I think the importance of rent-seeking as an explanation for the growth of the state has been overstated by libertarians. In the case of the big three, it seems to me they have been hobbled to a large extent by ideologically-driven government regulations that they did not want - CAFE standards which make it harder for them to produce profitable cars, generous union contracts which are backed up by laws which give unions the ability to monopolize the labour supply, relatively high corporate taxes, complex regulations about worker safety, etc. Any of these may be justified on some moral or economic basis but it would be hard to argue that they were the product of corporate rent-seeking (save as a least worst-case scenario after they initially lobbied against them). This is not, of course, to say that business interests don't try to game the system. It's just a corrective to the idea that that is all they do.
Mark
· 1 year ago
The state is the political means--almost by definition it is partial and interventionist. It exists to be used. To say simply that 2) is feasible--and to point to Denmark of all countries as proof--does not make it so.
Roderick T. Long
· 1 year ago
Well, I never said that slightly reducing state power wasn't *possible*. I just said it wasn't a solution to *corporatism*.
As for the claim that "Many states evidently succeed in achieving relatively benign outcomes," I don't see how this is evident -- unless it's just shorthand for "Many states are evidently compatible with the existence of relatively benign outcomes," which is certainly true. But if people who drink small doses of poison are healthier than those who drink large doses, that doesn't make it "evident" that small doses of poison can achieve relatively benign outcomes.
The difference between (1) and (2) is that under (2) people are able to socialise the costs of their "demand" for statism.
Brad V
· 1 year ago
Something between 1 and 2 seems about right. It is, at the very least, something to aim for as a realistic goal.
I think the quote should be altered to: "achieving benign outcomes ENTIRELY ABSENT the state is a chimera.”
All Comments
In the case of the big three, it seems to me they have been hobbled to a large extent by ideologically-driven government regulations that they did not want - CAFE standards which make it harder for them to produce profitable cars, generous union contracts which are backed up by laws which give unions the ability to monopolize the labour supply, relatively high corporate taxes, complex regulations about worker safety, etc.
Any of these may be justified on some moral or economic basis but it would be hard to argue that they were the product of corporate rent-seeking (save as a least worst-case scenario after they initially lobbied against them).
This is not, of course, to say that business interests don't try to game the system. It's just a corrective to the idea that that is all they do.
As for the claim that "Many states evidently succeed in achieving relatively benign outcomes," I don't see how this is evident -- unless it's just shorthand for "Many states are evidently compatible with the existence of relatively benign outcomes," which is certainly true. But if people who drink small doses of poison are healthier than those who drink large doses, that doesn't make it "evident" that small doses of poison can achieve relatively benign outcomes.
The difference between (1) and (2) is that under (2) people are able to socialise the costs of their "demand" for statism.
I think the quote should be altered to: "achieving benign outcomes ENTIRELY ABSENT the state is a chimera.”