people in the government can see behind the curtain at certain important metrics and measurements, things such as insider trading and lobbying occur, becoming the main driver for rug pulls and market advantage.

In reply to Owen Suvar

Re: Anarchy

by Danny Weaver -
Addressing your first question, if it were to happen over night, anarchy would be less than fun. However, the United States in the early-mid 1900s was closer to anarchy from a market perspective, and yet was one of the nations most prosperous times. As for public infrastructure and public services like the military, some economists would say that they would not get funded enough because of something called the free rider theory. I would agree with those economists, but add on this qualifier - those services would not be funded enough by the people currently funding them. One of the more beautiful observations to come out of the content creator era has been the proof that individuals are willing to pay for services (supporting a creator on Patreon) when they could be getting a free ride. If people are willing to be a tier 3 sub on Twitch for any given streamer, I believe it is safe to assume that a group of capitalists could figure out how to monetize laying asphalt in a long, flat strip.

As for your second comment, we will talk at great length (two-three chapters) on why government is not the cure all that people think it is, and why it may also be counterproductive to altruistic goals.
In reply to Owen Suvar

Re: Anarchy

by Kaleb Koepp -
I happen to agree that government is not the solution to every problem when it comes to Americans' finances and lives. However, the government has to be useful for some things. Although anarchy is a fun-sounding idea, I have reason to believe that it will not be as beneficial as it may seem. We cannot completely discount the government from the good things that they do. The government has created a way for our money to go towards useful things like the military and infrastructure. I believe that without their watchful eye many problems would occur. Yes, I want the government to stay out of my financial and personal affairs, but if they are providing me with services, such as protection from foreign threats, that I can't get any other way, then I will gladly pay my taxes for that. As I think this through more thoroughly, I believe this is a question of preference and value. I value the things that the government does for me. Yes, they have done a lot of stupid things in the past. I wish they would just stop doing trivial things other than the necessary jobs with which they were tasked back in 1787. That's just my two cents, though. If Professor Weaver has anything more to add or say, I suppose I will give him the room to do so. Also, last note, I genuinely hate the government, but I just don't think that we can do away with them completely.