Prompted by “Coercion is Bad Economics”: http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/26/coercion-is-bad-economics
A common feature of Obama administration economic policies is the use of government coercion. The Obamacare health law mandated that individuals buy insurance. The administration’s tax increases grabbed more earnings from millions of people. And federal agencies are imposing an increasing pile of labor, environmental, and financial regulations on businesses.
The article’s reasoning (which is conventional, as you will largely see interlaced herein) is lost within too many minds (for worst through best) due to agenda trumping ethics, and the general misunderstanding that exercising ethical behavior has no positive impact upon health — e.g. good people always finish last.
Let’s loosen up the mind and try a different angle. Before we do that, after turning away from two prompting piece candidates — a thuggish police culture piece and the highly suspect (“Big Pharma” influenced) rejection in one state of PTSD not being a proper qualifier for medical cannabis — I need to say something about society overall first.
There are three basic groups of people, at least from my view today. First, there are the people making a living upon some form of dominance (that includes good leaders through abusive thugs). Second, we have the vast majority of people refusing to do anything about abuses by group one, even though upon sufficiently large numbers and proper organization, they’re the only ones (aside from non-human compulsions) whom can actually do something about it (and no, I’m not just talking about voting). Finally, we have people like me (and perhaps you). We’re smart enough, attentive enough, and caring enough — i.e. we know hideous exercises of power abuse occur (often “to protect the children”) and want to do something about it to prevent victimization — but we have insufficient power to put the righteous boot on the necks of the unethically dominant and get the job done right for posterity.
As I continue my literary performance of Liberty Shield posts, I recognize that most serious human dilemma, and still believe that Liberty Shield is the right basic course (if not more than that towards its complexity). However, Liberty Shield still needs support from all three groups, and lengthy post performance is unlikely to generate that interest (I’m not even preaching to the choir here — just mainly alone in the woods at the frontier of reason against crushingly dominantly popular reason abuse usually in the form of outright lying, or the ‘partial truth = whole truth’ scam — e.g. spin).
Pro-market policy experts point out the negative effects of each intervention, but the administration keeps dreaming up with new ways to take our money, restrict what we do, and manipulate the economy.
Liberals or progressives seem to have no inkling of why free economies work better than economies based on central authority. They favor using centralized force apparently because they think that it creates practical benefits.
But coercion is not a practical way to help the economy—regulations and taxes rarely make us better off. Some people may gain, but the vast majority of people lose. Coercion tends to destroy value, not create it.
Any system involving value (e.g. what the economy actually purely is) naturally falls into the realm of mathematics. As a recent documentary on mathematics effectively confessed, math is brilliantly applied in many places these days, but cannot accurately match economic forces — so the economy is obviously not understood by humanity.
My point is the economy is overwhelmingly complexly outside the grip of humanity, so allowing the people in power to tinker with it like they know what they’re doing is powerfully nonsensical.
And yet, thanks to group number one being too often abusive, group number two not giving a crap (often because group number one leverages the Big Lie technique to placate group two), and us group three folks capable of writing posts like this one, but still unable to rally group support to put an urgent stop to the high degrees of “lawful” abuse from reason abuse, we remain stuck in a loop for worst through best.
There are at least four fundamental reasons why.
First, because the government uses coercion, its actions are based on guesswork. Regulations are top-down commands, not efforts at finding common agreement. Spending relies on compulsory taxation, not voluntary customer revenue. So government actions generate no feedback regarding whether or not they generate any net value.
Compare that to markets. We know markets generate value because they are based on voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges. Decisionmaking in markets is a reality-based system guided by individual preferences.
Of course, the economy is so complex, that agenda proponents across the political spectrum spin and spin and spin the actually nonexistent line of blame — while billions of people worldwide suffer from the absence of human unity towards the species level of survival and “thrival”.
Second, government actions often destroy value because they create winners and losers. Regulations squelch personal choices and impose one-size-fits-all rules.
True on the one hand, yet on the other, winners and losers are formed by purely free market practices that also squelch personal choices via excessive market dominance that effectively also applies one-size-fits-all rules. Isn’t spin fun?
Third, government activities fail to create value because the funding comes from a compulsory source: taxes. Unlike in markets, bad government decisions are not punished and failed policies are not weeded out because the funding is not contingent on performance. Low-value programs can live on forever, and they block the reallocation of resources to better uses.
That third reason brings me back to my first point. Healthy economic flow is enormously beyond the grip of humanity, so tinkering is pitifully crude and likely horribly disastrous somewhere (possibly with rippling effects that could cause the entire system to crash like a heart attack).
Voting is obviously not enough for accountability, so some judicial ‘input filter’ needs to prevent obviously reckless (and likely selfish) economic tinkering from ever initially occurring.
Free markets with government focus then solely upon actual (objective/conclusive) harm — e.g. unhealthy market dominance (definitely harmful products, etc.) — in terms of legitimate interruption makes the most sense to minimize (never possible to eliminate) harm — tragedy is inherent in reality.
Fourth, government programs often fail to generate value because the taxes to support them create “deadweight losses” or economic damage. Taxes are compulsory, and so they induce people to avoid them by changing their working, investing, and consumption activities. That reduces overall output and incomes.
Value is what the economy is all about, but that value is often defined by the government, because the “gold standard” (i.e. the common understanding that precious metals remain steady in their value for roughly thousands of years — so are a sensible anchor to reality for currency value) has been literally removed “to protect the children”.
Governments can change the value of currency simply by making more of it (which they have to prop up the illusion of a reasonably healthy economy these days — it’s a huge unreported credit bubble that will bring mass pain at some point in the form of diffusion or bursting — effectively fake currency, and economic dishonesty in general, is not a sensible economic solution) without any concern over actual value in tune with reality. Of course, as history often reveals, the government cannot always (if even often enough) be trusted to assign reasonable value to currency due to serious conflicts of interest (e.g. favoritism against public safety).
In sum, coercion imposes deadweight losses and creates winners and losers, which is the polar opposite of the win-win exchanges in markets. Politicians may hope that their interventions create more winners than losers, but that is wishful thinking because their decisions are based on no more than guesswork.
Liberals might assume that the government has an advantage in tackling society’s problems because it is such a powerful institution. But because it uses coercion to raise funds and impose its will, the government tends to make bad decisions, entrench them, and drag the whole economy down.
“Win-win” assumes the perfect availability of ethical consumer choices, which obviously are not always available due to abusive private sector operations (absence of healthy competition, surreptitiously dangerous products, pollution, etc.)
Spin is the driving force of reality (literally — it’s all energy, hardcore scientifically speaking, so purely sinusoidal/cyclical) — a permanently subjectively pros and cons system that solely serves its own need for balance (paradoxically including the balance between balance and imbalance themselves). Freewill is reality’s need.
People don’t care about ethics when trumped by the number one desire that is instantly gratifying pleasure. That’s the “playground” we all live in for worst through best.
As long as humanity fails to recognize the fundamental governing force of reality itself (i.e. reality’s demonstrably infinitely powerful need for balance against any subjectively defined being within reality), and recognize that reality still provides mental abilities in the form of reason and consequent decisions and actions (the ability to make subjectively smarter choices for healthier energetic flow), then humanity will continue to allow harmful laws become relatively easily entrenched with little to no scrutiny (but excessive public harm from favoritism against public safety) — even despite the clear intent and purpose of a supremely government-limiting law designed to prevent that abuse (e.g. Constitution).
The government (actually, the oligarchy spanning both private and public sectors forming actual governance) is not a mature force overseeing the “children at the playground” (as traditional political leftists/rightists/etc. are manipulated to believe by their elitist leaders wanting the power that comes from that overseeing).
The oligarchy is fellow children too often brutishly dictating the rules of the metaphorical playground (albeit literally too often with childish behavior). They’re the bullies (jock/sorority thugs, academic thugs, criminal thugs, etc.) that pay no attention to reality’s fundamental rule — until reality — the actual mature observance — by its very need — coerces payment by those now-pitifully-crying-for-the-mercy-reality-cannot-allow-until-full-debt-is-paid thugs. You live by thuggery, you agonizingly (corresponding with your thuggery “success”) die by thuggery — no possible escape.
Good people don’t finish last.
Good people understand reality is boundless and seamless, so never finish at all, while always exercising maximum positivity (and the pain that comes with) to reduce reality’s inevitable correction for its supremely dominant balance, so literally experimentally proven infinite stability.
Good people are honest people, so they also understand that good through bad is purely subjective (objectively, reality never changes, hardcore scientifically speaking, so there’s no objective good/bad).
Liberty Shield is the “playground” (framework, etc.) for group three, but we welcome all groups to participate in the maximally responsible exercise of liberty — which includes that “Rule of Reality” as a natural governing base, but goes much further to ensure humanity’s energetic flow is maximally healthy by supreme law.