A few years ago, I shared a satirical divorce decree that would allow conservatives and liberals to amicably separate into two different countries.
This seemed like a good idea, particularly since another piece of satire suggested that Canada was being overrun by statists who were upset by the Tea Party election of 2010.
And don’t forget that I wrote a serious column in 2012 speculating whether advocates of limited government should be the ones moving north instead.
But rather than divorce or mass emigration, what if we could resolve our differences and live together in peace and tranquility?
Y’all may be thinking I’m smoking some of that stuff that libertarians want to legalize, but I want to make a serious point.
Or, to be more specific, I want to test whether our statist friends are serious.
I’m motivated by this presumably legitimate Facebook message. It’s designed, I’m guessing, to poke fun at conservatives who utilize government while simultaneously complaining about government.
Having read this diatribe, I want to make two points, and then end with a proposal.
My first point is that many of the supposed benefits of government would exist even if the public sector disappeared tomorrow.
There are some government-owned utilities, but I think we all recognize that most electricity is generated by the private sector.
Private satellite companies and private news companies would provide weather forecasts in the absence of NOAA and NASA.
Private food companies and private drug companies would have big incentives to provide safe products in the absence of government inspections.
People would know how to tell time without the government.
Auto companies would have every reason to produce safe cars even if there was no regulation.
Recommended
I could continue, but you get the point.
Which brings me to my second point. The person who put together this screed conveniently left out the programs that account for the lion’s share of government spending.
Why doesn’t the author include agriculture programs?
Why doesn’t the author include the Ponzi Scheme otherwise known as Social Security?
Why doesn’t the author include all the money spent to subsidize other nations’ defenses?
Why doesn’t the author include bankrupt and counterproductive health care entitlements such as Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid?
Why doesn’t the author include the Department of Housing and Urban Development?
Why doesn’t the author include the corporate welfare at the Department of Commerce?
Why doesn’t the author include the welfare programs that trap people in dependency?
Why doesn’t the author include unemployment insurance payments that subsidize joblessness?
I could continue, but you get the point.
Which brings me to my proposal.
I’m guessing that the person who put together the diatribe wanted to make the point that there are some activities of government that produce value. And even though I think he is generally wrong to imply that these things wouldn’t happen without government, I’m willing to bend over backwards in the interests of reaching a deal.
So here’s a challenge for our friends on the left: If the author agrees to get rid of the programs he doesn’t include, I’ll agree to keep all the programs he does mention.
In other words, let’s have a compromise, which is what they recommend in all the articles about relationships. Both sides meet in the middle.
Yes, I know that means too much government, but it also means that the public sector would be a far smaller burden than it is today. Indeed, I would be surprised if the total burden of government spending exceeded 10 percent of our economic output under this proposed agreement. Which would put us somewhat close to the growth-maximizing size of government.
And don’t forget that this compromise also means that the already-legislated expansions in the burden of government spending presumably wouldn’t happen.
So my proposal doesn’t mean libertarian utopia. But it also means we don’t suffer welfare state dystopia.
Now we just have to see whether our statist friends will accept this proposed peace agreement.
Or will we find out that they’re the hypocrites, not the folks who post comments on Fox News and Free Republic?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member