Keith, I didn't realize you were asking any questions of me regarding regulations. Four posts ago you made mention of some things government does, but didn't phrase it in a manner in which I perceived you to be asking me to respond to those issues.
However, I still stand by my statement. Maybe I should rephrase slightly to say that government does not produce anything, but just redirects resources. Whatever money government spends is nothing but a reallocation of economic resources from private sector uses to use which those in power deem best or have been bought to redirect those resources to their reelection fund patrons. So I stand by that claim.
The pro-government crowd will often use as an example the intestate highway system as a "good" product of government, but there is no way to know if that money had been spent in the private sector if we would have gotten something more beneficial to society. It is merely presumed that since the results are now deemed arbitrarily to be "good" that it is proof of the goodness of government action. However, the same type of folks who call that a "good" use of government now don't like the consequences that has arisen from the use of that "product" and now make a silly claim of "addiction to foreign oil" to further additional efforts to control our lives. (That "addiction" claim is a bit of economic idiocy left for another time and place.)
It was those roadways that contributed to making Walmart and other such big box stores - so often villified by the left - possible as it made the movement of products to other areas of the country cheaper and faster. It led to the decline of the "mom-and-pop" stores for which so many folks seem to have a nostalgia. It led to the increased use of automobiles to go places as traveling by motor vehicle became more convenient. It led to so-called "urban sprawl" as many people could live a good distance away from their work and use that road system to get to work in a relatively easy and quick manner. Now they are promoting more government "goodness" (CAFE, ethanol, 'lectric cars) and want that same government to shove their solutions down our throats.
As for government being the
only enterprise in the world that expands in size when its failures increase, I stand by that also. I
didn't say that government programs NEVER are reduced (extremely, extremely rare, however), but that government is the only enterprise which can continue to expand when it largely fails at its goals. Private sector business cannot afford to expand if their goals are not being reached. That's why they either go out of business, get bought by someone else or draw back and rethink their business strategies.
As for your life in the world of government contracts, that's a whole other animal, so it doesn't fit in this argument because the politicians funding those contracts are more concerned with throwing money at them to keep their constituents in their home district happy or to trade favors. As an example, there's nothing more idiotic than for the military to have a product forced upon them that they don't want because some Congressman doesn't want jobs eliminated in his home district.
Lastly, I find it amusing that you accuse Thomas Sowell of generating propaganda for the "gullible voting public". The man has a a PhD in economics and writes some of the most thoughtful commentaries around, not to mention numerous books on economics and sociology. You talk about playbooks, but it seems no matter which conservative I bring into a conversation here, that person is eventually dismissed as a corporate mouthpiece, opportunist, propagandist or some other label that avoids any substantive discussion of whatever the issue is. Bummer.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.