tax cut myths

Post Reply New Topic

Don't forget prostitution.

There are two separate questions here:

1) Does the activity fall within a proper sphere of government
2) Is this an activity in which the government should be acting

I suggest that all three of your examples are, in fact, within the proper sphere of government. Defense, public law and the enforcement of law are all very clearly functions of government that cannot, practically, be left to private interests. Even in the case that private agencies were used to undertake these functions, they would still be paid for from public resources.

The first two examples find their failure on the subordinate question of whether the government is acting effectively within it's proper sphere. The third is a question of lawfulness which should properly be resolved before the courts.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but the issue for me is the mantra, "smaller government." It's all well and good to parrot this, but it's meaningless unless you can actually pick up particular activities of government and demonstrate that the activities ab initio are not properly the function of government.

Ruveyn's issue around the Commerce clause is a red herring, because that's an issue of separation of powers, but not a question of the function of government. If the federal government were to abandon its activities under the broad "interstate commerce" rubric, it would fall to States to fill that gap--simply replacing one government with another.

I do believe that Government should get out of activity that it not properly its function, but determining what those activities are is a question that requires careful attention, not broad brushes.