Intermission: the virtue of inaction

I realize that one of the biggest difficulties with accepting the Libertarian position is exemplified by Congress' action in the wake of Katrina: throwing money around to look like it's doing something, like its members care and what-not. In a broader, more general sense, every argument against Libertarian positions on the size and scope of government ends up being just another variation of the imperative, "We have to do something."

So I thought I would pause here, before giving my own take on Katrina, to make a simple point. That being, when two possible courses of action are likely to have the same outcome, one ought to choose the one that is least costly; in effort, time, and resources. And when an action is unlikely to change the outcome from that which inaction would yield, inaction is the least costly action.

This is especially true in that government cannot do anything without taking money from you and me. So if Congress votes to spend >$60 billion, it's making every taxpaying citizen in the United States give $200-300 -- including those who have lost their jobs and homes from Katrina. All so the legislators can look generous, compassionate, and effective. Whatever I have given or shall give to aid the relief effort, I know that, come April, I shall pay still more, because the Federal budget shall have to be replenished.

Therefore, please remember to ask that simple question whenever a government official promises to "do something" about a problem: is action by the government going to be any more effective in solving that problem than government inaction? Not "doing something" about the problem: actually solving it. If more voters -- and better still, more elected officials -- would ask this question, our taxes would be lower, we would have less intrusion in our lives from the state, and, well, some individuals who are dead would not have died.