8 ms·

I saw examples like this over and over when I worked with Government, and it's ultimately what pushed me to embrace libertarianism. Government usually has grea

by nugget 12y ago

I saw examples like this over and over when I worked with Government, and it's ultimately what pushed me to embrace libertarianism. Government usually has great intentions, but those intentions are often overwhelmed by the perverse micro incentives of the human beings, driven by basic human nature, who run everything at the ground level.

rst 12y ago
Last I checked, most colleges were private institutions, and the public ones (state schools and community colleges) tended, in general, to be a lot more frugal (and cheaper, and more cost-effective) than private ones.
- ehmish 12y ago
  My guess as to why that might be is because there seems to be a trend of expenses of institutions expanding to their budgets, private institutions (especially the glamorous ones) have big budgets. Presumably the perverse incentives problem occurs to all moderately large institutions, but the budgets of less well funded institutions have less room to grow.
kaonashi 12y ago
Any sufficiently sized human institution has those problems.
gone35 12y ago
But it is precisely that inescapable fact --that perverse micro-incentives at the individual level, driven by basic human nature, run everything at the ground level-- that often creates the need for institutions like government in the first place! Whenever there are tragedy-of-the-commons like externalities / collective action problems, in many cases it is provably superior to have even highly deficient government-like institutions than fully unconstrained individual action[1]. Think, for instance, any of today's failed states to see what total lack of basic governance actually looks like. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
majika 12y ago
Smaller governments (i.e. less power, shallower hierarchies), good voting systems, and an informed public are the answer; not avoiding government altogether. Libertarianism (i.e. absolute belief in the capitalist market and private property) doesn't work, because the markets don't reflect negative externalities like pollution, over-harvesting, misinformation, or antibiotics misuse. States need to exist to manipulate markets to reflect those things. There are many industries where the profit motive is contrary to the public interest, like education, health, media, banking, prisons, military, drugs, junk food, gambling, etc. Either [a] the state should be the sole player in the industry (prisons, military), [b] the state should provide a public service in that industry to set a baseline for private competitors (education, health, media), [c] the state should impose regulations/taxation that prevent/discourage activity contrary to the public interest (banking, junk food, drugs), or [d] the state should outlaw the industry entirely (gambling (IMHO)). There are many "markets" that are inherently monopolistic, or where private competition is nonsensical, like public spaces (parks, lakes, rivers) and public infrastructure (roads, telecoms, trains, airports). Companies and markets are only good at medium-term thinking (at best). Google employees avoid thinking about the kind of society they're creating for their grandchildren, but that's the job description of elected representatives (in accountable governments). Finally, but most significantly, there's that whole thing about capital accumulating to the top. Income and capital gains taxation is in the public interest, because equality and a well-financed state is in the public interest. I feel like many Americans tend towards libertarianism because they feel that their governments are unaccountable, unrepresentative and corrupt. I think the problem in the US is the size and power of its government - not the concept of government itself. I think the federation of the US should be abolished (as in, all federal law). States could sign up to federal institutions/programs (central bank, defense, immigration, ...) when and how they please. Personally, I think any moderately-populated area should have a single level of government spanning no further than 2-4 km from its parliament (i.e. within walking distance). Each of these states can assume common administration of adjacent sparsely-populated areas. If the states agree to a common legislative process, there's no duplication of effort in passing common legislation, except for each parliament voting on it or amending it as they want, which is democratic! Libertarianism really grates me, but I enjoy debating it because I see that libertarians want the same things I do: liberty and equality for everyone.

by nugget 12y ago

rst 12y ago

Last I checked, most colleges were private institutions, and the public ones (state schools and community colleges) tended, in general, to be a lot more frugal (and cheaper, and more cost-effective) than private ones.

ehmish 12y ago
My guess as to why that might be is because there seems to be a trend of expenses of institutions expanding to their budgets, private institutions (especially the glamorous ones) have big budgets. Presumably the perverse incentives problem occurs to all moderately large institutions, but the budgets of less well funded institutions have less room to grow.

kaonashi 12y ago

Any sufficiently sized human institution has those problems.

gone35 12y ago

But it is precisely that inescapable fact --that perverse micro-incentives at the individual level, driven by basic human nature, run everything at the ground level-- that often creates the need for institutions like government in the first place! Whenever there are tragedy-of-the-commons like externalities / collective action problems, in many cases it is provably superior to have even highly deficient government-like institutions than fully unconstrained individual action[1]. Think, for instance, any of today's failed states to see what total lack of basic governance actually looks like. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

majika 12y ago

Smaller governments (i.e. less power, shallower hierarchies), good voting systems, and an informed public are the answer; not avoiding government altogether. Libertarianism (i.e. absolute belief in the capitalist market and private property) doesn't work, because the markets don't reflect negative externalities like pollution, over-harvesting, misinformation, or antibiotics misuse. States need to exist to manipulate markets to reflect those things. There are many industries where the profit motive is contrary to the public interest, like education, health, media, banking, prisons, military, drugs, junk food, gambling, etc. Either [a] the state should be the sole player in the industry (prisons, military), [b] the state should provide a public service in that industry to set a baseline for private competitors (education, health, media), [c] the state should impose regulations/taxation that prevent/discourage activity contrary to the public interest (banking, junk food, drugs), or [d] the state should outlaw the industry entirely (gambling (IMHO)). There are many "markets" that are inherently monopolistic, or where private competition is nonsensical, like public spaces (parks, lakes, rivers) and public infrastructure (roads, telecoms, trains, airports). Companies and markets are only good at medium-term thinking (at best). Google employees avoid thinking about the kind of society they're creating for their grandchildren, but that's the job description of elected representatives (in accountable governments). Finally, but most significantly, there's that whole thing about capital accumulating to the top. Income and capital gains taxation is in the public interest, because equality and a well-financed state is in the public interest. I feel like many Americans tend towards libertarianism because they feel that their governments are unaccountable, unrepresentative and corrupt. I think the problem in the US is the size and power of its government - not the concept of government itself. I think the federation of the US should be abolished (as in, all federal law). States could sign up to federal institutions/programs (central bank, defense, immigration, ...) when and how they please. Personally, I think any moderately-populated area should have a single level of government spanning no further than 2-4 km from its parliament (i.e. within walking distance). Each of these states can assume common administration of adjacent sparsely-populated areas. If the states agree to a common legislative process, there's no duplication of effort in passing common legislation, except for each parliament voting on it or amending it as they want, which is democratic! Libertarianism really grates me, but I enjoy debating it because I see that libertarians want the same things I do: liberty and equality for everyone.