4 ms·

Ah, but the crucial difference here is a private organization can no longer exist once it has exhausted its purposes. A privately-funded bureaucracy which simpl

Ah, but the crucial difference here is a private organization can no longer exist once it has exhausted its purposes. A privately-funded bureaucracy which simply self-propagates while producing no value goes bankrupt automatically, regardless of what they can spin.

jeltz 15y ago
Not really. There are plenty of private organisations that produce no value while consuming funds. There are no major differences between large corporations and the the government in this aspect.
- gwright 15y ago
  Really? Where are they getting these funds if they aren't providing some service or 'value' in exchange? Maybe you are right but you seem to have stopped mid-argument. Examples might help illustrate your point.
  - maxxxxx 15y ago
    The financial sector or defense? They operate within a framework where they are pretty much guaranteed profits.
    - gwright 15y ago
      That isn't a serious response. 1) Both industries are intimately tied to the government in a variety of ways and so aren't particular good examples of 'private organizations'. 2) The notion that these entire sectors have no value is preposterous. Debating this sort of thing in the aggregate ('banking sector', 'defense sector') just doesn't make sense. Lots of banks fail and go out of business even outside the fiscal mess of the last few years. Same with defense contractors. Still waiting for an example of a private firm that provides no value and consumes funds indefinitely.
      - knieveltech 15y ago
        Yahoo?
      - lurker19 15y ago
        "Value" is a slippery term, but... Palotta, Komen, Grassroots, and other professional charity/political fundraisers that sell hope and lies to donors and spend the proceeds on administration.
        gwright 15y ago
        I have no knowledge of these organizations, but I was assuming we were not discussing fraudulent endeavors. I guess my larger point is that 'value' is in the eye of the beholder. Someone is giving money to the organizations you listed and must have determined that there was value in that from their perspective. This goes to the heart of the idea of liberty and freedom of action. Individuals are going to value different things in different amounts and should have the freedom to act upon their own judgement. Someone else may not come to the same conclusion but everyone's circumstances are different and so there isn't going to be any universal agreement on 'value', nor need there be. To go back to the original point, a private organization can not force individuals to fund their endeavors, while the government can (raise taxes, establish regulations and fees with fines or imprisonment for violation, etc). Because the government has the unique authority to force compliance we should be extremely circumspect about attempts to expand its scope and power to avoid creating a self-sustaining bureaucracy. For example, the notion that government agencies can't be reduced or eliminated because that would eliminate 'jobs' is a terrible reason to avoid the reduction or elimination. It is an acknowledgment that the government agency doesn't exist for any public purpose other than to cut paychecks. By that rationale we should simply tell the workers to stay at home and at least eliminate the props that support the charade (buildings, electric bills, maintenance expenses, and so on).
Lagged2Death 15y ago
A privately-funded bureaucracy which simply self-propagates while producing no value goes bankrupt automatically... It's a beautiful theory. The most obvious counter-example would be patent/copyright/trademark trolls. Another might be financial services companies who sell worthless derivatives as AA grade. Or the analysts who provide those grades. Or the brokers who make the worthless loans the derivatives are based on.
- sans-serif 15y ago
  That the US's implementation of this law is heavily lopsided in favor of the patent trolls doesn't change the fact that patents incentivize innovation. (Whether they're effective or not is another debate.) And does it need pointing out that without the government's intervention, banks that give out irresponsible loans would simply go out of business?
  - Lagged2Death 15y ago
    That the US's implementation of this law is heavily lopsided in favor of the patent trolls doesn't change the fact that patents incentivize innovation. (Whether they're effective or not is another debate.) Whether they're effective or not is another debate? The truth or falsity of your preceding "fact" is unimportant? IP trolling is the patenting of obvious stuff (or buying out the rights to dumb patents) for the purpose of harassing other parties with legal threats. Whether IP law really does encourage innovation in general or not, that activity clearly does not encourage innovation, and it doesn't "produce value." It's called rent-seeking for a reason. They don't want to get paid for producing value, they want to own things. It's a return to the principles of feudalism. And does it need pointing out that without the government's intervention, banks that give out irresponsible loans would simply go out of business? Focusing on the banks alone is missing the forest for the trees. The whole mess involved a stack of businesses from mortgage brokers to banks to investment firms to financial services firms. And there was fraud, dereliction of duty, and malfeasance at every level. Most of those businesses haven't had any "government interference," and are doing well enough, considering how badly home sales have stalled. Some have absolutely made out like bandits.
  - 15y ago

jeltz 15y ago

Not really. There are plenty of private organisations that produce no value while consuming funds. There are no major differences between large corporations and the the government in this aspect.

gwright 15y ago
Really? Where are they getting these funds if they aren't providing some service or 'value' in exchange? Maybe you are right but you seem to have stopped mid-argument. Examples might help illustrate your point.
- maxxxxx 15y ago
  The financial sector or defense? They operate within a framework where they are pretty much guaranteed profits.
  - gwright 15y ago
    That isn't a serious response. 1) Both industries are intimately tied to the government in a variety of ways and so aren't particular good examples of 'private organizations'. 2) The notion that these entire sectors have no value is preposterous. Debating this sort of thing in the aggregate ('banking sector', 'defense sector') just doesn't make sense. Lots of banks fail and go out of business even outside the fiscal mess of the last few years. Same with defense contractors. Still waiting for an example of a private firm that provides no value and consumes funds indefinitely.
    - knieveltech 15y ago
      Yahoo?
    - lurker19 15y ago
      "Value" is a slippery term, but... Palotta, Komen, Grassroots, and other professional charity/political fundraisers that sell hope and lies to donors and spend the proceeds on administration.
      - gwright 15y ago
        I have no knowledge of these organizations, but I was assuming we were not discussing fraudulent endeavors. I guess my larger point is that 'value' is in the eye of the beholder. Someone is giving money to the organizations you listed and must have determined that there was value in that from their perspective. This goes to the heart of the idea of liberty and freedom of action. Individuals are going to value different things in different amounts and should have the freedom to act upon their own judgement. Someone else may not come to the same conclusion but everyone's circumstances are different and so there isn't going to be any universal agreement on 'value', nor need there be. To go back to the original point, a private organization can not force individuals to fund their endeavors, while the government can (raise taxes, establish regulations and fees with fines or imprisonment for violation, etc). Because the government has the unique authority to force compliance we should be extremely circumspect about attempts to expand its scope and power to avoid creating a self-sustaining bureaucracy. For example, the notion that government agencies can't be reduced or eliminated because that would eliminate 'jobs' is a terrible reason to avoid the reduction or elimination. It is an acknowledgment that the government agency doesn't exist for any public purpose other than to cut paychecks. By that rationale we should simply tell the workers to stay at home and at least eliminate the props that support the charade (buildings, electric bills, maintenance expenses, and so on).

Lagged2Death 15y ago

A privately-funded bureaucracy which simply self-propagates while producing no value goes bankrupt automatically... It's a beautiful theory. The most obvious counter-example would be patent/copyright/trademark trolls. Another might be financial services companies who sell worthless derivatives as AA grade. Or the analysts who provide those grades. Or the brokers who make the worthless loans the derivatives are based on.

sans-serif 15y ago
That the US's implementation of this law is heavily lopsided in favor of the patent trolls doesn't change the fact that patents incentivize innovation. (Whether they're effective or not is another debate.) And does it need pointing out that without the government's intervention, banks that give out irresponsible loans would simply go out of business?
- Lagged2Death 15y ago
  That the US's implementation of this law is heavily lopsided in favor of the patent trolls doesn't change the fact that patents incentivize innovation. (Whether they're effective or not is another debate.) Whether they're effective or not is another debate? The truth or falsity of your preceding "fact" is unimportant? IP trolling is the patenting of obvious stuff (or buying out the rights to dumb patents) for the purpose of harassing other parties with legal threats. Whether IP law really does encourage innovation in general or not, that activity clearly does not encourage innovation, and it doesn't "produce value." It's called rent-seeking for a reason. They don't want to get paid for producing value, they want to own things. It's a return to the principles of feudalism. And does it need pointing out that without the government's intervention, banks that give out irresponsible loans would simply go out of business? Focusing on the banks alone is missing the forest for the trees. The whole mess involved a stack of businesses from mortgage brokers to banks to investment firms to financial services firms. And there was fraud, dereliction of duty, and malfeasance at every level. Most of those businesses haven't had any "government interference," and are doing well enough, considering how badly home sales have stalled. Some have absolutely made out like bandits.
- 15y ago