The Case for Limited Government

Should government control the economy? The answer is a clear and unequivocal NO!

Beside the fact that socialist economies inevitably produce mass poverty, political and economic freedom go hand in hand. Some quite eloquent reasons why government should be limited in size and scope are found in Eric Margolis' recent article Communists are Still a Grave Threat.

In East Germany, one in five people were informers for Stasi, the security police. It was very easy for communist regimes to enlist informers and agents. The socialist state controlled every aspect of life: Housing, medical care, education, pensions, travel, employment, food ration coupons, even marriage licences.
Each apartment building, every city block, factory section and school had government informers and party security apparatchiks.
Any "anti-state" or "deviationist" activities were immediately reported. Malefactors could lose their homes and jobs; their parents denied pensions; their children's futures ruined. This system ensured everyone became a little secret policeman and reported relatives, friends, and co-workers.
Informing brought job advancement, better apartments, foreign travel and access to western goods.

Why are the left so eager to ignore this inevitable drawback of a government-run economy and continually scream for higher taxes, higher government spending, national socialist health insurance, etc? Is it because they don't understand the connection between political freedom and economic freedom?

Or is it because they don't want political freedom?