3 ms·

What I think you may be missing is the unspoken underlying reality that with smaller government invariably comes more "efficient" government because you have re

What I think you may be missing is the unspoken underlying reality that with smaller government invariably comes more "efficient" government because you have removed the inefficiencies that are inherent to any unbounded system. It is a challenge of human nature to restrain excessive and extremely inefficient behaviors when there are excesses of resources available to be squandered. I have extensive experience in and with the US government at very high levels, as well as European governments. And although it really does not require my perspective, it has become exceedingly apparent to me over the years that the biggest problem of the size of government is that it breaches the bounds of human cognition. What I mean by that is that, to simplify it, people are put in charge of not only spending money that is not theirs and there is no accountability for it, and they are even compelled to get rid of it as fast a possible, but they also have essentially zero ability to, e.g., differentiate between thousands of dollars, millions of dollars, billions of dollars, or trillions of dollars because they are just numbers on paper/screen. Think of it this way, do you think of run-on implications of naming a var 1000 vs 10000000000? No, you don't, it's just adding abstracted and inconsequential numbers in most cases. The impact is extremely minimal. I realize that is a simplification, but when you have seen it happen and have been part of it as often and consistently as I have it becomes a whole different thing to understand. And that does not even touch on the massive incentives to not only not care about frittering away and squandering money, but being incentivized to do so because you are making yourself or friends and a network that will benefit you rich ... again, with other people's money, i.e., theft. It really is little more than if a gang were to break into your house and were able to steal most of your life savings, with impunity and kept doing it. Do you think they would be prudent and thrifty with that money, or blow it on partying, excess, and paying off others? THAT is why people are against "large government", because only small government even has the potential to be "efficient".

nebula8804 5y ago
>What I think you may be missing is the unspoken underlying reality that with smaller government invariably comes more "efficient" government because you have removed the inefficiencies that are inherent to any unbounded system. If that were true then we wouldn't see multiple examples of that model failing so many countries worldwide (half the countries in the third world have 'small governments') or even look at the Red states. They follow this principle to the tee yet the overwhelming majority of them have worse outcomes, worse services, and overall worse governance than the big government states. >It is a challenge of human nature to restrain excessive and extremely inefficient behaviors when there are excesses of resources available to be squandered. I lived in France for a few months and while I definitely saw signs of the bureaucracy, I don't think this in of itself prevents effective governance. At the same time I saw this, I also saw a robust social safety net(in the form of friends losing their jobs and not being worried one bit while they took some time off and calmly got another job) , excellent infrastructure compared to the US(I wish we had the Paris metro), and an excellent health care system. Having to deal with very annoying bureaucracy at the post office, the local arrondissement administration or the embassy (all of which I did) is made up for the fact that the critical things are just run so well. I agree with your principle from a theoretical sense and as a developer I often thought of ways to optimize Paris and other cities in Europe. Europe's greatest charm is the potential of its people. I saw so much 'gold' everywhere in the sense that if the EU really wanted to, they have all the ingredients to become a super power. They have the money, definitely have the talent but lack the the underlying will to make it happen. There were so many opportunities to optimize processes there and make the place lean (Especially Paris where I spent the most amount of time but this applies to Berlin, London, Edinburgh, Amsterdam as well). At the end of the day, they found a way to make things work and avoid the massive gridlock the US has. I'm convinced the reason people in the US are against large government is due to the fact that they haven't effectively seen any other system. Only about a third of citizens have a valid passport so many haven't traveled overseas. ~40% of Americans can't even cover a 400$ emergency. [1]:https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/articles-reports/2021/04/21/only-one-third-americans-have-valid-us-passport https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/articles-reports/2021... [2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...

nebula8804 5y ago

>What I think you may be missing is the unspoken underlying reality that with smaller government invariably comes more "efficient" government because you have removed the inefficiencies that are inherent to any unbounded system. If that were true then we wouldn't see multiple examples of that model failing so many countries worldwide (half the countries in the third world have 'small governments') or even look at the Red states. They follow this principle to the tee yet the overwhelming majority of them have worse outcomes, worse services, and overall worse governance than the big government states. >It is a challenge of human nature to restrain excessive and extremely inefficient behaviors when there are excesses of resources available to be squandered. I lived in France for a few months and while I definitely saw signs of the bureaucracy, I don't think this in of itself prevents effective governance. At the same time I saw this, I also saw a robust social safety net(in the form of friends losing their jobs and not being worried one bit while they took some time off and calmly got another job) , excellent infrastructure compared to the US(I wish we had the Paris metro), and an excellent health care system. Having to deal with very annoying bureaucracy at the post office, the local arrondissement administration or the embassy (all of which I did) is made up for the fact that the critical things are just run so well. I agree with your principle from a theoretical sense and as a developer I often thought of ways to optimize Paris and other cities in Europe. Europe's greatest charm is the potential of its people. I saw so much 'gold' everywhere in the sense that if the EU really wanted to, they have all the ingredients to become a super power. They have the money, definitely have the talent but lack the the underlying will to make it happen. There were so many opportunities to optimize processes there and make the place lean (Especially Paris where I spent the most amount of time but this applies to Berlin, London, Edinburgh, Amsterdam as well). At the end of the day, they found a way to make things work and avoid the massive gridlock the US has. I'm convinced the reason people in the US are against large government is due to the fact that they haven't effectively seen any other system. Only about a third of citizens have a valid passport so many haven't traveled overseas. ~40% of Americans can't even cover a 400$ emergency. [1]:https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/articles-reports/2021/04/21/only-one-third-americans-have-valid-us-passport https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/articles-reports/2021... [2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...