Imagine 2 men walking into an elevator, one man carrying a suitcase with a million dollars in it, one man carrying a gun.
At the bottom floor, both men exit the elevator -- but the man who had the gun now has the suitcase as well! The man who "lost" the suitcase is in a terrible dismay.
Later on, it was found out that the million dollars was originally supposed to go places on which a lot of other people were relying or counting on. A lot of suffering ensues because the money didn't get to where it was originally meant to go.
On the surface, who is at fault for this -- the man who had the private suitcase, or the man who wielded a gun and forced the suitcase away from the other man?
Government wields a gun, metaphorically. Government regulations are backed with the force of a gun. Isn't it true that, when there is forced meddling in the economy, that the proper place of blame -- for economic downturns -- defaults toward the government (i.e., "the guy with the gun")?
There may be unique cases where free men cause trouble, but that shouldn't ever be a default position when placing blame.
Ed
|
