Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Case for Limitied Government

Roberts made a very simple point that is in very much so correct with very few exceptions. His point it this, what the government does not provide, the free market will, and given time the free market will provide it better than the government.

Hands down true nothing to argue with here.

The government doesnt protect property rights for car radios, the free market did.
The government protects music rights and it did it worse than the free market would have done in the long run.

You may counter we can't prove that the free market would have done it because in the course of history the free market never had the chance so there is nothing to absolutely compare.

Ok, fine, you are right, BUT, if you get hit right where your heart is with a bullet and the bullet stops on your bullet proof vest who is to say the vest saved your life? You can't say it saved you for certain. Had you not worn the vest perhaps it would have missed your heart or not penetrated your skin by some miracle. Get real! Seriously. Had the government not intervened the free market would have protected the music property rights as surely as the bullet would have killed with out the vest in the way.

2 comments:

  1. ...so we should get the government out of trying to protect intellectual property rights in the case of the music industry and let the markets do it.
    I agree with you on this one. The government isn't doing a very good job- people are still "stealing" music. We should try another way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This week, I'm the resident argument guy. So, I'd like to take one of your assertions and beat on it for a bit.

    You say, "Roberts made a very simple point that is in very much so correct with very few exceptions. His point it this, what the government does not provide, the free market will, and given time the free market will provide it better than the government.

    Hands down true nothing to argue with here.

    The government doesn't protect property rights for car radios, the free market did."

    I disagree. The free market didn't protect the property rights to the car stereos. Roberts argues that the actual property rights to the stereos were transferred to the thieves by the refusal of the government to adequately track down and prosecute car stereo thieves.

    As far as we know this hasn't changed. The government hasn't stepped up theft prosecution or even prevention for car stereos. The actual property rights to the car stereos are still firmly in the greedy hands of the thief. (If you buy into Roberts' argument.)

    All the free market did was to produce a product that was useless to the actual owners of the property rights. :)

    ReplyDelete