3 ms·

Why is it when people pick examples of government they always use the most egregious examples and completely ignore all of the other government services which a

Why is it when people pick examples of government they always use the most egregious examples and completely ignore all of the other government services which are run as well or better than private enterprises? It's like saying democratic socialism is bad because Venezuela. It's not a compelling argument for anyone with more than a passing understanding of the situation.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Because it's the largest example of a national program similar to the one you're proposing. The government services that work are local things like firefighters and most municipal water utilities (which, if you want to see what happens there when you try to do it in a less local way, see Flint). It can work at the local level because the local government is much more accountable to the local people, because the people getting screwed over by specific bad decisions are a larger percentage of the voters there. A national power utility could do things like declare that all new power will be generated from solar because it's popular in and works for enough swing states and big states like Florida and California that people getting screwed in Minnesota or Alaska can't do anything about it. And then a different flavor of nonsense when the other party gets in and it's Pennsylvania and Texas wanting them to stop phasing out coal or stop building electric car charging infrastructure. This is also one of the reasons why the healthcare systems in Europe are more efficient than the US -- their programs are not operated at the level of the EU and none of their member states are anywhere near as large as the entire US. And even their efficiency can be best classified as only tolerable rather than the hot garbage created by federal rules in the US. But a power grid doesn't really work at a local level because it's an interstate grid, so it inherently implies a scale of bureaucracy that has historically led to high levels of government inefficiency.
- tstrimple 7y ago
  The Department of Defense isn't a program. Nationalizing energy production would be closer to the US Postal Service than the Department of Defense. The scope between managing our power needs and national defense needs are so wide I am having a hard time believing you made this comment in good faith. Inane claimes like a national policy would force Minnesota to have solar panels are nonsensical. You're basically just repeating Government Bad tropes.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Because it's the largest example of a national program similar to the one you're proposing. The government services that work are local things like firefighters and most municipal water utilities (which, if you want to see what happens there when you try to do it in a less local way, see Flint). It can work at the local level because the local government is much more accountable to the local people, because the people getting screwed over by specific bad decisions are a larger percentage of the voters there. A national power utility could do things like declare that all new power will be generated from solar because it's popular in and works for enough swing states and big states like Florida and California that people getting screwed in Minnesota or Alaska can't do anything about it. And then a different flavor of nonsense when the other party gets in and it's Pennsylvania and Texas wanting them to stop phasing out coal or stop building electric car charging infrastructure. This is also one of the reasons why the healthcare systems in Europe are more efficient than the US -- their programs are not operated at the level of the EU and none of their member states are anywhere near as large as the entire US. And even their efficiency can be best classified as only tolerable rather than the hot garbage created by federal rules in the US. But a power grid doesn't really work at a local level because it's an interstate grid, so it inherently implies a scale of bureaucracy that has historically led to high levels of government inefficiency.

tstrimple 7y ago
The Department of Defense isn't a program. Nationalizing energy production would be closer to the US Postal Service than the Department of Defense. The scope between managing our power needs and national defense needs are so wide I am having a hard time believing you made this comment in good faith. Inane claimes like a national policy would force Minnesota to have solar panels are nonsensical. You're basically just repeating Government Bad tropes.