If all financing of government was voluntary, would anyone volunteer? The answer is: of course, if government were limited to its proper functions—the police, the courts, and the military. And you can see ample evidence of it everyday.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were approximately 1,007,000 private security guards working in the United States in 2010. This is about 100,000 more than the number of police in 2008. According to the Department of Justice, Americans spend more than $100 billion per year on security alarms, security guards, and other security services, which is twice what is spent by federal, state, and local law enforcement departments combined. Clearly, Americans are voluntarily spending money in order to protect their property and persons. And this money is spent in addition to the taxes paid for the provision of police.
Many of the objections to the idea that government could exist without taxation arise largely because government has grown far beyond its proper purpose. Most taxpayers are rightly incensed when they hear of the many ways government wastes their money. Taxpayers understandably decry $600 toilet seats, programs that pay farmers to not grow crops, and welfare fraud. They correctly conclude that nobody would voluntarily support such wasteful spending.
With government limited to its proper purpose, all services except the police, the courts, and the military are provided by private companies. You are free to spend, invest, and donate your money as you deem best. If you believe that a business or non-profit organization is wasting your money, you are free to withdraw your support. In a capitalist society, if government officials insist on wasting your money, you are also free to withhold your financial support. Try doing that today.
Between 1870 and 1889, wages for non-farm labor decreased from $1.57 per day to $1.39 per day, a decrease of 10.2 percent. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index decreased more than 23 percent. Even though wages for unskilled labor fell by more than 10 percent over twenty years, prices fell by two times as much, that is, a dollar bought a lot more. Further, there was much more available: canned goods became widely available in the 1880s, which provided a much more varied diet, such as fruits and vegetables that were not in season; refrigerated railroad cars made it possible for urban residents to eat fresh meat, grapes, and strawberries more frequently; improvements in the sewing machine enabled manufacturers to mass produce clothing at low prices; department stores offered consumers wide selections in clothing, household goods, and more. In short, the unskilled worker’s life was immensely better in 1889 than it had been in 1870, even though he was paid less.
It wasn’t government programs that improved the lives of Americans. It was increased productivity, and that was made possible by economic freedom.
On CNN.com, Christine Ownes claims that raising the minimum wage will create jobs. Of course, she doesn’t explain how coercively imposing additional costs on businesses will lead to job creation, because no explanation is possible. The fact is, the minimum wage kills jobs on a massive scale.
One example of the job-destroying nature of minimum wage laws occurred in July 2009 when the minimum wage was increased from $6.55 to $7.25. A month before the increase, economist David Neumark wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “The best estimates from studies since the early 1990s suggest that the 11% minimum wage increase scheduled for this summer will lead to the loss of an additional 300,000 jobs among teens and young adults.” Nine months later, another economist, Casey B. Mulligan, wrote in The New York Times, that “part-time employment would have been about 500,000 greater in the last couple of months of the year if it hadn’t been for that last increase in the federal minimum [wage].”
By making it illegal to pay a wage below the minimum, minimum wage laws price many workers—particularly those with few job skills and less education—out of the labor market. Simply because Congress mandates a particular wage as a legal minimum does not miraculously endow workers with the skills that businesses need. If this were the case, then why doesn’t Congress mandate a minimum wage of one hundred dollars per hour and legislate the nation into prosperity?
|
|
