Some people believe there is no role for government. That each individual is sovereign and should be free to act so long as they don’t initiate force against another. That voluntary transactions can replace every function now monopolized by government and do so more efficiently and with no violations to individual rights.

Others believe that there is a narrowly defined role for government: The protection of people and property (though a military, police and courts). One of the best analogies I’ve heard for this perspective came from David Boaz who compared government to fire: When kept small, constrained, and in its proper place, it serves a good function (protecting rights/upholding contacts etc. and keeping the occupants of a house warm) but when it escapes those bounds it becomes a threat (usurpation of rights, burning down the house). Sounds good in principle, but I haven’t yet found a historical example when this has happened, mainly due to the incentives of government pointed out by our Public Choice friends.

Still others, guided by claims of positive rights (that people have a “right” to healthcare, education, food, etc. which then implies that others then have a “duty” to provide that) believe in a much more expansive role for government. Though these folks are well-intentioned (they want folks to live better lives) the means they deem appropriate violate individual rights and create perverse incentives for the would-be entrepreneurs and wealth creators. For the most part those in this camp would not walk up to you and threaten you with force for the contents of your billfold, but they advocate using a third party (the government) to do this for them.

Not yet a month into office President Obama has stated a new basic function for government:

At a bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter

And already Congress has called for a hearing on this issue.

Is that really why government exists? To safeguard our peanut butter supply? Don’t peanut butter companies have an incentive to ensure their products will not make its buyers ill? Reputation is key, and if it comes to light that Brand X knowingly allowed tainted product to reach market or that they didn’t proactively test their product to mitigate such problems, chances are folks would choose to buy from Brand Y instead.

By allowing a group of “experts” at the FDA to issue a pass/fail stamp it succeeds only in setting a low bar. Once companies reach the minimum threshold for safety they have no incentive to make their product even safer. But, in the absence of the FDA companies would constantly be challenging each other to have the “Safest Peanut Butter on the Market,” continuously raising the bar, which benefits consumers, including Obama and his family.

For more on this check out the Enjoy Capitalism overview on Bureaucrash Social.