What is the right size of government?

In response to a newsletter from a thinker I respect, I was moved to reply and it turned into a mini-essay that I felt had some valuable insights. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

One of your comments struck me as almost accurate and I thought it worthy of a response.

o Also, note that government doesn’t produce anything but simply redistributes capital from producers of capital to consumers of capital.

o   And while government has an important role to play in a thriving economy, it is one of facilitating the production of wealth, not creating it.

o  Therefore, the larger the government, the greater a drag it is on the productive capacity of the economy.

One of the obvious differentiators between Objectivism (which is a full philosophical system) and the economics-focused Libertarianism we commonly see is the role of government in a proper society. 

Libertarians fall into a range of camps that include Anarchy, Anarcho-capitalism, Minarchy, and related ideas. According to Rand, these are all anti-concepts that attempt to fuse a negative into a positive, thus destroying people’s ability to properly conceive and consider the positive. Anarchy is the absence of a central government. Anarcho-capitalism is the worst because it names the positive and then destroys it. Minarchy generally means the smallest government necessary and might be the closest to a proper formulation, but unnecessarily clouds the issue by creating a new term for what is simply capitalism. 

The positive is capitalism, the political and economic system where all property is privately owned and government is created to protect the rights of every individual citizen to life, liberty, and property. So long as the individual does not violate the rights of others, the government has no role, no policy, and takes no action. 

In a free society, government is an unalloyed good, an absolute necessity. Such a government is generally very small, but it may expand sometimes if needed to protect the country from external threats. Such a government is not good because it is small – size is not the standard of value – but because of what is does: protect rights from internal and external threats.

The first bullet could be improved by stating that through economic policy and the resultant use of force against innocent citizens, the government seizes the capital of producers and gives it to those people and groups favored by government policymakers. Some of those receiving the favours are also producers.

Your second bullet is almost perfect but can be improved by reformulating it as “A free society requires Government to play an essential role in the economy by protecting the rights of producers and consumers, creating the optimal conditions for production and trade.”

The third bullet is the weakest because it implies a negative correlation between government size and economic productivity. This is contradicted by Objectivism. A better formulation would be that since government is essential, there is a Kuznets curve something like this:

 At the origin point, there is essentially no economic production due to the condition of anarchy. This was the state of humanity for most of its history, with almost no production other than that needed for subsistence, and even then, subsistence was miserable. This is the fixed-pie view of wealth where anything can be stolen or destroyed with relative impunity.

The introduction of a government that starts to protect rights enables a sharp increase in production such as seen in the transition from the Enlightenment re-discovery of the power of reason and the consequent introduction of rights through the Industrial Revolution. In the U.S. and other relatively capitalist countries this persisted into the late 19th century and economic growth was 6% or even higher for long periods. 

Once the government started to adopt and enforce policies that did not protect rights, but violate them, the rate of economic growth started to decline. Controls, regulation, tariffs, taxes and other types of non-objective law are all forms of rights violations. The decline side of the curve is much more gradual than the increase side because it still contains significant rights protection, and these are usually gradually eroded. Because all the infrastructure created during a period of rights protection is difficult to destroy, both physically and intellectually, it is possible for a fascist government to commandeer production yet not rapidly destroy it. I think a good case in point is Argentina, in the news these days due to the election of a relatively free-market figure, which was once among the wealthiest of nations but then suffered a slow decline as collectivism became entrenched. 

A proper formulation of the third bullet point would thus be: “Once a proper, rights-protecting government has been instituted, any further growth of government will of necessity be rights-violating and thus lead to lower economic production.”

All this started with just the idea that the third bullet point was weak, but I am very happy with the thoughts that emerged, particularly the shape of the graphic, the form of which I have not seen before. 

Should there be a tax credit for financial planning?

 FP Canada has launched an effort to get a Federal tax credit for financial planning. 

I disagree with this initiative of FP Canada for several reasons, even though I am a financial advisor and a big proponent of financial literacy and the value of my life's work - financial advice. Here is a short version of my first reactions to this idea.

1. It injects even more government interference into the economy.

2. Government, via regulations, has driven up the cost of advice and reduced its access. This distorted the economy. The solution to one distortion cannot be further distortion.

3, It introduces yet another aspect of private life that ends up being reported to our taxation authority.

4. This is like the children's sports activity and arts activity credits, which thankfully were axed.

5. All these reporting requirements add costs for providers, add non-productive work for taxpayers, add compliance costs to the taxman.

6. I think it is discriminatory, taking money from one class of taxpayers and favoring those who have had lobbyists work on their behalf. Essentially, political pressure is used to extract money from the group being punished to reward the favoured group, a regressive tax - one among many. This is a violation of individual rights, never mind being inequitable.

7. Most fundamentally, it is not a proper function of government to redistribute wealth according to anyone's preferences. Government is created to protect rights and not to violate them. Government representatives might choose to speak favorably about the value of financial advice but should never take my money to help others pay for the advice they seek.

8. Only plans covering advice “across multiple areas” would be eligible. This begs for jerry-rigged gaming of the credit: who is to judge when enough areas have been covered? What if multiple areas are not wanted or needed by the client? What if plans are "gamed" so as to qualify under whatever arbitrary rules are set?

9. Almost zero Canadians pay for the type of financial planning fee that would be rewarded by this credit. The overwhelming preference of Canadians, as clearly expressed in their market choices, is to pay for advice bundled with their investment and insurance products and management. The article itself says only 4% use the type of advice this credit would promote. If you want to promote this type of advisor compensation, go into the marketplace and make your case - don't use the coercive power of government to do it against the wishes of Canadians. In summary, there is so much wrong with this idea that it should be stopped in its tracks or rejected outright by politicians.