Jump, if you will, into the co-pilot's seat of the Captain's personal F-22 fighter plane. We're going to fly really high because we are going to need a very high bird's eye view in order for me to make my point. So high that your brain will disassociate itself from its current environment, allowing you to have the perspective to see what I see.
As it stands right now, be you left or right, we are looking for government to do something to get us out of this economic mess. The left votes for more government action, while the right votes for less government action. Regardless, both require government action. "Lowering taxes, increasing taxes. More regulation, less regulation. My question is one that you need to be high up to observe:
"What business is it of the government's how well the economy does anyway?"
Stick with me here.
I don't know if it was ever like this (though I presume it was upon the founding of the country), but why should the government or the people in the government worry about what its private citizens do? In my "ideal world" of how government would work, it would provide the basics of public goods that protects its citizens and allows for an efficiently operating society, but beyond that, the government (for better or worse) should have no skin in ANY regard of its people.
It wouldn't care if the economy was booming or not.
It wouldn't care if gays or straights want to get married in that it wouldn't license such things.
It wouldn't care if a company went green or not (and it certainly wouldn't finance any of them ala Solyndra or the SBA).
And if the people so mismanaged a business (GM, the banks, etc.) it wouldn't bail them out.
The government would be a very distant, cold and remote entity who if anybody came in and said, "You need to help us" it would say, "not my problem. We do roads, defense, infrastructure and law. Your economic problems are not under our jurisdiction. Deal with your own mistakes."
In short the government would leave the people to enjoy and suffer 100% of their successes and mistakes, allowing the population to learn (and thereby advance) much more rapidly than had it intervened all the time either trying to make things "fair" or "better."
Now with that concept in mind, I have a question -
What arrogant idiot decided it was OK to have the government start intervening in people's affairs?
And once again we have to be high up in the sky for you to realize the question I'm asking.
For example, who decided it was the government that was going to tell us private citizens how much bio-diesel we are going to make in 2013?
Who decided light bulbs were no longer good for us?
Who decided it's only the Fed that can get us out of our economic woes?
I could go on and on about the veritable Nazis Fuhrers Bloomberg and Obama (Michelle) telling us what to eat.
I know the answer is (usually) leftists and crusaders, but my question goes beyond individual, specific things that are obviously a violation of a person's individuality and freedom. I'm talking something much more fundamental. AND I'm talking about who or what group of people ORIGINALLY decided it was OK to cross this line and start destroying freedom.
For example the concept of "expansionary" and "contractionary" fiscal policy. What arrogance and bravado did it take for somebody to say, "Hey, the government can be used to expand and contract the economy in order to control inflation and growth!" It's none of the government's damn business whether an economy grows or contracts. That is up to the private citizens. Additionally, wouldn't you presume a government fiscal policy (it any at all) would be constantly expansionary? Wouldn't the government set up minimal rules and regulations that would result in a perpetual expansionary policy, conducive to maximum economic growth and be done with it once and for all, never to revisit it again?
No, it took some idiot, some power-hungry totalitarian to decide that, "Hey, I know what's better/best for the people! AND IT'S MY JURISDICTION TO INTERVENE!"
So my question is this - who was that guy? Who committed this "first, original cardinal sin of Keynesianism?"
Was it John Maynard Keynes himself? I doubt it, governments had been intervening long before he hit the scene. Woodrow Wilson maybe? Somewhere, I imagine, at least in US history, there was a group or a person who over-stepped the boundaries and deemed it the government's domain to cross that line and start taking a vested and unwarranted interest in what its peoples' private affairs.
Anybody with a better background in US history have an answer?