“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state.They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”
—Frédéric Bastiat
I—Introduction
This essay argues that argumentation to promote policies which reduce government waste is futile as a conduit for actual change. Politicians will do what makes them survive in their profession, and if they do not they will be replaced by those who do. Advances in economic science have made it clear that well-functioning markets enhance welfare, yet many industries are protected by tariffs if not directly by money from the government, labour markets remain distorted in various ways, and rent control is still not uncommon. If improvements could come about through public debates, they would have done so by now.
This essay will discuss the failure of advocacy, but also how waste might yet be minimized by competition between governments, achieved by decentralization. Since such a process also depends on citizen preferences, it seems a distant prospect. However, advances in technology may enable man to reach new frontiers whose governments can compete with extant ones. Such competition leads to differences in well-being, which, when big enough, cause migration towards the better-managed places. If tax havens now restrict taxation in developed countries, more intense competition ought to force waste down even further.
One might think of this venue as a “technological” one. In a world suitably described as in equilibrium, such venues are far more likely to bring about improvements in how states are managed than is advocacy, which cannot change the incentives underlying the equilibrium. The most promising ideas to reduce government inefficiency are therefore technological rather than...
... middle of paper ...
...
Friedman, Patri, ‘Beyond Folk Activism,’ CATO Unbound, Lead Essay, April 6th, 2009, available at http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyond-folk-activism/.
Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities,(1982), Yale University Press.
Posner, Richard A, Economic Analysis of Law (2nd ed.), (1977), Little, Brown and Company.
Stigler, George; ‘Director’s Law of Public Income Redistribution,’ Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 13, (April, 1970), pp. 1–10.
Tiebout, Charles; ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,’ Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 64, No. 5, (1956), pp. 416–24.
Tullock, Gordon, ‘The Rhetoric and Reality of Redistribution,’ Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 47, No. 4, (April, 1981), pp. 895–907.
Tullock, Gordon, Toward a Mathematics of Politics, (1967), University of Michigan Press.
Netzer, D. (1973). The incidence of the property tax revisited. National Tax Journal, 26(4), 515-535.
In the making of the United States, there were many events that are important. This paper intends to highlight a few of those events including; Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. Many events in America’s history helped to establish the United States as a free and independent country. The Declaration of Independence in particular explains the rights and freedoms that Americans. Each document is like a stepping stones that leads to the next and building upon the pervious document.
Stone, Chad, Danilo Trisi, Arloc Sherman, and William Chen. "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities." A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. .
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
Walter M. Simon The American Political Science Review , Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1951), pp. 386-399
Schwartz, Bryan. "Proportional Representation for Canada." Manitoba Law Journal 28.2 (2001): 133. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
Rust, M. (1998, August 3). "Public Welfare for Billionaires." Insight on the News. v14 n28.
Huey Long, two-time Senator of Louisiana, was founder of the “Share Our Wealth” plan. A redistribution of the nation’s wealth, the plan called for one third of the country’s money to be divided among all the people. In the early 1930s, 4% of the American population held 87% of the wealth. (Polenberg 127) Long’s plan called for an end to this imbalance. “None too poor, none too rich” was his slogan. (Polenberg 126)
Reich, Robert. "Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor Poorer." Mountain View College Reader. Neuleib, Janice. Cain S., Kathleen. Ruffus, Stephen. Boston: 501 Boylston Street, Suite 900. 2013 Print.
Reich, Robert B. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer.” A World of Ideas:
In the 1960s, the government drew a poverty line which determined how the lower class may benefit from government aid. Since t “2008, th...
Pettinger, Tejvan. The “Pros and Cons of Inequality.” Economics Help. 18 Oct. 2011. Web.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Marwell, Gerald, and Ruth E Ames. "Economists free ride, does anyone else?: Experiments on the provision of public goods, IV." Journal of Public Economics 15.3 (1981): 295-310.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.