Anything ran by the government is not for the public good. There is always somebody sticking money in somebody else's pocket. Anarchy is looking better and better to me sometimes.
Scratch, I know what you are saying is a combination of frustration as well as some tongue-n-cheek, and as Bill would say, "I feel your pain!"
But just for giggles, check out the concept of "Panarchy." In concept anyway, everyone is happy because everyone gets the exact gov't they want no matter where they live. It seems wild at first considering the complexity of it but when you look at religion in a free society, panarchy IMO works on the same premise if you will.
As for gov't agencies, I see these as nothing more than mechanism of monopoly and cartelizaton under the guies of promoting the public good. One of the first major gov't agencies that we even still today feel some effects from in the
Interstate Commerce Commission. ICC
(abolished in 1995' and absorbed into the Surface Transportation Board) was formed in the latter 1800's under the argument that railroads had created private monopolies and there was argument for that position obviously. However, the old saying, "don't throw me in the briar patch" seems so fitting here as the ICC in the end served the function of creating monopoly and cartels that served political purposes.
In March of 1993' North Dakota State University released a white paper entitled,
Interstate Commerce Commission, Past & Present and on page 4 of the pdf it stated the following:
The rail industry had tired self-policing methods-pools and cartel agreements-as a means of stablizing rates (my own added emphasis,mac) but these had failed. Railroads eventually supported government involvement, seeing it as a method of increasing profitability by eliminating rate cutting. (again my emphasis)
In other words the larger railroads were unable to stablize "falling" rates because these so-called "mom and pop" railroads were popping up serving small markets and with less overhead, they were putting profitability pressures on the big railroad barons. Having gov't step in under the ICC allowed gov't to then control the market place, who entered and in some effect who left and there for the gov't acted for the railroad barons as the tough guy and rooted out the competion of a free market and therefore having a gov't created monopoly to some degree and to quote the above, gov't give them the "method of
increasing profitability by eliminating rate cutting" or to put it another way, by killing the free market and it's open competition that encourages business efficencies that forces pricing down for consumers, the ICC in effect killed free markets and protected the profits of the gov't sanctioned and well connected.
Another study done by
California State University at Northridge presents an interesting picture of the growing of gov't bureaucracy but you have to use what's said as a lot of foreground to look deeper into the background where certain things said make an interesting point. It serves mostly as a primer rather than a detailed study but IMO worthwhile none the less.
Just one example to this is the discussion of what is known as the "spolis system." You'd come away from reading this piece that this type activity as come to naught by law creation but has it really? During the Bush years, you had a segment of society argue that the spoils of gov't were being shifted to a certain class or segment of society and in fact I would concur with that arguement but now those same favored classes of the previous adminstration are now howling that the "spoils" are being shifted to a new "ruling class" and again I would concur with that observation. Today , phrase the arguement of these 2 opposing sides as the Corp. welfare and the Public welfare classes and this pretty much explains it all.
Around this, you build a lobbying class we call "K" Street who not only makes a living from this system of privildge but via punditry and think tanks, they perpetuate this system to ever larger and large heights. As they and their clients jockey for position and help increase the size of monarchy known as the unitiary executive, we the clas of serfs and peasants are driven lower and lower and suffer the added offense of having to slave and pay for it all with either our blood or our money.
This is also another reason why I've rejected both political sides and in fact see them as complete equals in the destruction of my freedom and liberty. If one studies just a little bit and is honest with one's self, it won't take long at all to realize that true
Laissez faire and
free markets was in the 19th century US rejected and that a new economy emerged. I find it interesting that gov't and it's court mouthpieces are always quick to blame conditions of economy on a concept that has really been dead now for 150 years or more. It works for both sides as the perfect scapegoat to hide the real truth that it was the gov't intervention in the first place that caused the problem and that further gov't intervention either esculates the problem or rather the preferred outcome to to push the exploding bubble down the road by maintaining the current bubble making the future effects for future generations even worse and therefore the intervention then will require greater draconian measures. So much for the truth of the "compassionate conservate" or "loving liberal". I guess some consider extreme anal sex as love too!
I always knew democrat and republicans were into heavy child sex because both parties are really screwing our kids!
I got tickled yesterday when a co-worker ran up to me jumping up and down as his hero Rush Limbaugh was talking about friend.A. Hayek and even defending Ron Paul who was slamming Bernacke again until Barney "the dinosaur" Frank saved Benny Boy by cutting Ron off. Rush Limbaugh extolling Hayek is like the greatest sinner extolling the teaching of Jesus "AFTER" the rapture, that is if you believe in such things.
Speaking of Hayek, read this
transcript from his appearance in 1975' on Meet the Press and discussing the economic conditions of the day. If you understand the economic effects of Nixon's policies and then know what happened during ther Carter and into the Reagan years, this interview proves rather interesting and worthy of thought in our own current economic woes!
