Interesting article, and I agree with most of it, but there is a point in which I fail to understand your reasoning, and which seems to contradict the rest of the article.
It’s the « “We have forgotten that the first purpose of government is not the economy, it is not health care, it is defending the country from attack.” » part. How is that not an applause light ? And how is that real ? When the country was just attacked, like after 9/11 or after Pearl Harbor, when everyone has in mind the fact the country is attacked and the horrors of violent death, but everyone forgets about the horror of diseases and the fact that half a million die from cancer in the US each year (according to cancer.gov), that is, one 9-11 every 3 days, that’s definitely an applause light.
The first purpose of government is to maximize a very complex utility function, that contains factors about protecting people’s life, factors about their (average, median, …) economical well-being, factors about protecting personal freedom and safety, … Maximizing this utility function requires investing resources into defending the country against external aggression—because external aggression comes with a very high cost in all those factors. But protecting the country against external aggression is not a goal in itself, it is only a secondary goal, because not doing so will lead to horrible things—death, lost of freedom, rapes, plunders, …
What would have been saying something that was real, and not an applause light, would have been saying « yes, 9-11 is horrible and we need to keep some ways to defend ourselves, but much more people die from cancer than from terrorism, we should still, like before, invest much less in weapons and much more in cancer research ». Or, if you are libertarian, « yes, 9-11 is horrible and we need to keep some ways to defend ourselves, but much more people die from cancer than from terrorism, we should still, like before, give tax cuts and let the market assign those resources to what is more important. »
If you think government is bad at assigning resources, then arguing for tax cuts and shrinking the government can be a way to maximize the utility function. We can argue for long about how efficient is the government and the market for a given purpose and in a given situation. But whatever we think about that issue, it doesn’t change the government purpose is to maximize that complex utility function—by investing in cancer research or by giving tax cuts, but not by focusing on defense and military as it did after 9-11. But that wouldn’t get applause in the post-9-11 traumatic context. Which is why I really don’t get that last part, because it goes totally to the opposite of the rest of the post.
The private sector and non-profits can take care of health care, scientific and health research, education, etc. sometimes better than, sometimes worse than, the government. They currently do much of it now.
Not so for national defense, espionage, etc.
It’s the “first purpose” not because every marginal dollar is best spent there, but because that is its irreplaceable function: the use of violent, coercive force.
Interesting article, and I agree with most of it, but there is a point in which I fail to understand your reasoning, and which seems to contradict the rest of the article.
It’s the « “We have forgotten that the first purpose of government is not the economy, it is not health care, it is defending the country from attack.” » part. How is that not an applause light ? And how is that real ? When the country was just attacked, like after 9/11 or after Pearl Harbor, when everyone has in mind the fact the country is attacked and the horrors of violent death, but everyone forgets about the horror of diseases and the fact that half a million die from cancer in the US each year (according to cancer.gov), that is, one 9-11 every 3 days, that’s definitely an applause light.
The first purpose of government is to maximize a very complex utility function, that contains factors about protecting people’s life, factors about their (average, median, …) economical well-being, factors about protecting personal freedom and safety, … Maximizing this utility function requires investing resources into defending the country against external aggression—because external aggression comes with a very high cost in all those factors. But protecting the country against external aggression is not a goal in itself, it is only a secondary goal, because not doing so will lead to horrible things—death, lost of freedom, rapes, plunders, …
What would have been saying something that was real, and not an applause light, would have been saying « yes, 9-11 is horrible and we need to keep some ways to defend ourselves, but much more people die from cancer than from terrorism, we should still, like before, invest much less in weapons and much more in cancer research ». Or, if you are libertarian, « yes, 9-11 is horrible and we need to keep some ways to defend ourselves, but much more people die from cancer than from terrorism, we should still, like before, give tax cuts and let the market assign those resources to what is more important. »
If you think government is bad at assigning resources, then arguing for tax cuts and shrinking the government can be a way to maximize the utility function. We can argue for long about how efficient is the government and the market for a given purpose and in a given situation. But whatever we think about that issue, it doesn’t change the government purpose is to maximize that complex utility function—by investing in cancer research or by giving tax cuts, but not by focusing on defense and military as it did after 9-11. But that wouldn’t get applause in the post-9-11 traumatic context. Which is why I really don’t get that last part, because it goes totally to the opposite of the rest of the post.
Or maybe I misunderstood something ?
The private sector and non-profits can take care of health care, scientific and health research, education, etc. sometimes better than, sometimes worse than, the government. They currently do much of it now.
Not so for national defense, espionage, etc.
It’s the “first purpose” not because every marginal dollar is best spent there, but because that is its irreplaceable function: the use of violent, coercive force.