4 ms·

Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any give

Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any given thing, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is much more likely to happen when it's done outside large monopolistic organizations like the government. We do need government, but we only need it for things the rest of society isn't going to do independently. Getting the government involved in something the rest of us are perfectly capable of doing ourselves isn't patriotism, it's lighting money on fire.

hahainternet 13y ago
> Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any given thing, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is much more likely to happen when it's done outside large monopolistic organizations like the government. The NHS is one of the most efficient health care systems in the world and costs less than the average US citizen already pays in medical taxation. It was one of the world's largest employers too. The UK government has recently started trying to split this up into smaller private groups. Everything has failed miserably, private companies have stripped the poor of benefits to force them into work with no success. I'm not saying the state is the ONLY way to go, but it's a uniquely American belief that people should help themselves and maybe each other, but not all working together.
- gyardley 13y ago
  I'm not American. I will say that civil society is far, far more varied than the either/or choice of the individual acting alone or the entire nation acting together through the government. Local communities, associations, congregations, and yes, even businesses have important roles to play and can respond far more effectively to local conditions than an administrative state. I can't speak to your experiences with the NHS, since I've got limited experience with England. I hope that it treats you better than my grandparents have been treated by the analogous system in Canada.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > Local communities, associations, congregations, and yes, even businesses have important roles to play and can respond far more effectively to local conditions than an administrative state. Potentially yes, nobody (at least, not me) is denying this, but when you're looking at how to do the greatest good for the greatest number, paying taxes goes a long way towards that. It builds roads, it cleans water, it provides healthcare, it protects the helpless. These are real things the government does everyday, and while private charities do help, they are a stopgap.
    - gyardley 13y ago
      This is why I wrote "we do need government, but we only need it for things the rest of society isn't going to do independently." I think we largely agree on the role of government and we only end up disagreeing on whether any one particular policy, enacted by the government, would really end up doing the 'greatest good for the greatest number' when weighed against the efficacy of the private sector / costs of the taxation to the taxpayers. Since I believe in many cases the government, while well-meaning, does more harm than good, I really don't see how expanding the government through additional taxes can be considered patriotic. If you think the government only rarely does more harm than good, I can see how you'd have the opposite opinion.
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        This is an easy question to answer. Here is the UK Budget: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/interactive/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-how-taxes-spent-interactive http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/interactive/2013/mar/2... Please highlight the total sum of things you expect to do harm, and the total sum of things you expect to do good. It's my belief that it's a very small proportion.

hahainternet 13y ago

> Large monopolistic organizations are almost always more inefficient due to increased coordination costs and lack of accountability and competition. For any given thing, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is much more likely to happen when it's done outside large monopolistic organizations like the government. The NHS is one of the most efficient health care systems in the world and costs less than the average US citizen already pays in medical taxation. It was one of the world's largest employers too. The UK government has recently started trying to split this up into smaller private groups. Everything has failed miserably, private companies have stripped the poor of benefits to force them into work with no success. I'm not saying the state is the ONLY way to go, but it's a uniquely American belief that people should help themselves and maybe each other, but not all working together.

gyardley 13y ago
I'm not American. I will say that civil society is far, far more varied than the either/or choice of the individual acting alone or the entire nation acting together through the government. Local communities, associations, congregations, and yes, even businesses have important roles to play and can respond far more effectively to local conditions than an administrative state. I can't speak to your experiences with the NHS, since I've got limited experience with England. I hope that it treats you better than my grandparents have been treated by the analogous system in Canada.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > Local communities, associations, congregations, and yes, even businesses have important roles to play and can respond far more effectively to local conditions than an administrative state. Potentially yes, nobody (at least, not me) is denying this, but when you're looking at how to do the greatest good for the greatest number, paying taxes goes a long way towards that. It builds roads, it cleans water, it provides healthcare, it protects the helpless. These are real things the government does everyday, and while private charities do help, they are a stopgap.
  - gyardley 13y ago
    This is why I wrote "we do need government, but we only need it for things the rest of society isn't going to do independently." I think we largely agree on the role of government and we only end up disagreeing on whether any one particular policy, enacted by the government, would really end up doing the 'greatest good for the greatest number' when weighed against the efficacy of the private sector / costs of the taxation to the taxpayers. Since I believe in many cases the government, while well-meaning, does more harm than good, I really don't see how expanding the government through additional taxes can be considered patriotic. If you think the government only rarely does more harm than good, I can see how you'd have the opposite opinion.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      This is an easy question to answer. Here is the UK Budget: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/interactive/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-how-taxes-spent-interactive http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/interactive/2013/mar/2... Please highlight the total sum of things you expect to do harm, and the total sum of things you expect to do good. It's my belief that it's a very small proportion.