Semi-Glazed Response to Dan's Questions

Of course, the questions I refer to are at the end of this post, just for reference.

1. Do I want government more or less involved in my life than it is now?
Now here's a double-edged sword. Short answer, yes with an if. Long answer, no with a but. The short of it is that I (like about 99.99% of the population), would gladly like government involvement if it turns out to my benefit. If the government finds a way for me to get billions and billions of dollars, without doing anything, and I can do anything I want with said monies, then I'd love government. Of course, you end up with 300 million people making the same demands, and you end up with Communism.

Of course, there's the other side of said sword. If I depend on the government to make my life well, then I'm indebted to the government. Basically like the Mafia. And you're screwed if all of a sudden, you decide that government isn't exactly your cup of tea. My personal case in point, student loans. Of course, it's great that the government gave me money to get an education (in theory). And now, if I don't start making repayments, then the government can track me down and do whatever they want to me.

So in the end, since I have to deal with everyone else, and the fact that everyone else other than me is an idiot, I'd much rather not deal with other people and their wants. That's one of the things economics doesn't get into too much detail about. How other people's decisions affect your own. And I'd much rather not deal with that.

2. Do I think I or the government better knows the value of the income I make?

Well, the obvious economic answer is I do. The government can't possibly know what my utility functions are. Or can they...?

No, they can't. But they presume to know that the marginal value my money is lower than the marginal value of the money of someone poorer than me. But what do they know. Of course, I think it's possible to have an increasing marginal value of money. Example one: a lottery. More people want to buy tickets as the value of the lottery increases. Wouldn't that mean that people have a higher marginal value of money. Yet, all of the progressive taxation people justify progressive taxation laws on a DECREASING marginal value of money. So what is it?

More evidence the government has no idea what it's talking about.

3. Who is better to make decisions about my life and family, me or the government?

Haha, of course it's the government. After all, the government needs to protect my family from the crazy nutball ideas I have. After all, the 9th circuit just ruled that parents don't have the exclusive right to teach children about sex. That must be made in a classroom setting. And of course, children must be taught about tolerance, and all that togetherness stuff that is nothing more than brainwashing.

4. Am I qualified to tell you how to live your life? If so, why aren't you qualified to tell me how to live mine?

For entertainment's sake, let's say you are qualified. That also means that I'm qualified to tell you how to live your life. The idea behind this is that everyone has different experiences that would qualify them as having the knowledge to tell me what to do and what not to do. Thus, everyone is qualified to meddle in the affairs of everyone else.

That's the problem I have with people holding the ideas of "democracy" and "equality" as end all of government and society. Let's assume that these are the two highest ideals of government. That is, everything in society should revolve around them. There's rule of the people and everyone is the same. What happens? You end up ALWAYS doing what 50.000000000001% of the population wants to do. But if everyone's equal, then it doesn't matter. Everyone will agree on everything because they're equal, right?

Then let's relax things a bit. One person is, shockingly, different from everyone else. Let's say that everyone likes skiing. Thus, the government gives everyone free ski passes and equipment. But lo and behold, this one person hates skiing. He doesn't want the equipment and the passes are useless. But he's screwed because democracy says the choice of the people rule and equality says that everyone gets the same stuff. You can extend this continuously for more people, and more people get screwed, but we live by democracy and equality, so that's that. So I don't like "democracy" as an ideal state of nature, because people end up getting screwed by the majority. Unless you're in the majority, in which case, everything's happy. Of course, that's never the case. So you can have democracy without equality (let's call that Ancient Greece) or equality without democracy (Back in the USSR), but not both. Witness what's happening in Iraq with that statement.

So because people are fallible and different from me and my experiences, there's only one person who can tell me how to live my life. God. And of course, he abdicated that decision when he gave everyone free will. So noone can tell me how to live my life.

5. No matter what I do in my own home, what difference does that make to you?

Ah, private property rights. The answer is... it depends. If you're in your home, and you do nothing, then it doesn't matter. It starts to make a difference once you do stuff that affects me. Extreme example: You live on Mars. You're the only one on Mars and you own the planet. Being a long frickin way away from me, pretty much anything you do doesn't affect me. But not everything. Let's say you decide to blow up the planet for whatever reason. Since it's your home, you can do it. But now, I can no longer look at the sky and see Mars. It's gone, and you've just had an effect on me.

So I guess my point is that there is no ABSOLUTE property right. You can do anything, as long as it doesn't affect someone else. As soon as it does, then we have problems. And depending on the situation and circumstances, you're more than likely going to affect someone.

So I think these questions establish me as very much a conservative, but not a complete libertarian. And I'm comfortable with that.