3 ms·

I agree. Additionally I believe organizations are better when they serve a prime directive. I always shake my head in disgust when I see companies like Chick-

I agree. Additionally I believe organizations are better when they serve a prime directive. I always shake my head in disgust when I see companies like Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby trying to promote religion, or the myriad of Silicon Valley companies trying to promote some progressive social agenda, or even fireman in uniform out on the side of the road collecting money for something. It's not that I disagree with helping people but I think it's best done if fireman are putting out fires and Amazon is delivering goods and Chick-Fil-A is making sandwiches to the best of their ability and at the best price point rather than posturing about Jesus. The organizations for helping the helpless should be charities, churches, and since we can't depend on these (and many have ulterior motives), indeed mostly government itself. We don't need puff PR moves. We need efficiency. And dependable results that scale to society at large.

jerf 9y ago
"The organizations for helping the helpless should be charities, churches, and since we can't depend on these (and many have ulterior motives), indeed mostly government itself." Your cynicism is nearly, but not quite, complete. Government has ulterior motives too. Most simply of the "buying votes" form; anyone dependent on the government isn't going to vote for less of it. But there are more subtle forms of it too. There is almost nobody who is altruistic, but can pass a "no other motives except pure altruism" test. If you think you can name someone, I'm sure someone else will be sure to pop up and explain their ignoble motives.
- andrewmu 9y ago
  I won't say governments are perfect, but at least buying votes values each individual equally (in theory, there's various issues of how democracy is actually implemented).
- mythrwy 9y ago
  A valid point. Agents of government also indeed have motive. I probably am a cynic (or a realist as I prefer to consider) but it's less the ulterior motive of churches and charities and more the lack of dependability and ability to scale. I see it to be a function of government to care for the disabled or less fortunate if for no other reason than to avoid the associated social problems. Others might not agree. Government traditionally doesn't do the most efficient job at things, and this one they are doing particularly poorly at, but to be fair it is a hard problem with lots of factors.
  - spangry 9y ago
    I've started to think we might have the causality reversed here: government is inefficient not because it's 'the government', it's inefficient because the problems it concerns itself with don't have efficient market-based solutions (e.g. poverty alleviation, national defence etc.). If you think about government delivered services as simply a provider operating in a market for that service, you'll find a startling large proportion of them are natural monopoly markets, or markets that produce public goods (non-rivalrous and non-excludable e.g. national defence). Would a private monopolist be more efficient in these situations, simply because they are not 'the government'?
    - Jtsummers 9y ago
      The faith in The Market that some people seem to have has always struck me as odd. It's a way of viewing the world where worth and value are measured primarily by profit. It's also a stochastic model (even if it were perfectly efficient) and will lead to local optima, which may be grossly suboptimal for some or even most people. Since this view requires looking at profit for deciding whether something should exist or be done, you end up with things like the county north of me: no more hospital. It's not profitable there, they're down to an urgent care clinic and local doctors, mostly GPs. But for anything major, it requires transportation to a facility that's 45+ minutes away on a good day. So for emergency situations you're possibly totally fucked and will have more serious consequences due to the delays (fatalities, amputations due to delays, etc.). For less immediate problems you still have many increases in local economic problems as the infirmed have to travel much further for specialized care. I needed PT, fine, it's 10 minutes from my office. In that county, it's the next county over. You need most of a day off for a 1 hour PT session now. Or you skip the PT session and are less effective and more prone to injury and illness as a result. "The government", as derided as it may be by some people, largely provides those services which are not profitable generally (defense, police) or not profitable locally (hospitals) or not profitable immediately (education). Those are all financial sinks, but necessary for the overall good of the nation. So the government provides them either directly (public schools) or indirectly (healthcare through subsidies and giving financial incentives to doctors to go to rural areas). When those services do become profitable, it's generally by abuse of authority or position. The defense industry by milking the taxpayers for all we're worth. Healthcare by hiding the true costs of things and making it hard to discover. Education with for-profit universities (again, by milking the taxpayers, this one by tricking people into getting federal loans for an expensive sub-par degree).
boot_error 9y ago
Just a FYI: If you live in the US the reason you see "Fireman in uniform on the side of the road collecting money for something" is because 70% of America is protected by volunteer firefighters. They are out there likely collecting money for some essential piece of equipment like a new fire truck or protective gear for their members.

jerf 9y ago

"The organizations for helping the helpless should be charities, churches, and since we can't depend on these (and many have ulterior motives), indeed mostly government itself." Your cynicism is nearly, but not quite, complete. Government has ulterior motives too. Most simply of the "buying votes" form; anyone dependent on the government isn't going to vote for less of it. But there are more subtle forms of it too. There is almost nobody who is altruistic, but can pass a "no other motives except pure altruism" test. If you think you can name someone, I'm sure someone else will be sure to pop up and explain their ignoble motives.

andrewmu 9y ago
I won't say governments are perfect, but at least buying votes values each individual equally (in theory, there's various issues of how democracy is actually implemented).
mythrwy 9y ago
A valid point. Agents of government also indeed have motive. I probably am a cynic (or a realist as I prefer to consider) but it's less the ulterior motive of churches and charities and more the lack of dependability and ability to scale. I see it to be a function of government to care for the disabled or less fortunate if for no other reason than to avoid the associated social problems. Others might not agree. Government traditionally doesn't do the most efficient job at things, and this one they are doing particularly poorly at, but to be fair it is a hard problem with lots of factors.
- spangry 9y ago
  I've started to think we might have the causality reversed here: government is inefficient not because it's 'the government', it's inefficient because the problems it concerns itself with don't have efficient market-based solutions (e.g. poverty alleviation, national defence etc.). If you think about government delivered services as simply a provider operating in a market for that service, you'll find a startling large proportion of them are natural monopoly markets, or markets that produce public goods (non-rivalrous and non-excludable e.g. national defence). Would a private monopolist be more efficient in these situations, simply because they are not 'the government'?
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    The faith in The Market that some people seem to have has always struck me as odd. It's a way of viewing the world where worth and value are measured primarily by profit. It's also a stochastic model (even if it were perfectly efficient) and will lead to local optima, which may be grossly suboptimal for some or even most people. Since this view requires looking at profit for deciding whether something should exist or be done, you end up with things like the county north of me: no more hospital. It's not profitable there, they're down to an urgent care clinic and local doctors, mostly GPs. But for anything major, it requires transportation to a facility that's 45+ minutes away on a good day. So for emergency situations you're possibly totally fucked and will have more serious consequences due to the delays (fatalities, amputations due to delays, etc.). For less immediate problems you still have many increases in local economic problems as the infirmed have to travel much further for specialized care. I needed PT, fine, it's 10 minutes from my office. In that county, it's the next county over. You need most of a day off for a 1 hour PT session now. Or you skip the PT session and are less effective and more prone to injury and illness as a result. "The government", as derided as it may be by some people, largely provides those services which are not profitable generally (defense, police) or not profitable locally (hospitals) or not profitable immediately (education). Those are all financial sinks, but necessary for the overall good of the nation. So the government provides them either directly (public schools) or indirectly (healthcare through subsidies and giving financial incentives to doctors to go to rural areas). When those services do become profitable, it's generally by abuse of authority or position. The defense industry by milking the taxpayers for all we're worth. Healthcare by hiding the true costs of things and making it hard to discover. Education with for-profit universities (again, by milking the taxpayers, this one by tricking people into getting federal loans for an expensive sub-par degree).

boot_error 9y ago

Just a FYI: If you live in the US the reason you see "Fireman in uniform on the side of the road collecting money for something" is because 70% of America is protected by volunteer firefighters. They are out there likely collecting money for some essential piece of equipment like a new fire truck or protective gear for their members.