Government is not the balm for all our ills, but your views of the history of capitalism and of the rise of the state appear to be rose-colored, perhaps because of the blood you sometimes have in your eye.

Feudalism was when almost everything was the property of the State.

Wrong. There were no states during feudal times. The most stuff belonged to the guy with the biggest stick. When a guy with a bigger stick came along, he got the other guy's stuff. The serfs and merchants needed the protection of the lords from marauders, that is, knights working for themselves or for other strong men. It was a protection racket with shiny armor and horsies.

King, shming. The manors were the effective political units, though some of them were quite large, and some barons owned several. The closest there was to an incorporated state was England, which had several nasty dynastic wars, and that was only because it was an island -- when it wasn't busy owning almost half of France and waging war against the English king's liege lord, the King of France. Germany? Italy? Spain? These were geographical locations, not nation-states. That came later -- in the cases of Italy and Germany, only after the industrialization of Europe.

Where does this idea of government=good, private=bad come from?

In America, from the folk memories of the Gilded Age. The unchecked capitalist robber barons -- barons, nice symmetry, that -- ran roughshod over labor in this country. In fact, they had the cooperation of the government very often. Fortunately, labor here consisted of immigrants who had already been through hell and weren't about to let a bunch of rich men with their private Pinkerton cops beat them into the ground without a fight. And there was still a frontier to escape to.

In Europe during this period, we see the rise of syndicalism, anarchism, and the birth of communist philosophy. This didn’t spring up from the hearts of would-be dictators, but was an extreme reaction to an even more grasping industrialist class in Europe. Ever practical, the Americans, including the immigrants, merely organized to get a piece of the pie, not to overthrow the system. (This in spite of the fact that President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist, illustrating that the political philosophies had made it to America.) And so the unions were born.

When I was a little girl, there was a strike at my father's place of business. My grandfather, a retired railroad union man (not the politician), and one of the very few Irish Republicans in our community (he thought direct election of Senators was a terrible mistake), was very upset that my dad had to cross a picket line, even though he had worked all his life to get his boys out of manual labor and into the professions. Those memories of labor's struggle to get out from under capital's control are still active in communities across the nation. It wasn't so very long ago.

The reelection rate of congressional incumbents has been above 90 percent in every election of the last 26 years often reaching 96 to 98 percent. Senior incumbents (more than six years) have a reelection rate of 99 percent.

Because of the money that comes the way of an incumbent. What an excellent argument for campaign finance reform! Thank you! ;)

Roads in this country were paid for by the government. Railways were privately owned and had to be paid for out of railroad revenues. A slight competitive disadvantage. Then people wonder why there are so many more cars than trains.

Interstates were only the most recent transportation infrastructure to be paid for by the government, because of Eisenhower's observation of the German Autobahn system. But let's take a long look at American history. I quote from The National Experience, volume 2 of Daniel Boorstin's three-volume history, The Americans. [NY: Random House, 1965] Incidentally, in case anyone thinks of Boorstin as a left-wing academic moron, he cooperated with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee during the McCarthy period. I hate his politics, but he's a damn fine historian, and former Librarian of Congress (1975-1987).

Take, for example, the American mode of building railroads. In England railroads, as well as most canals, were built by private funds, unaided by government. In the United States, by contrast, every form of government -- federal, state, county, and municipal -- gave substantial help. Why the difference? In England the large capital required for railroad-building was available in private hands, but in the United States capital was still scarce, and the corporation was only beginning to be developed. Furthermore, in England and often too on the European continent, a railroad ran along established and flourishing avenues of trade. . . . But an American railroad (as the London Times once observed) might run from “Nowhere-in-Particular to Nowhere-at-All.” (250-51)

The government promotion of railroads, and of the canals before them, which Carter Goodrich has documented, is a parable of the distinctive roles of governments in America. Communities grew and population expanded as government-aided canals and railroads were built ahead of the traffic. The railroads themselves brought into being the population that used them. Whether this could have happened without the substantial government assistance is debatable, but the historical facts are clear. The westward expanders were pushing out to places they hoped to make into thriving communities. Their booster railroads universally expected help from public agencies; they were not disappointed. (252)

He goes on for half a dozen pages detailing the government assistance, including massive land grants, given to public transportation projects in the United States starting in the late 1700s and continuing throughout the nineteenth century. There was no “private railroad” in this country any more than most of the early turnpikes and canals were constructed and maintained by private means. I grew up near the Erie Canal, so this piece of American history is quite vivid for me.

As for the comparison between the zoning official and Mr. Gates, a piece of hyperbole you have used before, I put it to you that the zoning official can make it difficult for you to hang your wash out to dry on a clothesline in your yard in certain neighborhoods, but Mr. Gates, through his very large and powerful company, controls the tools that you use in your business, with which you earn the money to buy the clothesline, the clothes, and the yard. Furthermore, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get by without something that Mr. Gates has his fingers in, whereas there are at least three other alternatives to the clothes-drying conundrum. Which is an annoyance, and which has the potential to be a menace?

Regards--
Mary Anne