3 ms·

That's where I stand. I want a small government, and I think it's crazy that a government as hulking as ours doesn't provide something as essential as healthcar

That's where I stand. I want a small government, and I think it's crazy that a government as hulking as ours doesn't provide something as essential as healthcare. On the other hand, I'm against social security and think that a general welfare system will do fine to take care of poor people, young or old.

KirinDave 18y ago
It's unfortunate that the desire for an efficient government has been tied into the desire for "small government" and libertarianism. An efficient government is a laudable thing that everyone should want, and so cutting away the fat is a natural thing to do in any sort of political light. I don't know why libertarians at large seem to claim ownership of this notion.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  A part of the reason may be that lots of people make their living off this "fat."
  - walterk 18y ago
    Hence, we need to change up our notion of government as fixed institution to government as agile organization.
    - thomasmallen 18y ago
      And other nations would be licking their chops.
      - walterk 18y ago
        Not sure what you mean by this? I wasn't advocating anarchism. I'm simply saying we need to think of (and implement) government as an agile entity, one that dynamically allocates resources as necessary rather than suffers from "institution creep".
        jazzyb 18y ago
        Then I think what you are looking for is very small government -- as in everyone is at least an acquaintance of their leader(s). When everyone knows everyone else in a system, they are able to provide for one another because they personally know what everyone needs and can react quickly without going through seven layers of bureaucracy. When the government's reach grows so large that they don't know their citizens, then they have to rely on formalized metrics and laws to determine how resources should be allocated, and it is that sort of overhead which causes the inefficiency that you speak of. This effect is similar to companies: When they first start out, they are agile and able to outpace their competitors in the market, but once they get too big, they cease to innovate and have a hard time meeting the demands of changes in the market.
        walterk 18y ago
        Good point, although I think G2C tech can substantially improve communications between citizens and government leaders. This is assuming there's a strong initiative to adopt such tech across the board, and that it's competently designed. There are plenty of good people working in the civic media area, so there's a good talent pool to draw from.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  The revolution of Public Choice economics was to examine the incentives faced by actors in the public sector, instead of viewing public policy as exogenous to the economy as previous models have done. In the past, if economists discovered an inefficiency in the market, they would say "and the government should correct this inefficiency with policy X". Public choice economists don't ask if governments should do X, but rather will they do X. It turns out the incentives facing government actors aren't very good. They have much fewer incentives to act efficiently than market actors. It is possible to have competent officials at the head of a small bureaucracy produce good results. However, I doubt this is possible for the United States, which owns the largest bureaucracy in the world. So, there are real reasons for limiting the scope of government.
cturner 18y ago
Food is pretty essential. Why don't you get the government to provide that too? And water? What about work? People need work - it's a human right! Why stop there? Head on up Maslows. Why shouldn't all people reach the top of Maslow's hierarchy. And if they should - well then surely it's the role of their fellow man to facilitate it through the efficient, modest and even-handed institution of government!
- opticksversi 18y ago
  Food is pretty essential. Why don't you get the government to provide that too? Done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_Sta... The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops, as well as guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[2] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference). . Also, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Stamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Stamp

KirinDave 18y ago

It's unfortunate that the desire for an efficient government has been tied into the desire for "small government" and libertarianism. An efficient government is a laudable thing that everyone should want, and so cutting away the fat is a natural thing to do in any sort of political light. I don't know why libertarians at large seem to claim ownership of this notion.

stcredzero 18y ago
A part of the reason may be that lots of people make their living off this "fat."
- walterk 18y ago
  Hence, we need to change up our notion of government as fixed institution to government as agile organization.
  - thomasmallen 18y ago
    And other nations would be licking their chops.
    - walterk 18y ago
      Not sure what you mean by this? I wasn't advocating anarchism. I'm simply saying we need to think of (and implement) government as an agile entity, one that dynamically allocates resources as necessary rather than suffers from "institution creep".
      - jazzyb 18y ago
        Then I think what you are looking for is very small government -- as in everyone is at least an acquaintance of their leader(s). When everyone knows everyone else in a system, they are able to provide for one another because they personally know what everyone needs and can react quickly without going through seven layers of bureaucracy. When the government's reach grows so large that they don't know their citizens, then they have to rely on formalized metrics and laws to determine how resources should be allocated, and it is that sort of overhead which causes the inefficiency that you speak of. This effect is similar to companies: When they first start out, they are agile and able to outpace their competitors in the market, but once they get too big, they cease to innovate and have a hard time meeting the demands of changes in the market.
        walterk 18y ago
        Good point, although I think G2C tech can substantially improve communications between citizens and government leaders. This is assuming there's a strong initiative to adopt such tech across the board, and that it's competently designed. There are plenty of good people working in the civic media area, so there's a good talent pool to draw from.
Prrometheus 18y ago
The revolution of Public Choice economics was to examine the incentives faced by actors in the public sector, instead of viewing public policy as exogenous to the economy as previous models have done. In the past, if economists discovered an inefficiency in the market, they would say "and the government should correct this inefficiency with policy X". Public choice economists don't ask if governments should do X, but rather will they do X. It turns out the incentives facing government actors aren't very good. They have much fewer incentives to act efficiently than market actors. It is possible to have competent officials at the head of a small bureaucracy produce good results. However, I doubt this is possible for the United States, which owns the largest bureaucracy in the world. So, there are real reasons for limiting the scope of government.

cturner 18y ago

Food is pretty essential. Why don't you get the government to provide that too? And water? What about work? People need work - it's a human right! Why stop there? Head on up Maslows. Why shouldn't all people reach the top of Maslow's hierarchy. And if they should - well then surely it's the role of their fellow man to facilitate it through the efficient, modest and even-handed institution of government!

opticksversi 18y ago
Food is pretty essential. Why don't you get the government to provide that too? Done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_Sta... The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops, as well as guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[2] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference). . Also, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Stamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Stamp