Some months ago I was talking to a friend who told me that when he used to work booths (he’s quite a freedom activist), he would sometimes sell brochures and handouts instead of giving them for free. People passing by could read them there free or charge, but if they wanted to take it home, they would have to pay. It would be a small fee, like 25 cents or some other small amount. But the idea here was not to make a profit, but to create interest.
The ink was barely dry on the quoted predictions that the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq would reduce violence and begin to normalize politics in Iraq when a rash of bombs killed 40 people in Baghdad. The government responded by (this is true) banning driving in Baghdad.
Government involvement accounts for the internet’s continuing problems, while the market should get the credit for its glories.
Good for Steve Chapman for quoting Mises: “Government is the only agency which can take a useful commodity like paper, slap some ink on it, and make it totally worthless.” The only problem is that no one can seem to verify that Mises actually said this. It more or less reflects his thought but the prose is not his style.
USA Today notes in an article today that “States and local governments across the USA are preparing to cash in valuable public assets for one-time windfalls that could reap tens of billions of dollars.” Though there is talk in the article of “operations that private enterprise might operate better” one wonders if this is any sort of victory for free markets. This suggests not:
[T]he best thing gay activists could do for themselves at the federal level would be to support repeal of the death tax, since under current law gay couples often lack inheritance rights. That would accomplish more than anything that will emerge from this week’s political spectacle over amending the Constitution.
A noted economist, Prof. Martin Feldstein of Harvard University, has written an article for the supposedly pro-free-enterprise Wall Street Journal, in which he proposes a system of government gasoline rationing as a means of improving the environment and promoting national security. (The article, titled “Tradeable Gasoline Rights,” appears in the June 5 issue, on p. A10.)
