3 ms·
At the risk of losing whatever credibility I might have gained by my previous post, an alternative suggestion would be to simply take the power of legislation f
by bmelton 13y ago
At the risk of losing whatever credibility I might have gained by my previous post, an alternative suggestion would be to simply take the power of legislation for non-legislative realms out of the hands of politicians.
Without getting into the merits of how large a government ought to be, it's not really debatable that the government isn't very good at providing services like the ones you described. There are pockets where the government has set up 'businesses' that have done well, the USPS has historically been pretty efficient, the Hoover Dam, Tennessee Valley Authority, etc., but those are the exceptions to the rule, and arguably, the latter two have only worked well because Congress has left them alone, while the former (USPS) has floundered recently because of political decisions with Congress driving.
This isn't necessarily meant to be the stereotypical "Get rid of big government" rallying cry that it might sound like, as I don't generally have a problem with the government setting up businesses that benefit interstate commerce, but the Hoover Dam and TVA have proven that there are ways to do that not involving government's continued interaction. Funds could be set aside for the promotion of general welfare and businesses/policies could be established that would be able to operate as federally owned businesses (in which federally owned is a far more efficient outcome than federally run).
The federal government seems to have forgotten about their past successes, or have forgotten that too often, their over-involvement has led to failures like the USPS, so I'm wary of new government enterprises subject to all the inefficiencies of Congress (Affordable Care Act being a prime example), which doesn't necessarily mean that I'm against the premise of health care for all, but says that letting that be a government-run enterprise is the least efficient way to get there.
Getting to federally owned instead of federally run is another way to get to your stated position, as, so long as we're able to keep political appointees away from the helm of these businesses, they'll be run by competent staff, and be able to fairly compete in the free market as equal competitors to that market, which will help prevent collusive policies, crony capitalism and the like from predatory cost inflation on things like health care.
- robomartin 13y agoI don't have any issues with what you are proposing. In more general terms what we might need is an open national discussion about how to mutate our government into something that will serve us well for the next century or so. This two-hundred year old system could be improved. Not thrown away, improved. It's interesting to watch people in this thread misinterpret "limited government" to mean "no government" and actually focus on numbers. To be sure, we probably have too many people working in government (twenty million according to the us census). Yet "limited government" means "limited reach" much more so than "limited count". In other words, an improvement in quality.
- bmelton 13y agoAgreed especially on the 'no government' mantra. I think people have been, to an extent, conditioned by party lines to think in certain ways as well. Oftentimes, I'll suggest eliminating a program from the federal government's purview and shifting its responsibilities down to the state, especially in cases where 'one-size-fits-all' policies don't make sense or where the dollars could be spent more efficiently within local reach (and especially where spend efficiency matters, which ought to be a bigger focus than it is), and the response is to parrot that 'program x needs to exist'. I know I'm a libertarian, and yeah, that does come with a lot of baggage, but I like to think I'm more pragmatic and comprising than most, but suggesting we get rid of the Department of Education and shift the billions of dollars to the states doesn't mean I hate education, it means that those dollars matter, and one-size-fits-all plans aren't good for America (see: no child left behind). Regarding 'limited reach', again, I completely agree, but I think that the fault lies with the citizenry. The Constitution, if read as a cautionary tale, basically predicted that this would inevitably happen, and it's our fault for not having been vigilant enough to prevent it. Even today, despite all this outrage, I'm guessing by the next election cycle, it will have been forgotten. If anybody loses so much as a seat over this, I'll be very surprised.