Boyes points out the role that the current administration continues to play in the fiscal irresponsibility that has seemed to accelerate over the past 5 administrations.
I wonder, is this irresponsibility party agnostic and a result of the expansion of the Welfare/Warfare state or can it be attributed to a particular party or ideology?
The deeply flawed and incestuous relationship between the executive and legislative branches of the state - at the local, state or federal level seems to me to be more of a culprit in the expanding corruption we see in the state - all parties or factions participate willingly in the charade that is governance and which, should more accurately be called reelection theater.
Boyes points out the relationship between public sector unions, the legislature and the Obama admininstration as an example of this theater and rent seeking. The message that "we have to save teachers" resonates with the masses. Simple economic reasoning (and intuition) would lead one to wonder, why any job would need to be "saved".
We have both previously blogged on the benefit of the market order - the voluntary exchange at the heart of this form of emergent social order leads to positive sum outcomes - wealth creation.
Boyes and I continue to point out that, setting aside the moral issue of statism, the Welfare/Warfare state leads to, at best, zero sum outcomes, and most often negative sum outcomes - that is wealth destruction.
Our continuing dialogue is an effort to underscore this essential distinction and to engage with concerned citizens to consider both this pragmatic reason for a change in thinking about the role of the state.
An Open Letter to Andy Schlafly
11 hours ago