4 ms·

The further into the past a decision regarding the State solving a problem for a society was made, the more its citizens today assume that decision was the best

The further into the past a decision regarding the State solving a problem for a society was made, the more its citizens today assume that decision was the best option and the private sector failed. This assumption is often based on the fact that there are no, or very few, competing alternatives left to solve that problem. The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. So, the State is taking resources from it's competitors and then provide an alternative (normally at subsidized prices), which makes it's competitor's market share smaller and also sets pricing at unsustainable levels. There is only one outcome, ever, to this type of arrangement, regardless of whether or not the State actually offered the best solution to its citizens.

rndmize 12y ago
> The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. I find this very doubtful indeed. The state by and large spends money on things the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems; I fail to see how this starves/steals from private sector solutions (no one makes money by supporting old people; no one makes money providing medical help for the poor; no one makes money by polluting less; no one makes money off going to the moon, though lots of people make money off the research that comes from it, etc.)
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  I don't have time right now to dig up data on it because I have to get going, but from a financial efficiency point of view, donating directly to private organizations that perform welfare services is an order of magnitude more effective than letting the State tax you and then redistribute your money to welfare services. The issue is the way our tax system is designed right now, it makes more sense for private individuals to keep their money until the government takes it by force to give to those in need, than for those individuals to contribute directly.
  - rndmize 12y ago
    Rich people don't get rich by giving away money. I've heard plenty of stories about private non-profits that spend significant percentages of their take on administrative costs and similar. Not to say they're all like that; but then, neither is the government. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html 2% or less admin costs looks pretty good. A universal basic income system would be better, but I'd be interested to see some private charities that do better than this.
- baddox 12y ago
  There are plenty of historical examples where a state had to (and did) use force to prevent private individuals or organizations from offering certain services.
jquery 12y ago
I'm responding to a sibling comment: > the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems Absolutely false. Children take care of their parents, families take care of each other, friends offer housing and food to their friends. At best you can argue that the private sector has stepped back to the extent the state has stepped in.
- chipotle_coyote 12y ago
  Every phrase you wrote has an implicit conditional in it: > Children may take care of their parents, families may take care of each other, friends might offer housing and food to their friends. At least one theoretical advantage to the state system that rarely gets talked about is that while its assistance also has the same conditionals, at least in principle, the conditionals are dependent on objective criteria. The state of your relationship to friends and family is immaterial; you don't have to accept terms imposed by religious charities or other organizations that will attach moralistic strings.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Sure, but a government also only may take care of people as well.

rndmize 12y ago

> The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. I find this very doubtful indeed. The state by and large spends money on things the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems; I fail to see how this starves/steals from private sector solutions (no one makes money by supporting old people; no one makes money providing medical help for the poor; no one makes money by polluting less; no one makes money off going to the moon, though lots of people make money off the research that comes from it, etc.)

bsbechtel 12y ago
I don't have time right now to dig up data on it because I have to get going, but from a financial efficiency point of view, donating directly to private organizations that perform welfare services is an order of magnitude more effective than letting the State tax you and then redistribute your money to welfare services. The issue is the way our tax system is designed right now, it makes more sense for private individuals to keep their money until the government takes it by force to give to those in need, than for those individuals to contribute directly.
- rndmize 12y ago
  Rich people don't get rich by giving away money. I've heard plenty of stories about private non-profits that spend significant percentages of their take on administrative costs and similar. Not to say they're all like that; but then, neither is the government. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html 2% or less admin costs looks pretty good. A universal basic income system would be better, but I'd be interested to see some private charities that do better than this.
baddox 12y ago
There are plenty of historical examples where a state had to (and did) use force to prevent private individuals or organizations from offering certain services.

jquery 12y ago

I'm responding to a sibling comment: > the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems Absolutely false. Children take care of their parents, families take care of each other, friends offer housing and food to their friends. At best you can argue that the private sector has stepped back to the extent the state has stepped in.

chipotle_coyote 12y ago
Every phrase you wrote has an implicit conditional in it: > Children may take care of their parents, families may take care of each other, friends might offer housing and food to their friends. At least one theoretical advantage to the state system that rarely gets talked about is that while its assistance also has the same conditionals, at least in principle, the conditionals are dependent on objective criteria. The state of your relationship to friends and family is immaterial; you don't have to accept terms imposed by religious charities or other organizations that will attach moralistic strings.
- baddox 12y ago
  Sure, but a government also only may take care of people as well.