Problems With Big Government – Part 2
Money
Perhaps the most important function of the State is that of economics and commerce. It can be argued that this need of the people is even greater than the need for security. For people can protect themselves from immediate threats more easily than they can engage in trade with their neighbors. Money facilitates commerce, by doing away with barter, and it is the lifeblood of any society. And although made from trees, money doesn’t grow on them, and it is only valid as evidence of some existing good or service within the State.
Probably the most difficult task of any State is the regulation of its money supply. This is a very subtle art indeed, with distortion in commerce from the over or under production of it. Furthermore, the question arises as to who should receive money, and how much should each person in society receive. With the various factions of the State each producing their unique goods and services, the State is left with the charge of allotting money to each based on their products’ relative value to the State as a whole. But because value is a subjective concept, and will vary from person to person, naturally everyone will hold that their products are the most valuable in society, or at the very least, on par with all the other products in society. As with the passage of its laws, the State will have an incentive to give everyone an equal share of the money supply. But this approach has several flaws.
The reality is that some goods are more valuable than others, in that they cost less to produce than other goods, and/or people are willing to give up more of their own goods for the acquirement of the desired goods more so than for competing goods. Naturally, a wedge develops between the producers of desirable versus undesirable goods in a society. Likewise, a wedge is drawn between the consumers of desirable and undesirable goods. If the State allots every member equal money, then some producers will receive less money for their goods, and some consumers will have to give more for their goods. The State’s different factions will inevitably be displeased with such a free market allocation system. However the same problem presents itself if the State were to decree that the price of every good in society be made equal. Producers of valuable goods will not desire to trade at par with others for less desirable goods, especially others who lie outside of their particular societal faction, whom upon which emotional bonds have been made.
In short, it will be very hard for one to give up his substance to one whom he has little or no emotional connection to. Neither a free or regulated market will serve to appease all factions within a State. The free market approach favors the producers, and the regulated market approach favors the consumers. The problem with the free market approach is that the “losers;” i.e., the producers of less valuable products, will be receiving a smaller benefit from the State than the “winners,” and will be a source of civil unrest for the State. As for the regulated market, the problem here is that the producers will simply lose the incentive to produce, thus threatening society as a whole in that regard. As we stated earlier, the State will have an incentive to pass laws which appease all factions in society, and as pertaining to the issue of money, ever-increasing laws will be enacted which blur the line between a free and a regulated market. This line will of course be visible to insiders, who will benefit from a situation of arbitrage, due to the exploiting of existing market distortions caused by the legislation, in the short-term.
From this it can be concluded, that as a state becomes more complex, its monetary system will contain inconsistent elements of either a free, or a regulated market system.
Crime and Laws
As can be reasoned fairly easily, a state with discriminatory laws, which serve to create social economic class systems, will inevitably lead to crime from members who feel that they are not getting their fare shake from the State. More often than not, crime is the result of wantonness or emotional unhappiness, and a state ridden with crime is a failing state. The State can address the problem of crime in one of two ways:
1) It can eliminate the source of crimes by addressing the needs of those committing crimes, or
2) It can punish the perpetrators of crime by removing them from society and taking away their opportunity to commit crimes
No one likes criminals, and the path of least resistance for the State is to punish the perpetrators of crime by throwing them in prison. Everyone in society is happy as the crime problem appears to be solved. But when the State fails to address the underlying conditions responsible for crimes, the same elements which drove some to commit crime still persist in society awaiting the chance to infect others with the same spirit of lawlessness. Soon others will commit crimes, and the State’s prison population will continue to increase. Furthermore, a state which is passing an ever-increasing amount of legislation provides even more opportunities for its members to be in non-compliance, and eligible for prison.
When dealing with crimes, the State should attempt to address their root causes, and eradicate them at the source. However, this approach is often controversial, as people who commit crimes are looked upon unfavorably by society. Resources allocated freely to people who’ve committed crimes, whether in the form of money, services, or opportunities in an attempt to make criminals cease from being criminals, will be looked upon by society as a waste of resources, and discrimination in favor of those committing crimes. If one can obtain something by committing a crime, then the incentive lies for everyone to commit crimes; an incentive which threatens the stability of the State. As usual, the unpopular decision is usually the right decision, and the State in its desire to appease all of its member factions, will opt for short-term gain at the expense of long-term stability by committing its criminals to prison, and making little or no attempt to reform them.
And so it can be said, that as a State becomes more complex and passes more laws, more and more of its members will be sent to prison.
Right Before Collapse
At the height of civil unrest of a state, a situation exists where there are many factions in the State; upon which internally a common bond, which we have termed emotional, is shared. The same bond is nonexistent for those members of the State existing outside of a faction; and problems with the State is synonymous with problems with other factions. Common factions include race, community, political ideology, and social and economic status. The tolerance is high for fellow members of a faction, but it is very low for those outside of a faction, in proportion with the faction’s disapproval of the state. Factions see other factions as the problem with the State, and thus the state becomes rife with infighting; fueled by each side’s feeling that it is not being recompensed adequately by the State for their sacrifices made to it.
In addition, the system of money allocation can never be equitable and just, as we have explained above. This is not really a problem within a faction, where the emotional bonds are strong. But outside factions, where practicality is the primary driver, no incentive exists to participate in a system where losses are inevitable, whether it is production by the producers, or allegiance by the consumers. A situation eventually arises where production becomes greatly reduced, or lawlessness increases.
And we have said that criminals will be thrown in prison much more rapidly than they will try to be reformed. When civil unrest is at its pinnacle, the State is left with no choice but to send its military into the streets to quell the unrest. And when there exists a large and complex society, the State’s military will police within the multiple factions of society the same as if they were in a foreign state. Because little or no emotional bonds exists without factions, it is a small matter for military personnel to treat one of an opposing faction as a mere foreigner. They will fire upon such groups if ordered to do so with little remorse, which will in turn dissolve all confidence in the State by various opposing factions, who will then begin to see that it is the State that is really the problem. They will unite in their disdain for the State, and society can only be held together via enacting a police state. But a police state cannot be sustained, and ultimately the State crumbles upon itself, as the many different factions disassociate themselves from the State, and go their separate ways to form new states.
Lastly, we can conclude that a large and complex state will become a police state, which serves to produce the opposite of liberty maximization, right before it collapses upon itself from decadence.
© FranG 2009