3 ms·

So is it worth having any of these things at all, or are they inevitably a net negative in the long run anyway?

tommica 6y ago
I think it is worth having them - not sure that going for-profit on those is a healthy thing
LatteLazy 6y ago
Why not just change the system. The US is about the only place on earth with this weird system forcing every town and county and city and state to compete. It doesn't seem to work. No one seems to have designed it, it just turned out like this.
- tootahe45 6y ago
  I'm getting bombarded with articles about people fleeing high tax states with out of control, ineffective govts. Can you explain which part isn't working? i've been under the assumption that state competition is one of the best parts about the US.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Well... Healthcare, education, social work and infrastructure are all failing in the US for this specific reason. Don't get me wrong, maybe that's how the US likes it? I'm a brit, it's not my business how you run your country. I was just saying, when you said these things should be done voluntary by local groups, that doesnt work because it's designed not to because that's how the US is. It's great for lower taxes and as long as that is the o ly thing that you care about, you're golden!
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  No, that was deliberate. Governments aren't omniscient. If a government is bad, stupid, or just mistaken in what the right policy is, it's better if that doesn't affect the whole country. And if there's another state right beside it that does better, the first state can see that other policies work better and might get their act together. But if it was the federal government, it would affect everyone, not just one state. Also, there wouldn't be 50 examples for them to pick the best from. (There are other countries, but their circumstances tend to vary more than the circumstances between states, so it's easier for naysayer to argue that the example doesn't really apply.)

I think it is worth having them - not sure that going for-profit on those is a healthy thing

Why not just change the system. The US is about the only place on earth with this weird system forcing every town and county and city and state to compete. It doesn't seem to work. No one seems to have designed it, it just turned out like this.

tootahe45 6y ago
I'm getting bombarded with articles about people fleeing high tax states with out of control, ineffective govts. Can you explain which part isn't working? i've been under the assumption that state competition is one of the best parts about the US.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Well... Healthcare, education, social work and infrastructure are all failing in the US for this specific reason. Don't get me wrong, maybe that's how the US likes it? I'm a brit, it's not my business how you run your country. I was just saying, when you said these things should be done voluntary by local groups, that doesnt work because it's designed not to because that's how the US is. It's great for lower taxes and as long as that is the o ly thing that you care about, you're golden!
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
No, that was deliberate. Governments aren't omniscient. If a government is bad, stupid, or just mistaken in what the right policy is, it's better if that doesn't affect the whole country. And if there's another state right beside it that does better, the first state can see that other policies work better and might get their act together. But if it was the federal government, it would affect everyone, not just one state. Also, there wouldn't be 50 examples for them to pick the best from. (There are other countries, but their circumstances tend to vary more than the circumstances between states, so it's easier for naysayer to argue that the example doesn't really apply.)