What is government anyway? A parable from Singapore

[gusl]

What is government anyway? A parable from Singapore makes a nice point I've made before, in the context of arguing against naive libertarianism:

Yes Singapore has developed rapidly through the use of market incentives, but there is much government planning here as well. Every food stall gets a letter grade for its cleanliness, which must be displayed prominently. More significantly, land planning has been extensive, and yes the government decides where the food stalls (and just about everything else) will go.

But why do we call this government? Let us say that way back when, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had homesteaded the territory of Singapore in proper Lockean fashion. He then wrote a contract welcoming people (all subsequent migrants, but not everyone) to live there, provided they agree to various rules and regulations, including of course Singaporean land planning, not to mention the ban on oral sex. This would then count as "the market," presumably.

Should we then think that such planning is more (or perhaps less) efficient, because it is now "the market" instead of "government"? But why should our evaluation depend on the murky details of past history? What is really the difference between market and government anyway? Can we in any case think of Singapore as a very well planned corporation, albeit with some uptight morals at times?

When we do public choice theory, is it really the government we are criticizing? Or is our true target something like "excessively large land parcels," regardless of their historical origin?

"This is my land! If you're not happy with it, blame your parents: it's not my fault they chose to raise you here"

Comments

[jcreed.livejournal.com]

I have felt exactly this sketpicism before very strongly. I am very curious to hear argued answers against it.

[williamallthing.livejournal.com]

i think "market" means a situation where people have a choice between alternatives.

[trufflesniffer.livejournal.com]

I think I agree, at least with the idea that the difference between a government and other equally powerful entities is more nominal than is often assumed.

Much of the more influental small-government libertarian economic philosophy (such as that espoused by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom), emerged in a post-WW2 Western cultural environment where the greatest threat to people enjoying a peaceful existence was considered to be strong, overcentralized and militarized government. At the moment (as for much of human history), the biggest threats to many peoples' wellbeing are from the converse: very small, weak governments presiding over failed states, not strong enough to secure a monopoly on the legitimate use of lethal force which is invariably the necessary precondition for securing peace for high density populations (which is all modern societies); and a prerequisite for economic growth. I think policy-makers are often still too worried about tyrannies, when anarchies are often much more dangerous.
Even the argument that free-market enterprises are invariably more efficient than centrally planned enterprises is a heuristic at best: Hayek believed that central planning can sometimes do a better job of providing a service than free-market competition when the homogeneity of the need for the good or service is large enough that economies of scale, rather than flexibilty, are what's most needed (e.g. utilities).
Also, even during the Reganite '80s, the US economy still had a large Keynesian component: with govt. military expenditure working on the demand-side of the US economy. There's often just no magic recipe about what a government should or shouldn't be doing, and what it is.


er... I'm not sure what my point is anymore....;)

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

My objective is liberty not theoretical jawboning.
Suppose I was born into a prison where the guards administer arbitrary beatings every day. Now I sign a contract and move to another prison. This prison is slightly better; the guards beat me only once a week. Is it wrong to break my contract and overthrow the system, so I can live without being beaten? Of course not.
I talk about the US Constitution and various political theories because they favor liberty. I don't favor liberty because these theories recommend it - that would be putting the cart in front of the horse.
I admit this is not the standard libertarian position. Rand, Rothbard, Nozick etc are not infallible gods, and I feel free to doubt their pronouncements.