[scottdw2]

No.

Government is force. Airlines, like most businesses, are subject to market forces. If Delta said "we have to search the data on your computer before you can fly", you can choose not to fly. Someone would have a strong incentive to provide a mode of travel that did not involve laptop searches.

I didn't say "no government". I said "small government". There's a difference. You need the force of government to protect property rights, and to enforce contracts, for example.

[david927]

businesses are subject to market forces

Markets are inefficient. Many products and services are inelastic. People will consume them while hating the companies that provide them. It was government, not market forces, that forced companies to stop making kids pajamas out of inflammable material. When people heard that Ford was letting people die in its Pinto rather than recall them because it was cheaper, did people stop buying Ford? I wish it was so simple.

The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.

[anamax]

> When people heard that Ford was letting people die in its Pinto rather than recall them because it was cheaper, did people stop buying Ford?

Actually, they did.

And, interestingly enough, the Pinto tradeoff decision in question came from a govt decision. Safety costs money. Ford asked the US govt "how much is a life worth" and the relevant design decision used a higher value.

Price matters. Some folks are alive because they traded in an older less safe car for a Pinto. Some of them couldn't have done that if Pintos cost more.

[david927]

Oh but they didn't stop buying Fords -- even Pintos -- when this was happening.

But your inclusion of government raises a good point. You're right. In the US, government is really just an extension of the corporations. It stopped being true democratic government, representing the people, long ago. So why not reduce that inefficiency and just be honest about it?

[anamax]

> Oh but they didn't stop buying Fords -- even Pintos -- when this was happening.

Stop, no, but sales did change significantly and Ford changed its tradeoffs.

It's unclear what would satisfy you other than regulation ....

My point about this govt involvement was that govt isn't the rational actor required by all of these schemes. Govt said "a life is worth X" but when someone acts on that and there's some backlash, govt says "oh no, you're wrong". Either defend the original number or say "you're right, we were wrong".

Regulators should be liable.

[babblefrog]

> The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.

You seem to be trying to imply a cause and effect relationship here, without actually saying that. I'm sure we can find examples of rich countries with small governments, and poor countries with large governments.

Also, for rich countries with large governments, which came first? Did they become rich, then grow large governments, or did they get a large government, and then become rich? I would guess that the former is more typical than the latter.

[anamax]

> The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.

Ah, so you're admitting that the US govt provides "free healthcare". (The US is one of the richest countries.)

> It was government, not market forces, that forced companies to stop making kids pajamas out of inflammable material.

Actually, it wasn't. It was publicity. Yes, there's a law now, but the market demand changed first.

[tobylane]

Whereever the line is, corruption will push politicians to go over the line. In the smallest possible government only judges are publically employeed, and even they could be bribed.

Look at Europe, it's big government. There's less corruption, less lobbying. Some places pay high salary and do get less bribery. Mostly it's more transparency.

[andrewcooke]

but in what other way than by reducing its power does making it smaller make it less corruptible?

if a teeny weeny government has power over conglomerates, then it is worth a lot of money, and can be just as corrupt as what we have now. so what you are suggesting doesn't solve the problem. the only way "small" fixes the problem with buying influence is if power is reduced.

[chernevik]

Actually, reduction in power is precisely how our Founders (continuing a trend begun in England) rendered governments less corrupt.

An absolute monarch, or more likely, his ministers, can get away with almost anything, because they easily find some basis to kill off anyone objects. Corruption under Roman emperors make our worst corporations look like public philanthropies.

The Founders put paid to all this excitement by 1) insisting all power be exercised by elected or appointed officials and 2) splitting up government power so much it just wasn't fun any more.

Today, "smaller" == "less corrupt" because "smaller" reduces returns on political investment. Congress currently manages, through spending or regulation, something like two-thirds of our economy. If they managed something like one-third, the friendship of a Congressman would be dramatically less valuable. And smaller == more transparent, because it's easier to to observe and distinguish the activities within a smaller, less complicated enterprise.

EDIT: Can't find a rebuttal on Wikipedia? Go read some books.