Cheers!
Cheers!
bookmark
Conservatives don't necessarily believe all government gate keeping is bad. I think that's the problem with our modern economy. At some level, every single law or regulation makes some sort of sense. It seems we can't leave any transaction alone for whatever reason. It's easy enough to accept liberty when one agrees with the action taken. It's something entirely different to allow people to do things one doesn't necessarily think is wise. However, the latter is where true liberty lies.
As far as government goes, some gate keeping is actually an economic multiplier. For example, government could enforce the contract between blacksmith and customer, provide police protection if customer decides to grab a horseshoe, or send firemen to put out fires in the smithy.
A little bit of gate keeping is good, but where does one draw the line? In an economy as complex as ours, how does one determine which types of gate keeping are bad and which types are good, and how do we even quantify good or ill effects in the first place? Should we consider just the economic impact or include social and cultural issues?
Conservatives are probably focused on government gate-keeping’s bad effects. The left, assuming good motives, sees only the good. That is why they will never stop trying to expand government, for it can be safely said someone always benefits from the various programs and regulations. Our challenge is to elect leaders who are willing to accept a few bad outcomes without writing another law.
Some parasites feed and leave, some gorge. In both cases, however, they multiply. When the parasites overwhelm the host the outcome is bad for both. Economists can learn from the natural sciences.