7 ms·

Wouldn't it be nice if the federal government were small enough that it contained no personnel who were "non-essential" ?

progn 13y ago
Actually, no. That wouldn't be nice at all. Large government solves the collective action problem and is necessary to have a modern, functioning civilization. I'll take a welfare state over your Randian hellpit any day.
squidi 13y ago
It's impossible to have only "essential" staff as you will always need "non-essential" staff to support their work. For example, NASA TV employees are "non-essential" [1] but without the TV station it may mean lots of kids are not inspired by NASA any more. Also, Labor statisticians are "non-essential" but would you rather the Department of Labor make decision on gut feelings instead? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/27/us/who-goes-to-work-during-government-shutdown.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/27/us/who-goes-to...
- insertnickname 13y ago
  I'd rather not have a Department of Labor.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
vacri 13y ago
Some of the non-essential staff that are being suspended include those who process passports. Surely the oversight of documentation stating that you are a citizen of a country should be a government function? Privately-controlled citizenship data would be particularly ripe for corruption.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  Well theoretically, your birth or naturalization certificate is proof of citizenship, not a passport. And travel can theoretically be done without any sort of passport too. Historically passports are a very recent thing in the history of travel. Also I'd imagine passport & citizenship documentation is a very small part of the government.
  - phaer 13y ago
    > Historically passports are a very recent thing in the history of travel. Because border control per se is a rather modern thing.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Your birth certificate isn't proof of citizenship. You can have your citizenship revoked, or you can be born to traveling parents in a country that doesn't automatically recognise such births as citizens. I wouldn't really say that passports are a very recent thing in the history of travel, since passports predate mass travel. The expansion of rail in 19th century Europe made enforcing passport requirements much more difficult. But even before passports, people would travel with letters of recommendation or other such papers to indicate who they were. While the document called a 'passport' has only been with us for a couple of centuries, the concept has been around for ages. And while you can theoretically travel without a passport, don't expect an expedient process on arrival. Lack of a passport is not a trivial thing.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
garg 13y ago
NASA is almost completely shutting down. They are all essential. Essential and non-essential are simply legal terms that define who gets a paycheck during such fiascoes. We have huge datacenters that are mostly (there's going to be one guy who runs through checking for any emergencies such as water leaks etc) unmanned now and there is no climate science being done. They are essential but are being furloughed anyway. 'Essential', in many cases, mainly means emergency personnel who keep the facilities safe. Important work has stopped.
PeterisP 13y ago
You can classify tasks on two scales - important vs trivial; and urgent vs postponable. This legal definition is about the second one; valuable tasks that aren't urgent are "non-essential", but a guard at the entrance of some useless warehouse is "essential".

progn 13y ago

Actually, no. That wouldn't be nice at all. Large government solves the collective action problem and is necessary to have a modern, functioning civilization. I'll take a welfare state over your Randian hellpit any day.

squidi 13y ago

It's impossible to have only "essential" staff as you will always need "non-essential" staff to support their work. For example, NASA TV employees are "non-essential" [1] but without the TV station it may mean lots of kids are not inspired by NASA any more. Also, Labor statisticians are "non-essential" but would you rather the Department of Labor make decision on gut feelings instead? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/27/us/who-goes-to-work-during-government-shutdown.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/27/us/who-goes-to...

insertnickname 13y ago
I'd rather not have a Department of Labor.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

vacri 13y ago

Some of the non-essential staff that are being suspended include those who process passports. Surely the oversight of documentation stating that you are a citizen of a country should be a government function? Privately-controlled citizenship data would be particularly ripe for corruption.

mahyarm 13y ago
Well theoretically, your birth or naturalization certificate is proof of citizenship, not a passport. And travel can theoretically be done without any sort of passport too. Historically passports are a very recent thing in the history of travel. Also I'd imagine passport & citizenship documentation is a very small part of the government.
- phaer 13y ago
  > Historically passports are a very recent thing in the history of travel. Because border control per se is a rather modern thing.
- vacri 13y ago
  Your birth certificate isn't proof of citizenship. You can have your citizenship revoked, or you can be born to traveling parents in a country that doesn't automatically recognise such births as citizens. I wouldn't really say that passports are a very recent thing in the history of travel, since passports predate mass travel. The expansion of rail in 19th century Europe made enforcing passport requirements much more difficult. But even before passports, people would travel with letters of recommendation or other such papers to indicate who they were. While the document called a 'passport' has only been with us for a couple of centuries, the concept has been around for ages. And while you can theoretically travel without a passport, don't expect an expedient process on arrival. Lack of a passport is not a trivial thing.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

garg 13y ago

NASA is almost completely shutting down. They are all essential. Essential and non-essential are simply legal terms that define who gets a paycheck during such fiascoes. We have huge datacenters that are mostly (there's going to be one guy who runs through checking for any emergencies such as water leaks etc) unmanned now and there is no climate science being done. They are essential but are being furloughed anyway. 'Essential', in many cases, mainly means emergency personnel who keep the facilities safe. Important work has stopped.

PeterisP 13y ago

You can classify tasks on two scales - important vs trivial; and urgent vs postponable. This legal definition is about the second one; valuable tasks that aren't urgent are "non-essential", but a guard at the entrance of some useless warehouse is "essential".