Okay, this is something very interesting to me. I don't understand how bureaucracy (one of the few things government does well) can make something more efficient. There are some things government does BETTER than the private sector, or things the private sector can't do at all. Examples include roads, police, national defense. They do not do it more efficiently though. Nobody can honestly say that if a business were run like a government it would remain solvent. The only thing that keeps government going is they can charge whatever they want for their "services" by raising taxes. We all pay for services we don't use, which is stupid.
Two problems I have with this:
1) "Government" does not necessarily equal "bureaucracy", and...
2) "Bureaucracy" is not necessarily "bad".
I hear that saw ("Nobody can honestly say that if a business were run like a government it would remain solvent.") all the time, and I have to wonder if those who say it are aware that the government is not
supposed to turn a profit, and that the regulations are usually in place because We the People asked for protection from businesses which aggressively corner markets, monopolize resources, and fail to serve the people who are paying for their services. (See the
Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act for the historical perspective.)
"Efficiency" is not the litmus test we should be using; or do you want to tell me that the AT&T monopoly was "better" because it was more efficient?
I think it can be best understood as an analogy. A guy comes to your house and does some yardwork. You didn't ask him to. In fact, you were going to do it yourself. That's awful nice of him though. After he's done he comes to your door and asks for $300. You didn't need him to do that. You were perfectly capable of doing it yourself, but now he's charging you for work you didn't need done in the first place. When you tell him to piss off he pulls out a gun and demands the $300 or he's going to take you away and lock you up until you pay him. That is what the government does with taxes (or at least a portion of them). It's paramount to robbery.
This is a false analogy... unless the guy coming to your yard was invited by a commission established at the request of your grandparents. Remember, most of the well-established government services we have today are the result of our predecessors VOTING for them. If they aren't performing satisfactorily, you do have the right to protest and lobby for change... and I don't deny that it's a difficult and frustrating way to go about doing things, because it does require some education and motivation on the part of the constituency. (But I don't want to get off on the tangent of how ignorant and apathetic our constituency can be...)
Putting a fully-equipped, combat-ready Marine in the field costs a fraction of one of Blackwater's "private security contractors."
That's because the government buys in bulk. Also, the marines are MUCH less well equipped than Blackwater contractors. Marines (and army soldiers) often buy their own equipment because the stuff issued by the government is crap. Don't believe me? Check out this forum.
I believe you... but the
other reason the contractors cost more is because they are not accountable to Congress for their expenses. One of the
benefits of bureaucracy is that the budget for the Marines is established by law, and accounted for; they may get crap equipment, but they get what they paid for, and you can track where your taxpayer dollars went. With Blackwater, you will never know where your tax dollars went... hell, if they hadn't shot up so many people, most folks wouldn't have known we were paying them at all.
Sounds like a great way to run a business, though; bid low, cut corners where possible, and hide behind contractual "immunity" when your over-armed, trigger-happy thugs start blowing away locals.
Pull out your property tax bill, which (in most areas) covers primary and secondary education, police protection, snow removal, fire proctection, trash removal, plus a small raft of amenities and maintenance services. Now start calling around and pricing some of those services from "efficient private contractors." I can pretty well guarantee you'll run out of money long before you've got all those services covered. (Private school alone would consume my entire bill.)
That is only because a) 10-50% of your income is going toward taxes and b) there is little competition because people can use government services for "free". If they had to provide their own services there would be more competition between companies, so prices would drop.
Respectfully disagree; what we see happening with the cycle of regulation/de-regulation is that "private" providers (think power, telephones, roads, etc.) consolidate, and *raise* prices until the government is asked to step in (by the people who can't afford to pay their bills any more). The government in question (these things are usually done at the state level) rarely manages the "business" well... usually because obeying the laws of supply and demand is politically dangerous, and they try to keep the "prices" artificially low until the "business" tanks. Then they "privatize" somehow, prices go up (they call it a "correction") and somehow, they never do go down.
Sure, governments waste money. But the fact is that we aren't exactly geniuses at spending our own money, either. Consider, briefly, what by now are probably billions of dollars that have been spent to put four-wheel drive on vehicles that will never face a surface more demanding than damp concrete. Or the one-third of the typical American's closet filled with clothes they haven't worn in two years. Or the truly mind-boggling sums spent on maintaining credit-card debt -- almost invariably spent for things that DO NOT increase long-term earnings or decrease long-term expenses.
You are confusing personal finances with business and government finances. People buy things because they think it will get them laid or make people like them so they can get laid. People are, for the most part, idiots. Take a marketing class sometime. It's really eye opening. It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion though.
Government is by the idiots, of the idiots, and for the idiots. That's why, instead of getting frustrated and dropping out, we should be getting more involved. Take that marketing class, and then start showing up at city council meetings.
As for what the government has done EFFICIENTLY. I dunno, let's see: Eradicated infectious diseases that were once the scourge of childhood, built the largest road network ever conceived, defeated two enemies that constituted an honest-to-god existential threat (Axis powers in WWII, the old Soviet Union), sent men to the moon and robots to the outer planets, and bankrolled the basic research that led to modern computing. I could go on, but I'll stop.
I agree these could not have been accomplished without government involvement (except maybe the polio vaccine). However, I disagree they did it efficiently. I shudder to think of how much all those programs cost. If my tax dollars were only going to these programs though, I would be fine with it because they are good causes that can't be achieved without the steamroller power of a government.
Again, you cite inefficiency. Again, that is not the litmus test. War and Diplomacy are both incredibly inefficient - both are accepted government functions - and you wouldn't choose between them by saying "This one is more efficient, so we should go with that." (At least, I hope not.)
Currently, yes, we're badly mismanaged. Perhaps electing people who make a show of not liking government to run government isn't such a great idea. But suggesting that government can't do anything just because it's government is every bit as intellecually lazy as assuming that government can solve every problem.
I don't see how it's intellectually lazy to say that a broken system can't fix itself. I just think people should be able to do what they want with the money they earn. If that means contributing to charity, fine. If that means hording it all in a giant safe filled with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck, fine. To say that people need to give up a huge portion of their money to an inefficient machine that mismanages and uses it for things that go against the will of the people is unfair and wrong.
I agree that our tax system is horribly unfair (I'm a converted fan of the
FairTax legislation) but the fact is that everyone here is benefiting in some way from being in this country. People like to trumpet that "Freedom isn't Free"... until it comes time to pay the tax bill. (Hmm... that was what pissed me off about
"Rent", too...)
I say, if you don't like the way taxes work... fix it. But what is intellectually lazy is to pretend that you can take your ball and go home until someone else fixes the system. We're all in this together, and TANSTAAFL cuts both ways. Sure, it would be great if everyone worked hard and pulled their own weight, but the fact is that we are always going to be asked to pick up the slack for someone else. Like all those freeloading infants, and those "useless" old timers! (Just in case you don't catch my ironic meaning, here: everyone needs something from society at some point.)
Sure there are cheaters that need to be dealt with... but you don't give up the internet just because of a few hackers; you don't abandon the use of money because of a few counterfeiters; and you don't give up on a noble experiment just because after 200+ years it is "too hard".
