Who's Treading On Whom?

The other day I was in my local supermarket and overheard two women discussing public policy while weighing the options in the produce section.  Based on the section of the conversation I heard, there was unanimity amongst them that the federal budget was much too large and the government was, to use their words, "too deep in our pockets."  While there was no actual declaration of what specific budget items the two ladies wanted to see removed from the federal spending plan, it was pretty clear that they felt as though their taxes were much too high and that, in their eyes, the benefits they received from that government spending weren't a good value to them.

This scenario led me to question how would these women, or anyone who routinely complains about the size and influence of government would feel if the scope of that government were somehow reduced down to the barest essentials.  Furthermore, do we as a society really examine what it is that we rely on from our public policies and what life would be like without them?

These two mavens of small government stood poised over the lemons and limes irritated at the influence of government in their lives.  Did they ever stop to think about who or what might be keeping an eye on that citrus to ensure its safety?  The USDA is commissioned with keeping our foodstuffs safe and it's an easy thing to forget.  What would our option be if there were not a public organization looking out for the safety of our food and drink?  There might be a private organization on which one could rely for making certain your chicken is safe and spinach isn't tainted.  But, how could you know whether or not their work was reliable and what would the costs be?  What would happen to people unable to afford a private service such as this.  As a society should we simply allow those who can't afford food safety experts to slop up our rotten and rancid bits and take their chances?  An industry of these private services would likely be more difficult to maintain with any degree of consistency and would then cause a greater fracture in the ways we purchase our groceries.  It is completely impractical and ridiculous to attempt to privatize this sort of thing and the USDA is just one such example.

How did our Glenn Beck disciples make their way to the store on that Sunday morning?  It's a safe bet that they drove there.  In fact, chances are quite good that the Toyota Minivan with the "Don't Tread On Me" sticker belonged to one of them.  Whether or not it was a van belonging to our government waste fighting duo, it was a van that arrived on public roads.  Public roads upon which they tread every time they leave their driveway.  The food they were buying arrived the same way and so did everyone who worked at the market that day.  Perhaps the mantra "Don't Tread On Me" ought to be reserved for the public road who does its duty while people that drive across it daily whilst complaining about public projects.

Chances are better than 4 to 1 that these two test subjects and their spouses and/or children and other family members obtained the cognitive faculties to have opinions on these subjects through the means of a public education system.  It's also very possible that one or both of these ladies was one of the 800 million people to fly through an American airport in the last year.  Of course they would have to go through a security screening subsidized primarily by public funding.  Maybe on their summer vacation, these gal pals were one of the 285 million visitors to our incredible system of national parks.  This does sound like a lot wasteful spending on unnecessary stuff doesn't it?

It would certainly be ironic if these ladies were to listen to the radio or watch TV to entertain themselves or to learn facts to reinforce any of these beliefs.  After all, this is media regulated by the federal government.  And in case you forgot, regulation is bad.

If there were a break-in or a fire at their homes or businesses, I really hope they don't try to call their local fire or police department.  They have made it clear they want no government interference in their lives, and what's more invasive than a visit to your home.  Best find a private fire and security service to take care of those needs.

Of course, we haven't discussed their sense of safety from a well-funded and well-armed military.  That will obviously have to be abandoned right away.  Their bank deposits won't be insured anymore.  Any mergers that would normally be a violation of anti-trust agreements will be free to go through, even if it results in less choice, poor service and higher rates for a given service or product.  Don't fret, the market will work it all out - and I am sure they'll have your best interest in mind.  Because you can't trust the government, but private business is infallible, right?

Wow, I feel a whole lot better now.  My taxes will drop to ZERO and I can start spending the vast majority of my free time figuring out which of these myriad private services will have my back the best.  It's like getting to shop for a whole new individual infrastructure.  I would have sent a letter about this to tell you, but since the government isn't trustworthy, I can't use the post office and its socialist 44 cent stamp.  UPS is going to care of it for me though and it's only going to cost me $22.07.