Government controls on the economy -- since politicians are not properly equipped to deal with the business decisions they take it upon themselves to make -- lead to problems in the economy which demand either the repealing of the controls or further controls to correct them, and if further controls are chosen further problems occur. If further controls are always the chosen solution to the problems caused by the preceding controls, eventually one establishes a dictatorship.
That is why I give my strongest recommendation to reading the series of blog posts by Don Watkins on why controls breed further controls in the economy. I do not know for how long this series will extend, but as of far it runs three parts:
Part two
Part three
2 comments:
“to understand that a mixed economy always leads to a dictatorship”
Is it possible that this is because that the dominant ethics is altruism but if this could be change to the ethics of selfishness this process could proceed in reverse? In this case you could imagine the scenario where a control was removed; things got better and so people demanded the removal of another control. etc. The ultimate result would be very different.
Your formulation is correct, but also keep in mind what type of ethics would lead to a mixed economy in the first place. If society endorses a mixed economy at all in any degree then it's going to slide into dictatorship regardless of intentions. To endorse an ethics of selfishness is to shun both dictatorships and mixed economies on principle, so I doubt any selfish society would spend any amount of time in the mixed economy stage except to progress from there to freedom.
Post a Comment