5 ms·

The federal government has proven more times than any other organization that they are inept and inefficient at almost every task they undertake. And yet the p

The federal government has proven more times than any other organization that they are inept and inefficient at almost every task they undertake. And yet the people all but demand that they do more, more, more. Please! Take more of my money and more of my individual liberty! And in return please send me more regulation, bureaucracy, inefficient waste, and general mismanagement! I can't get enough!

zymhan 11y ago
Yeah, the private sector has been such a steward of my interests over the past century, why do we even need the government. /s
- jqm 11y ago
  To work for the private sector further against your interests? /s
entee 11y ago
The government isn't the most efficient organization in the world, but for some problems it's the only kind of organization that can reasonably address the problem. If there isn't a plausible alternative organizational structure to solve a problem, then by definition and despite its problems government is the most efficient organization we have. Take for example national infrastructure, it's hard to imagine a way for private corporations to be incentivized to create roads to even the smallest communities. The individual roads aren't going to be profitable enough on a reasonable timescale. However the value of the whole network of roads is greater than the sum of its parts. Even if you had a private corporation that was willing, in infrastructure you have essentially natural monopolies. It's very valuable to build the first road from A to B. It's far less valuable to build the second. Look at how we've done internet infrastructure, and how little competition there is to a single one or two providers in most areas. Observe how it's hard to get high speed internet to rural locations. Tons of problems fit this structure, probably the best example is water infrastructure. Build once, use forever, structural challenges to competition. Government is essentially the only solution to these kinds of natural monopolies that ensures that more than a tiny population benefits from their services at a reasonable price. Other things government does that no private system is able to replicate at the same scale: - Funding of basic (not obviously practical in any timeline) research - National defense - Enforcement of contracts - Mitigating environmental externalities Government sucks. But let's make it better. We need good government not minimal government, those two things aren't always the same thing.
- notahacker 11y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that private corporations with sufficient scale to plan and build road networks are also fantastically inefficient organizations in many respects...
  - entee 11y ago
    Very much agreed! I've rarely heard people working at big corporations say, "Wow everything we do is so free or red tape and full of efficiency!"
  - frogpelt 11y ago
    You're right, bureaucracy/red tape generally increases with size. But the federal government is distinctly different in one major way: private corporations must make money. The federal government is immune to going out of business.
- allemagne 11y ago
  I'll point out that the parent comment was specifically targeted at federal government and not government as a concept. Many of your arguments may still hold true but at least some can be reasonably painted as responsibilities for state governments, not Washington. That was presumably the desired (tired, 200-year-old) sentiment.
  - entee 11y ago
    Possibly, but particularly for interstate issues it's hard to see how that works. And even where it does, it's usually slow and difficult to scale. The first thing that comes to mind is environmental issues. These have national implications that it's hard to see how even coalitions of states can have the same kind of impact. And if they did, you'd end up with a patchwork of regulations that makes it harder for business to work. I'm a proponent of relatively stronger central government, but I know that's not a universal belief. After all, the national government is a coalition of all the states :)
- randyrand 11y ago
badsock 11y ago
You could have saved a few bytes and just said: "Hey everybody, I'm a libertarian!"
tryitnow 11y ago
I think you have a pretty naive and overly optimistic view of human organizations other than the US federal government. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In general very large organizations can be problematic. Very large organizations with massive (universal) scope are at even greater risk. Unfortunately, what's the alternative? We've tried devolving tasks back to private organizations and smaller governments. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. I find it interesting how so many people on both side of the "big government/smaller government" debate apparently don't have the word "sometimes" in their vocabulary.

zymhan 11y ago

Yeah, the private sector has been such a steward of my interests over the past century, why do we even need the government. /s

jqm 11y ago
To work for the private sector further against your interests? /s

entee 11y ago

The government isn't the most efficient organization in the world, but for some problems it's the only kind of organization that can reasonably address the problem. If there isn't a plausible alternative organizational structure to solve a problem, then by definition and despite its problems government is the most efficient organization we have. Take for example national infrastructure, it's hard to imagine a way for private corporations to be incentivized to create roads to even the smallest communities. The individual roads aren't going to be profitable enough on a reasonable timescale. However the value of the whole network of roads is greater than the sum of its parts. Even if you had a private corporation that was willing, in infrastructure you have essentially natural monopolies. It's very valuable to build the first road from A to B. It's far less valuable to build the second. Look at how we've done internet infrastructure, and how little competition there is to a single one or two providers in most areas. Observe how it's hard to get high speed internet to rural locations. Tons of problems fit this structure, probably the best example is water infrastructure. Build once, use forever, structural challenges to competition. Government is essentially the only solution to these kinds of natural monopolies that ensures that more than a tiny population benefits from their services at a reasonable price. Other things government does that no private system is able to replicate at the same scale: - Funding of basic (not obviously practical in any timeline) research - National defense - Enforcement of contracts - Mitigating environmental externalities Government sucks. But let's make it better. We need good government not minimal government, those two things aren't always the same thing.

notahacker 11y ago
It's also worth pointing out that private corporations with sufficient scale to plan and build road networks are also fantastically inefficient organizations in many respects...
- entee 11y ago
  Very much agreed! I've rarely heard people working at big corporations say, "Wow everything we do is so free or red tape and full of efficiency!"
- frogpelt 11y ago
  You're right, bureaucracy/red tape generally increases with size. But the federal government is distinctly different in one major way: private corporations must make money. The federal government is immune to going out of business.
allemagne 11y ago
I'll point out that the parent comment was specifically targeted at federal government and not government as a concept. Many of your arguments may still hold true but at least some can be reasonably painted as responsibilities for state governments, not Washington. That was presumably the desired (tired, 200-year-old) sentiment.
- entee 11y ago
  Possibly, but particularly for interstate issues it's hard to see how that works. And even where it does, it's usually slow and difficult to scale. The first thing that comes to mind is environmental issues. These have national implications that it's hard to see how even coalitions of states can have the same kind of impact. And if they did, you'd end up with a patchwork of regulations that makes it harder for business to work. I'm a proponent of relatively stronger central government, but I know that's not a universal belief. After all, the national government is a coalition of all the states :)
randyrand 11y ago

badsock 11y ago

You could have saved a few bytes and just said: "Hey everybody, I'm a libertarian!"

tryitnow 11y ago

I think you have a pretty naive and overly optimistic view of human organizations other than the US federal government. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In general very large organizations can be problematic. Very large organizations with massive (universal) scope are at even greater risk. Unfortunately, what's the alternative? We've tried devolving tasks back to private organizations and smaller governments. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. I find it interesting how so many people on both side of the "big government/smaller government" debate apparently don't have the word "sometimes" in their vocabulary.