In his recent column John Stossel lays down the gauntlet
I’ll pay you $1,000 if you can name one thing government does more efficiently than the private sector
I won’t deal with the meat of Mr. Stossel’s column, a critique of Michael Moore’s notions about healthcare, other than to note that we do not now have a free market in healthcare (or in health insurance for that matter), which makes any touting of the benefits of our present system as due to the operation of the market simply a non sequitur. Indeed, many of the benefits of our present system exist precisely because we don’t have a free market system in healthcare. We’ve been overinvesting in healthcare i.e. putting more money into healthcare than the system would produce otherwise for more than 40 years now and, while overinvesting in anything is likely to produce great developments in that anything, it’s not any more sustainable than our present system is.
I’d love to see a free market in healthcare but I don’t see any way to get there from here.
But I would like to respond to Mr. Stossel’s challenge above.
Government, specifically our government, produces an environment in which we can debate topics like this freely, a system of rights and liberties, much more efficiently than the unfettered private sector because the private sector doesn’t do this at all and never will. Remember “Nature, red in tooth and claw” or
“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”
(Hobbes in Leviathan)
Government is a tool and, like any other tool, it can be used inappropriately but to conclude from this that it can’t be used appropriately is, well, puzzling. We need Leviathan to create a space in which markets and free individuals can operate.
I don’t expect to see my $1,000 any time soon.
Well said. Adam Smith would have also found an important role for government in those public institutions and works that would benefit the public at large, but provided insufficient profit for the individual to undertake.
Stossel might argue that the economy has changed and its now possible for large corporations to have the resources and capability to take responsibility for tasks such as infrastructure and postal service. But that begs a question, who created the corporation and gave it the rights of a natural person? The government.
Provide for the national security.
National security. Roads. Environment.
Space. Privatization has screwed that up beyond belief. It was cheaper *and* more efficient in the government sector.
In addition to national security, roads, and the environment of course!
Then, we could move beyond our own government where ideology keeps the government hobbled: many European governments do a fine job with transportation, health care and primary education.
Stoessel turns capitalism into a religion.
Stoessel turns capitalism into religion Right on, Michael, just as Ayn Rand did before him. We’ve got a mixed economy- we’ve had it for many decades (didn’t the government subsidize railroads in the late 1800s?) Our economy is a mad chemical blend between private and public- it’s all about finding the right balance.
I think what Stoessel misses is that some enterprises are simply not profitable no matter who does them.
As for national security, roads and space, those endeavors might be coordinated by government, but the bulk of the work is done in the private sector.
Nearly every urban electrification project was government-subsidized. Many of those were around the turn of the last century. No new thing. Rural electrification continues to be government-subsidized.