It is an interesting question as to what those who want progress think its possibility lies in, what its conditions are.
Stated briefly, the economic crisis of 1920-21 was overcome with much greater speed than the economic crisis of 1929. What was the difference? The role of government.
The speediest way through economic crisis is for those companies that cannot produce and trade well to be liquidated and for the capital and goods to be reallocated under working models. For government to step in and begin to take from some and give to others and anger the productive while bringing rest to the unproductive is sheer folly.
The speediest and cheapest way to end the great cost of fatherless children is to NOT support the activity. Were it not supported it would cease.
The speediest and cheapest way to end the opioid and other drug addiction is to permit the production and trade. The permittance of the production and trade plus the permittance of freedom of association would immediately allow those who choose drug addiction to experience the consequence of their choice. The productive part of society would recoil from the costliness of the choice.
The speediest and cheapest way to improve education is to remove support from it. What would blossom is a market for education. Those who desire educated of different varieties and levels would select. Most that now work in the “public” education sector would be retained.
Behind this common thesis is the following bet regarding the human. I wonder what your bet is. My bet is that the human is constituted such that satisfaction is found in the employment of human capital.
Those who think (I use that term vaguely) that they can satisfy the human by any other means than protecting the human’s right to employ his capital do so at the peril of everyone. For there is no magic wand by which that which must be produced can be be produced. It must be produced by the employment of human capital.
Those who have the luck of an excess dumped on them (whether rich or poor) have it as the result of gift or aggression. Whenever the government takes from some and gives to others the only element to production that is added is loss. I count three losses.
First, the very presence of the third-party creates a third need for satisfaction that draws from the production. That is not a gain to either of the original parties to the trade. You can follow the consequences further in a hundred lines. What happens when a right to initiated aggression is established and positions are advertised. Who is most likely to pursue?
Second, the forced employment of a human’s most essential capital (his energy, attention, focus) has been separated from his interest. This is what happens in slavery. To the degree that it is present in lesser forms of aggression the same degree of recoil and anger is caused. You can follow the consequences further. What happens to the overall quality of production when it is done under conditions of initiated aggression?
Third, the provision of satisfaction separated from the employment of faculties in the failing company or failing individual diminishes the most important condition for the need for change, adaptation, reform. You can follow the consequences further.
Enough. Stop supporting government initiating aggression. Its primary function can be the protection of the right to property. That property starts with faculties and powers in the individual. How much of the weight of initiated aggression on the successful accumulator of capital makes it all the less that he has available to offer to the less successful in the employment of that less successful’s capital.
But have you noticed how there is always a whisper in the not yet satisfied ear? It is the agent of initiated aggression pointing at he who has still untaken capital who is labeled as at fault. This is too bad and leads nowhere good. No one benefits but aggressors.