In a previous post, I began to hypothesize about government being an economic entity. After continuing to consider this over the weekend, I’m all the more convinced that it ultimately is economic in origin, and that any understanding that subverts that is dangerous, especially to liberty.
In other words, the question of whether government exists independent of the economy (or is even the source of the economy and/or is in ultimate control of it) or if government exists within the constraints of the economy is of vital importance.
Since the economy is, at its most basic, a product of trading items of value, it seems illogical to conceive of the economy existing as a result of government. Trading among people is natural; when one person has something that another desires, the only ways in which the one desiring the item can obtain it are a) if it is given to him or her, b) a trade of some sort takes place, or c) he or she takes it from the other person against their will. No government of any variety is necessary for any of these to take place, especially the trade option. So, the economy at least can and does exist independent of the government.
But can government exist independently of the economy? I think not.
Hypothetically, a person can enter a situation where there is a power vacuum and take power by force. However, ultimately his taking power is an economic decision. The people who become subject to this hypothetical dictator have simply made the decision (one that is quite understandable, if the dictator has superior firepower) that their lives are more important than rocking the boat, opposing the dictator, and possible potentially losing their lives in pursuit of the goal of not living under the power of the dictator. Since each individual person makes this choice by comparing the subjective value of each possible option, they have made an economic decision.
If this is true, then it seems that for government to attempt to control the economy would involve subverting the natural order of things, which most likely will result in disaster sooner or later.
More on that later …
Ultimately I think selfishness runs the decision a person makes. I have beleived for some years that a majority of people, in any governemental situation, don’t really care what type of governement they have as long as it doesn’t excessively disrupt their lives, and prefer a governement that doesn’t distrub them in any way. What other reason would explain so many people who are willingly ruled by a dictatorship? As long as the dictator doesn’t interfere with their lives too much they are content. They can deal with the occasionaly inconvenince as long as there are no major ones.
A side note, I am not saying all actions driven by selfishness are bad, you can donate a lot of money to charaties for selfish reasons. An example, during election times a lot is made of the fianancial statements of politicians and how much they gave to charitable organizations. If they gave too little the are lambasted as being mizerly. If they gave too much the question arises, what kind of benefit are they trying to get from the orginazation. So politicians give to charity so they are not viewed negatively by the people they hope will vote for them.