5 ms·

Because most of the government is a waste of money and exists merely to perpetuate itself. The fact that it just shuts down sometimes is a great indicator of ju

Because most of the government is a waste of money and exists merely to perpetuate itself. The fact that it just shuts down sometimes is a great indicator of just that. It’s an entity that is accountable to nobody because no matter how well or poorly it performs it just collects revenue anyway. You can’t #deletegovt. The sooner people move away from viewing it as a good employer, the better. There’s no smooth or elegant way to make this happen, unfortunately.

rplst8 8y ago
Yeah I work as a contractor in the DC metro area and it seems mostly business as usual for the large majority. Folks aren't getting paid, but they'll likely get back pay once it's resolved. Traffic on the highways and metro seemed pretty normal to me. It's 99% political posturing to see who blinks first. It's definitely not healthy though.
maratd 8y ago
Instead of downvoting the parent, make an actual argument instead. You'll find it difficult. If the current shutdown proves anything, it's that many functions of the federal government are un-essential to daily life. Those un-essential parts should be eliminated.
- sparkie 8y ago
  Even the 'essential parts' would be better if the government had competition. If one provider of the essential services shut down, they'd go out of business and another would take their place. People would pay the provider offering the best service for the best price - and the prices would generally be lower because competition drives out inefficiencies.
  - metildaa 8y ago
    So we all end up paying many multiples for incomplete, expensive private services to replace the National Weather Service and the like? Eastern Oregon has gone the route at one point for fire fighting, and recently went and closed libraries, leaving it to local towns to rebuild said service. Private offerings for services that are a public good tend to either be expensive and poor quality (unreliable, limited service) for these things that were formerly community funded, leaving me with little faith that privitization would do anything besides add cost.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      If there are multiple services which provide national weather, the ones which offer the best service at the best price will succeed - if they can stay in business. The point is that they must be profitable, or at the very least break even. If people knew the precise cost of the weather service, they could make their own choice about whether or not it is worth funding. Government is like a conglomerate and each area of interest is like a subsidiary. The problem is, every single one of their subsidiaries is constantly in the red, year on year. They're completely bankrupt! The only way they survive is by lending more money and collecting more taxes, instead of operating like for-profit businesses which create wealth, rather than take it away. You can still have community funded enterprises, but they need to be affordable, in the sense that there is not an infinite pot of money they can keep pulling from if they overspend. A fire-service, for example, could charge residents of an area a small monthly fee for operating in that area - and those not willing to pay the fee would simply be deprioritized in the event of any fire on their property. Business owners could pay a premium to have a higher priority. Ideally the fire service will operate in profit, and such profits can be used to improve the service or even partially reimburse the creditors if they've 'overpaid' for the service. This kind of system obviously can't operate together with the public service if taxes are forcibly collected for the latter. People aren't going to pay for something they've already paid for. To put these systems in place, the existing public services need to be privatized (joint-stock where the users of the service can be part owners), and their tax needs to be reduced by at least the amount they were previously paying which contributed to the former loss-making enterprise. The overall point is that this system can be self-correcting on a per-service basis. You don't need to wait 4 years to pick between two companies to perform all the services if they're doing badly. If a service is doing badly, and there is a demand for something better, somebody will fill that gap. The mere presence of a big monolithic government is a hinderance to innovation in any service that it provides. The only way the services get improved are from the inside - there is no outside pressure to innovate - much less so if it means that the people inside might be risking their own jobs by making the service more efficient.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  For most people this argument doesn't follow because they don't see elimination of government as a terminal goal. We believe the government does a lot of useful but un-essential functions, like operate federal parks. The other thing is the vast majority of the government's budget is Medicare, DoD, and social security which are all still operating to my knowledge.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    The two arguments do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. You can have governance without monopoly. This would be the ideal scenario. Governments operate federal parks, but there are also private parks which are just as well kept, sometimes even better - and they do it at much lower costs. See for example, this small public bathroom which cost $2M to build: https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1077921975123804162 https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1077921975123804162 Such enormous waste of resources is so common in many areas of government, and if they operated like any regular business they would be bankrupt overnight. Of course it did not take $2M to build that little shack - there is a huge amount of corruption and everyone involved is taking their slice of the taxpayer's money.
    - JamesBarney 8y ago
      I think it really did take 2 million dollars. The video explains why. We have decided to make a lot of trade offs when doing government infrastructure work that makes it really expensive. But this isn't government in general, it's American government specifically that is really inefficient at building things. In Texas I've been to over ten government run parks (like ones you'd go camping in), and I've never even heard of a private one.
      - sparkie 8y ago
        If given the option for a $2M toilet where "the locals are engaged", and takes 4 years to build, or a $300k toilet which is built in 6 months, which do you think most people would opt for? The real problem is government is too damn big that it becomes impossible to separate out such concerns from every other aspect of government, and each time government expands, it adds more inefficiencies. A park should be a self-contained enterprise so that it doesn't need outside government spending. If you take for example, Shinjuku Gyoen in Tokyo, you need to pay 100 yen to enter the park. The park gets millions of visitors a year, and the money it takes can easily pay for the upkeep of the park. It could be completely private, but in this particular case it is inherited from the imperial estate and is run by the government. The fee has the additional advantage that it keeps out vandals and thugs - only people who want to enjoy the park will pay for it. Highways in Japan are mostly toll roads too. They're operated as companies with the intent on making profit. Some are privately owned, although most are government owned. The "who will build the roads?" complaint is one of the most common attempts to retort the argument for small government.
sparkie 8y ago
Government has no requirement to be efficient, because it has no local competition. Can you imagine if the board members in a business were in a disagreement and they decided "oh, lets just shut this down until we can come to an agreement?" Their customers would be pretty disappointed, and they'd look for an alternative supplier of goods or services. People would jump at the chance to fill such a gap in the market if there's an opportunity to make money. When they decide to reopen, they'd find that they don't have a business any longer. (Or it will be much smaller if they can salvage some loyal customers) A business also wants to be as resourceful as possible with the money it has. It won't hire people for "bullshit jobs" (as Graeber calls them), when it could either not have the role or could replace it with a robot. Governments on the other hand, will hire people just to spend the money it has, or to justify increasing the amount it needs to collect. As you rightly note, people aren't outraged because they see that despite the government being shut down, that the country is still running OK for most part. Then clearly not all of those federal employee roles are necessary. Perhaps if they were cut back to the bare minimum, taxpayers could be saving a lot of money? People are more outraged at the idea that they're paying for government employees to have bullshit jobs, and thinking we should have shutdowns more often.
linkmotif 8y ago
I should have said “much of government.”

rplst8 8y ago

Yeah I work as a contractor in the DC metro area and it seems mostly business as usual for the large majority. Folks aren't getting paid, but they'll likely get back pay once it's resolved. Traffic on the highways and metro seemed pretty normal to me. It's 99% political posturing to see who blinks first. It's definitely not healthy though.

maratd 8y ago

Instead of downvoting the parent, make an actual argument instead. You'll find it difficult. If the current shutdown proves anything, it's that many functions of the federal government are un-essential to daily life. Those un-essential parts should be eliminated.

sparkie 8y ago
Even the 'essential parts' would be better if the government had competition. If one provider of the essential services shut down, they'd go out of business and another would take their place. People would pay the provider offering the best service for the best price - and the prices would generally be lower because competition drives out inefficiencies.
- metildaa 8y ago
  So we all end up paying many multiples for incomplete, expensive private services to replace the National Weather Service and the like? Eastern Oregon has gone the route at one point for fire fighting, and recently went and closed libraries, leaving it to local towns to rebuild said service. Private offerings for services that are a public good tend to either be expensive and poor quality (unreliable, limited service) for these things that were formerly community funded, leaving me with little faith that privitization would do anything besides add cost.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    If there are multiple services which provide national weather, the ones which offer the best service at the best price will succeed - if they can stay in business. The point is that they must be profitable, or at the very least break even. If people knew the precise cost of the weather service, they could make their own choice about whether or not it is worth funding. Government is like a conglomerate and each area of interest is like a subsidiary. The problem is, every single one of their subsidiaries is constantly in the red, year on year. They're completely bankrupt! The only way they survive is by lending more money and collecting more taxes, instead of operating like for-profit businesses which create wealth, rather than take it away. You can still have community funded enterprises, but they need to be affordable, in the sense that there is not an infinite pot of money they can keep pulling from if they overspend. A fire-service, for example, could charge residents of an area a small monthly fee for operating in that area - and those not willing to pay the fee would simply be deprioritized in the event of any fire on their property. Business owners could pay a premium to have a higher priority. Ideally the fire service will operate in profit, and such profits can be used to improve the service or even partially reimburse the creditors if they've 'overpaid' for the service. This kind of system obviously can't operate together with the public service if taxes are forcibly collected for the latter. People aren't going to pay for something they've already paid for. To put these systems in place, the existing public services need to be privatized (joint-stock where the users of the service can be part owners), and their tax needs to be reduced by at least the amount they were previously paying which contributed to the former loss-making enterprise. The overall point is that this system can be self-correcting on a per-service basis. You don't need to wait 4 years to pick between two companies to perform all the services if they're doing badly. If a service is doing badly, and there is a demand for something better, somebody will fill that gap. The mere presence of a big monolithic government is a hinderance to innovation in any service that it provides. The only way the services get improved are from the inside - there is no outside pressure to innovate - much less so if it means that the people inside might be risking their own jobs by making the service more efficient.
JamesBarney 8y ago
For most people this argument doesn't follow because they don't see elimination of government as a terminal goal. We believe the government does a lot of useful but un-essential functions, like operate federal parks. The other thing is the vast majority of the government's budget is Medicare, DoD, and social security which are all still operating to my knowledge.
- sparkie 8y ago
  The two arguments do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. You can have governance without monopoly. This would be the ideal scenario. Governments operate federal parks, but there are also private parks which are just as well kept, sometimes even better - and they do it at much lower costs. See for example, this small public bathroom which cost $2M to build: https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1077921975123804162 https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1077921975123804162 Such enormous waste of resources is so common in many areas of government, and if they operated like any regular business they would be bankrupt overnight. Of course it did not take $2M to build that little shack - there is a huge amount of corruption and everyone involved is taking their slice of the taxpayer's money.
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    I think it really did take 2 million dollars. The video explains why. We have decided to make a lot of trade offs when doing government infrastructure work that makes it really expensive. But this isn't government in general, it's American government specifically that is really inefficient at building things. In Texas I've been to over ten government run parks (like ones you'd go camping in), and I've never even heard of a private one.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      If given the option for a $2M toilet where "the locals are engaged", and takes 4 years to build, or a $300k toilet which is built in 6 months, which do you think most people would opt for? The real problem is government is too damn big that it becomes impossible to separate out such concerns from every other aspect of government, and each time government expands, it adds more inefficiencies. A park should be a self-contained enterprise so that it doesn't need outside government spending. If you take for example, Shinjuku Gyoen in Tokyo, you need to pay 100 yen to enter the park. The park gets millions of visitors a year, and the money it takes can easily pay for the upkeep of the park. It could be completely private, but in this particular case it is inherited from the imperial estate and is run by the government. The fee has the additional advantage that it keeps out vandals and thugs - only people who want to enjoy the park will pay for it. Highways in Japan are mostly toll roads too. They're operated as companies with the intent on making profit. Some are privately owned, although most are government owned. The "who will build the roads?" complaint is one of the most common attempts to retort the argument for small government.

sparkie 8y ago

Government has no requirement to be efficient, because it has no local competition. Can you imagine if the board members in a business were in a disagreement and they decided "oh, lets just shut this down until we can come to an agreement?" Their customers would be pretty disappointed, and they'd look for an alternative supplier of goods or services. People would jump at the chance to fill such a gap in the market if there's an opportunity to make money. When they decide to reopen, they'd find that they don't have a business any longer. (Or it will be much smaller if they can salvage some loyal customers) A business also wants to be as resourceful as possible with the money it has. It won't hire people for "bullshit jobs" (as Graeber calls them), when it could either not have the role or could replace it with a robot. Governments on the other hand, will hire people just to spend the money it has, or to justify increasing the amount it needs to collect. As you rightly note, people aren't outraged because they see that despite the government being shut down, that the country is still running OK for most part. Then clearly not all of those federal employee roles are necessary. Perhaps if they were cut back to the bare minimum, taxpayers could be saving a lot of money? People are more outraged at the idea that they're paying for government employees to have bullshit jobs, and thinking we should have shutdowns more often.

linkmotif 8y ago

I should have said “much of government.”