5 ms·

I don’t understand though, why upon learning the government does something poorly the first reaction would be to replace it with private contractors rather than

by ido 4y ago

I don’t understand though, why upon learning the government does something poorly the first reaction would be to replace it with private contractors rather than demand your government does better? Some things are public services and shouldn’t be profit motivated.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
The problem is that such demands for a government that does better often go absolutely nowhere. As a result voters feel like it is easier to replace contractors than it is to replace politicians. Given the very high rate of incumbency, this isn’t entirely unfounded.
- ido 4y ago
  And what would you do to force SF to replace the private contractor they use for their airport if you end up not liking it? Your avenue is exactly the same as protesting against a public service.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    If SF's contractor got caught killing a dude over bootleg smokes or kneeling on a guy until he died you can bet your ass they'd either be out or they'd be doing everything in their power to make people happy with them going forward. Try that with a state sponsored security force.
    - ido 4y ago
      But the article we're talking about isn't about homicide, but about much more pedestrian lack of efficiency and corruption (the price of airport food in NYC).
noirbot 4y ago
Because it's generally been borderline impossible to force a large national government to do something better. It's legitimately easier a lot of the time to force a multinational corporation to change than the government. Since the TSA is generally a federally controlled agency, you'd have to elect a majority of the House/Senate/Executive to change policy there to make it better, and literally no one will run for those offices with even a minor part of their platform being improving the TSA. Even if they had a position you liked about airport security, would you be willing to look past a difference on something like gun laws or school funding or environmental issues to vote for someone who was going to make the TSA more effective? If your answer is no, that's why people have no real hope that the government would improve the TSA.
- necovek 4y ago
  Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not politicized (in general). Which is a good thing. So any government should work on improving the process if enough people are complaining and there are objective improvements to be made. We don't have to think about which party to vote for to ensure eg. the government cares about improving lives of their citizens: they should all do that!
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    > Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not politicized (in general). Which is a good thing. Do you consider "fundamental to the system" better? I don't.
patrick451 4y ago
The government should do as little as possible. That they do a thing poorly is but one reason among many for them to lose the privilege of doing that thing.
efitz 4y ago
No government employee will get fired for enforcing the status quo or coming up with a new regulation that seems to improve safety. However there is huge career risk to reducing regulation, easing up on "safety" rules, etc. And anyone who does that will be attacked and if possible punished if anything goes wrong. Literally there is no incentive for bureaucracies to do better.

by ido 4y ago

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago

The problem is that such demands for a government that does better often go absolutely nowhere. As a result voters feel like it is easier to replace contractors than it is to replace politicians. Given the very high rate of incumbency, this isn’t entirely unfounded.

ido 4y ago
And what would you do to force SF to replace the private contractor they use for their airport if you end up not liking it? Your avenue is exactly the same as protesting against a public service.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  If SF's contractor got caught killing a dude over bootleg smokes or kneeling on a guy until he died you can bet your ass they'd either be out or they'd be doing everything in their power to make people happy with them going forward. Try that with a state sponsored security force.
  - ido 4y ago
    But the article we're talking about isn't about homicide, but about much more pedestrian lack of efficiency and corruption (the price of airport food in NYC).

noirbot 4y ago

Because it's generally been borderline impossible to force a large national government to do something better. It's legitimately easier a lot of the time to force a multinational corporation to change than the government. Since the TSA is generally a federally controlled agency, you'd have to elect a majority of the House/Senate/Executive to change policy there to make it better, and literally no one will run for those offices with even a minor part of their platform being improving the TSA. Even if they had a position you liked about airport security, would you be willing to look past a difference on something like gun laws or school funding or environmental issues to vote for someone who was going to make the TSA more effective? If your answer is no, that's why people have no real hope that the government would improve the TSA.

necovek 4y ago
Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not politicized (in general). Which is a good thing. So any government should work on improving the process if enough people are complaining and there are objective improvements to be made. We don't have to think about which party to vote for to ensure eg. the government cares about improving lives of their citizens: they should all do that!
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  > Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not politicized (in general). Which is a good thing. Do you consider "fundamental to the system" better? I don't.

patrick451 4y ago

The government should do as little as possible. That they do a thing poorly is but one reason among many for them to lose the privilege of doing that thing.

efitz 4y ago

No government employee will get fired for enforcing the status quo or coming up with a new regulation that seems to improve safety. However there is huge career risk to reducing regulation, easing up on "safety" rules, etc. And anyone who does that will be attacked and if possible punished if anything goes wrong. Literally there is no incentive for bureaucracies to do better.