|
I think that discussing government in the abstract is of limited usefulness, because I think politics has an inherent pragmatical bent, and thus universal statements are often ill suited to address particular issues.
Just to give a few examples: I think most people would agree that the government should not determine how parents raise their children. But what about parents who sexually abuse them? Maybe that is a little extreme, but then what about parents who neglect to give their kids medical treatment? Vaccines? Education? Soon, an abstract statement gets lost in the fuzziness of reality.
My point being that things need to be discussed in context. Let's take for example the Scandinavian countries. Often heralded as the mecca of social democracy, when it comes to business and regulations they are just about the most libertarian places there are in many respects. Sweden, Norway, Finland, are all in the top 20 in terms of "ease of doing business." All three have fewer restrictions on international trade than the US. Most of them have fewer restrictions on registering property, getting building permits, and even closing a business. They have tax codes that are generally simpler than the US.
Heck, the whole voucher system that Bush and so many conservatives have proposed for so long is a reality in Sweden.
From that angle, there are a lot less government intervention than in the US. But they are able to take such a position because the generous welfare state means that the consequences of failing, of being driven out of business, of international volatility and competition, are not as severe.
|