MLM Directory

If government coercion is used to promote a product/idea, do we really need evidence to know how good it is?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/56043.html "If your product, or your idea for spending tax dollars, or your program for making banks solvent really is that good, you should be willing–if morality and truth are important to you–to offer that product or service voluntarily and take your chances. On the other hand, if you steal from me or otherwise force me to use your “solution,” then neither of us really needs any data about its effectiveness." ---- When a business decides to use government to either fund them or harm their competition rather than accepting the results of the free market, do we really need any studies to know how good their product is? One example of this is high fructose corn syrup, which is used in almost every food product instead of sugar, because the government's policies have increased the price of sugar. Another example of this would be energy, where the government is heavily involved in subsidizing alternative energy (and arguably subsidizing oil as well with foreign wars). If your idea for a product is really a good idea (that is, profitable, high quality etc.), why would you resort to using government to subsidize your product or to attack your competition? Shouldn't we assume that any product or idea that "requires" government "investment" in order for it to be produced is probably a bad idea? Didn't the example of the Soviet Union prove once and for all that the free market is better at choosing which products and ideas to produce than the government is (I understand that there are debates about regulation, safety nets, and public goods, but I thought the debate over whether the government or the market should plan production was settled long ago)?

Public Comments

1. I agree.