Why the State (of Oregon) Exists

Most people assume the state government exists to establish laws and to provide government services. But these are smoke screens for the real function of the state.

True, the State of Oregon does provide some direct governmental services. But the cities and counties (and in some cases, tribal governments) also provide most of the same services: police, parks, jails, courts, roads, social services, etc. Special districts provide K-12 education, and the state universities are becoming increasingly independent. The state maintains the interstate highway system with funding from the national government, but there is no reason this could not be done by the counties or directly by the national government.

The state establishes laws, such as traffic laws. But once they pass their written exam, the only rules drivers in Oregon remember are to drive on the right side of the road, and (most of the time) stop for red lights. The other rules are useless because no one really knows them. The state passes criminal laws, but these are primarily enforced and prosecuted at the local level (by cities and counties), and there is no reason that the laws could not be established at the local level. One could argue that these laws should be uniform, but people in the Portland/Vancouver metro area are subject to the laws of two different states, and life goes on. In fact, our lives as Oregonians would probably be no worse in the absence of the mounting pile of state laws and rules, such as all the silly regulations invented over the years by the OLCC.

The state does play a role in re-distributing income and wealth, through its taxation power and the way it distributes services and benefits. But that is mostly why the national government exists these days, and having the state play in this game only muddies the waters.

State taxes, services, and laws consume all our attention as voters, but they are merely a distraction. The true purpose of the state is a secret hidden in plain view: it creates, protects, and empowers a growing list of trade guilds. This list includes accountants, appraisers, athletic trainers, blacksmiths and farriers, body piercers, chiropractors, counselors and therapists, dieticians, hairdressers, hearing aid specialists, home inspectors, insurance agents, landscapers, physical therapists, Realtors, tattoo artists, teachers, and x-ray technicians, among many others. Over forty State of Oregon agencies and boards serve as gatekeepers for these guilds; in many cases, this is their only purpose. Even where the state itself does not run the guild (as in the case of lawyers), it supports it by enforcing its claims to exclusive practice.

One could argue that this state role is appropriate, since it protects the public from incompetent professionals. There are several flaws in this argument:

• In the current age of Angie’s List and the Better Business Bureau, there are other ways to monitor the competence of professionals.
• We can all think of examples of individuals who are both licensed and incompetent. This is not limited to public schools and contractors: every profession has them. Therefore licensing or certification is no guarantee of competence.
• Many important professions exist without the protection of a trade guild, yet our society does not seem to have suffered as a consequence. These include journalists and newspaper editors, city managers and corporate CEOs, most scientists, and mothers.
• Ironically, the state legislators who aid and abet the guilds’ conspiracy against the layman are themselves not a member of a guild. Almost anyone can be a legislator; the only required qualification is to be able to vote, and to live in Oregon. If we don’t need to test legislative candidates for ethics, intelligence, or knowledge of civics, why does the state need to pre-qualify our barbers and athletic trainers?

In fact, the public benefit of trade guilds is a fiction that has been promulgated over the centuries by the guilds themselves. Sociologists know that, instead of providing a public benefit, guilds exist to confer on their members status and power that sets them apart from society in general.

But there is no need for the state government to protect the guilds. They seem to be perfectly capable of doing that by themselves. For example, the university professors’ guild creates accrediting bodies that confer accreditation on universities only if the universities hire full time professors with the requisite guild-controlled credentials. And modern labor union laws seem adequately suited to the protection of guilds, as in the case of firefighters, and professional entertainers including actors and football players (but not, so far, national politicians). The state government has more important things to do, such as designating the State Soil.

The blogheads who will inevitably howl in protest over the suggestion that the state get out of the guild protection business are themselves members of guilds. And those who begin their rant with the words “I’m not a member of a guild, but...” are close to someone who is.

Fixing the Economy

With all the debate about the best way of creating jobs, you would think that jobs are some abstract concept, like the elusive dark matter sought by cosmologists or the Higgs boson of particle physics. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I am elected president, I will solve the job creation problem directly and with little effect on the budget.

We will simply return to our roots as inventors and innovators, and build a machine that creates jobs. The State of Oregon has emphasized the importance of moving the clock back a hundred years so that people can earn good money operating machines on an assembly line making stuff no one needs. Our nation can follow this great state’s example and create something that is actually useful (jobs!) on an assembly line basis. The beauty of my plan is that the machines themselves will employ a lot of people, and therefore create jobs twice.

True, these job-creation machines may be expensive. I have already lined up no-bid contracts with a few of my major campaign contributors. But unemployed workers will purchase the jobs, thus supporting the cost of the program. There will be no need to increase taxes. In fact, my campaign contributors have assured me that if we further reduce their capital gains taxes, they will produce the job-creation machines happily at a cost of only $50 billion each.

There is more to my plan. Some “scientists” may disagree, but I firmly believe jobs occur naturally and are there for the taking. Some are buried deep in the ground, but companies like BP have a good deal of experience extracting resources like these. Others grow naturally in the forest, and with the elimination of some unnecessary environmental barriers, it will be possible to extract them for the benefit of society. Commercial fishing fleets can pick them up in nets, a major boon to that industry now that most fish are being driven to extinction.

I anticipate that we will even produce a jobs surplus. We will then be able to send many of them overseas in wars of adventure and defending the national interest. Some critics have whined that the “national interest” is another abstract concept, but patriotic Americans know that those critics are cowardly pissants. I will unveil my War on Weakness plan in the near future.

With strong leadership (provided by me), a spirit of bipartisan collaboration, American ingenuity, and incentivizing the private sector, I am confident that we can create these needed jobs now. It’s time to end the debate and get to work.