Full Version: Big vs Little goverment
I was perusing threads, and I notice someone started this, and it intrigued me. Most conservatives that hate big goverment have no problem with big business, when, IMO, big goverment is as effecient and has more oversight and checks and balances than big business.
This is the quote from the original post from JRN:
I just followed a link and wound up at Barbra Streisand’s website where there is a discussion of why big government is a good thing. Here is the link:
http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html
Ms. Streisand cites FEMA as evidence, but also cites other reasons: schools, firefighters, a decent highway system, military, etc, etc,.
You will notice out to the left (margin that is) that I consider myself a conservative. So I would like to solicit liberal opinions regarding what I believe is a complete misunderstanding by Ms. Streisand (and most liberals) about what conservatives mean by “smaller government”. Although I am not as articulate as many, I’ll try:
No one would disagree that there are certain human endeavors which cannot be accomplished except by a pooling of resources. There are some things which a family (the smallest social unit) simply cannot do for themselves. They cannot protect against foreign invasion. They cannot maintain a fire department on call. Indeed, virtually all of the things that Ms. Streisand cites as those that “..is what the Federal Government does…” and that “…Americans both depend on and take for granted” are beyond the reach of the individual household and are good things.
But that is not the point.
When we “pool resources”, we are essentially taking our money and dumping it in a big pile in the middle so that, collectively, we can “buy services” (e.g., military, firemen) from others in a more efficient manner. As I understand and believe it, conservatives do not protest this mechanism. What conservatives protest is the remoteness of the pile. The further away, the more difficult it is to directly infuence the policies surrounding its expenditure. This leads to a sense of helplessness and an expectation (in the words of Ms. Streisand) that “This is what the government is supposed to do for you, the people”. The expectation then leads to more centralized services (to meet the expectation), more taxes and a remoter pile. A vicious downward spiral ultimately resulting in a powerless common man.
We should always first attempt to build the pile of money in the family. If that is not practical in the circumstance, then the town hall. In turn, if not practical, then the city, then state, then Washington – in that order.
Anything else is to presume that only the State can administer the daily life of the common man. In truth, exactly the opposite is true.
And it was indeed a vague start up, so here is MY question:
Is big goverment bad, and if no, why and if yes, why, and is big business better, and if no why and if yes, why. It seems like 4 questions, but they are so intertwined that they flow together naturally. Seems you don't have one without the other!
I encourage both liberal and conservative responses, though I too am intrigued by the defense of big goverment, and those liberals, possibly Europeans, that might like big goverment in certain areas.
This is the quote from the original post from JRN:
I just followed a link and wound up at Barbra Streisand’s website where there is a discussion of why big government is a good thing. Here is the link:
http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html
Ms. Streisand cites FEMA as evidence, but also cites other reasons: schools, firefighters, a decent highway system, military, etc, etc,.
You will notice out to the left (margin that is) that I consider myself a conservative. So I would like to solicit liberal opinions regarding what I believe is a complete misunderstanding by Ms. Streisand (and most liberals) about what conservatives mean by “smaller government”. Although I am not as articulate as many, I’ll try:
No one would disagree that there are certain human endeavors which cannot be accomplished except by a pooling of resources. There are some things which a family (the smallest social unit) simply cannot do for themselves. They cannot protect against foreign invasion. They cannot maintain a fire department on call. Indeed, virtually all of the things that Ms. Streisand cites as those that “..is what the Federal Government does…” and that “…Americans both depend on and take for granted” are beyond the reach of the individual household and are good things.
But that is not the point.
When we “pool resources”, we are essentially taking our money and dumping it in a big pile in the middle so that, collectively, we can “buy services” (e.g., military, firemen) from others in a more efficient manner. As I understand and believe it, conservatives do not protest this mechanism. What conservatives protest is the remoteness of the pile. The further away, the more difficult it is to directly infuence the policies surrounding its expenditure. This leads to a sense of helplessness and an expectation (in the words of Ms. Streisand) that “This is what the government is supposed to do for you, the people”. The expectation then leads to more centralized services (to meet the expectation), more taxes and a remoter pile. A vicious downward spiral ultimately resulting in a powerless common man.
We should always first attempt to build the pile of money in the family. If that is not practical in the circumstance, then the town hall. In turn, if not practical, then the city, then state, then Washington – in that order.
Anything else is to presume that only the State can administer the daily life of the common man. In truth, exactly the opposite is true.
And it was indeed a vague start up, so here is MY question:
Is big goverment bad, and if no, why and if yes, why, and is big business better, and if no why and if yes, why. It seems like 4 questions, but they are so intertwined that they flow together naturally. Seems you don't have one without the other!
I encourage both liberal and conservative responses, though I too am intrigued by the defense of big goverment, and those liberals, possibly Europeans, that might like big goverment in certain areas.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 27 2003, 11:47 PM)
IMO, big goverment is as effecient and has more oversight and checks and balances than big business.
When I first read that I was inclined to merely post a series of laughing symbols followed by typed laughter, mostly because I was laughing so hard
. I don't mean any offense, but the government has never done anything as well as the private sector. The private sector invites competition which creates faster, more effificient business with little or no red tape and has little only as much oversight as is necessary.Have you ever noticed how crappy everything is at the DMV. Long lines, appathetic employees making $20/hour and all led by some guy who knows nothing about what's going on, not to mention the 30 year old computer system
. I think that that's a fair assumption of what all of our government agencies look like, I've seen more than a few examples and I think everyone here knows it. Perhaps some people remain liberal because they feel that if they throw more money at the buearacracy, the problems will go away 
. I have to go with smaller government. I am a real fan of Jefferson and Jackson, everything in my heart tells me smaller government is better!
bigger LOCAL government is better, IMO, then big NATIONAL government.
the local government should have more responsibilities then the national, as it is more accountable, and far more accessible. they should be the ones taking care of peoples needs (school boards, fire departments, police services, etc...) big government leads to big bureaucracies, where everything needs to go through the person above the next to approve something.
I believe this is what america's founders actually had in mind was for the federal government to take care of matters of national importance, if it wasn't nationally important, and they had no written power to deal with it it was supposed to be the states responsibility. (tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States (fed. govt.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.)
I am for a mix. bigger government at a local/state level, with more responsibilities and duties, and a small national government with fewer responsibilities and duties.
the local government should have more responsibilities then the national, as it is more accountable, and far more accessible. they should be the ones taking care of peoples needs (school boards, fire departments, police services, etc...) big government leads to big bureaucracies, where everything needs to go through the person above the next to approve something.
I believe this is what america's founders actually had in mind was for the federal government to take care of matters of national importance, if it wasn't nationally important, and they had no written power to deal with it it was supposed to be the states responsibility. (tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States (fed. govt.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.)
I am for a mix. bigger government at a local/state level, with more responsibilities and duties, and a small national government with fewer responsibilities and duties.
Yes? the US post office moves more mail than ANY private organization for far cheaper- case in point- a letter to russia, second day air by the US post office, costs 20 bucks, gets to the border in about 2 days. Fed ex does the same thing for 80 bucks.
No organization in the world is as inefficient as GM- what is funny JL is how little you understand big business- big business loses millions, if not billions of dollars, hides the losses in shell game accounting, and really keeps themselves afloat through subsideries and spin off "intrapenuer" corps and buyoffs. I am a car hobbiest, have been around it all my life, and I think even the Italian goverment could be more efficient and well run with less beauracracy than GM! The entrepenuer is what keeps our country going, not big business, and in fact I think is one of the chief ills of our economy and country, for many reasons, to many to list here. A good example is Wal-Mart, they buy sub-standard stuff, sell it below thier cost until the competition is gone, then jack up the price, it is called "predatory pricing" and the word was probably invented for them!
Now, that being said, yes, private enterprise is usually, especially in less than multinational corp size, more efficient than big goverment, HOWEVER there are far more opportunities for wrongdoing due to lack of oversight in business- consider the correction industry- up here we have jettisoned the idea of private prisons for just that reason- paying COs just above minimum wage and allowing security guidelines to lapse in an effort to cut costs etc by the Arizona and Texas private corrections system was one reason we (as a state, a republican led state, with a republican governer, a republican majority in both houses and republican appointed judges) cancelled thier contract. After attempting to build a private prison here, Allvest, the largest correction industry in the nation, could not even beat the state cost per prisoner this year, and so we built 2 of our own prisons, state run!!!
There are also areas that are, by mission, not ethical to even have a profit motive in. For instance, police, military, fire service etc. I would agree that road building is better done, usually, by private companies because we can build all sorts of stipulations into the contract that puts some "checks" into thier work. Funny- I was driving with my dad the other day, and he was joking about the "lazy union goverment road contruction workers" he saw (in his eyes) laying about on the road- I pointed out that it was a private, non-union paving company (they were wearing thier company vests) that were laying around and the only ones that looked busy were the city engineers with thier orange jumpers LOL
Also, I work in the medical field, and the layers and layers of corruption in my industry, poeple call it "capitalism" and "private", but it is by no definition so, it would be far better to socialize our countries medical system then allow it to be run as it is!
It has always amazed me that so many poeple that call themselves republican or conservative put so little thought into why an economy works or doesn't work, the importance of goverment spending and projects to business, taxes etc. Maybe they need to play "sim city" more or something. Tax to much, economy dies, tax to little, economy dies. Goverment loans and grants to business and a myriad of other things are as an important part of any succesful economy as the entrepenuer himself. Look at our economy and all other long term "capitalist" stable economies- they all have a large degree of goverment keeping the economy from to big of dips and rises. The bigger the economy, the higher of standard of living for the largest amount of the population, the bigger the goverment. It is a direct correlation in almost all of them. It can be debated what is the best balance of this so you do not stifle growth and ingenuity, but that is where the debate actually is, not that a goverment that only takes care of defense and public safety and perhaps some infrastructure has the best economy, because they don't. You can't find one in the world today or in history that is as robust as any in the G7 today.
No organization in the world is as inefficient as GM- what is funny JL is how little you understand big business- big business loses millions, if not billions of dollars, hides the losses in shell game accounting, and really keeps themselves afloat through subsideries and spin off "intrapenuer" corps and buyoffs. I am a car hobbiest, have been around it all my life, and I think even the Italian goverment could be more efficient and well run with less beauracracy than GM! The entrepenuer is what keeps our country going, not big business, and in fact I think is one of the chief ills of our economy and country, for many reasons, to many to list here. A good example is Wal-Mart, they buy sub-standard stuff, sell it below thier cost until the competition is gone, then jack up the price, it is called "predatory pricing" and the word was probably invented for them!
Now, that being said, yes, private enterprise is usually, especially in less than multinational corp size, more efficient than big goverment, HOWEVER there are far more opportunities for wrongdoing due to lack of oversight in business- consider the correction industry- up here we have jettisoned the idea of private prisons for just that reason- paying COs just above minimum wage and allowing security guidelines to lapse in an effort to cut costs etc by the Arizona and Texas private corrections system was one reason we (as a state, a republican led state, with a republican governer, a republican majority in both houses and republican appointed judges) cancelled thier contract. After attempting to build a private prison here, Allvest, the largest correction industry in the nation, could not even beat the state cost per prisoner this year, and so we built 2 of our own prisons, state run!!!
There are also areas that are, by mission, not ethical to even have a profit motive in. For instance, police, military, fire service etc. I would agree that road building is better done, usually, by private companies because we can build all sorts of stipulations into the contract that puts some "checks" into thier work. Funny- I was driving with my dad the other day, and he was joking about the "lazy union goverment road contruction workers" he saw (in his eyes) laying about on the road- I pointed out that it was a private, non-union paving company (they were wearing thier company vests) that were laying around and the only ones that looked busy were the city engineers with thier orange jumpers LOL
Also, I work in the medical field, and the layers and layers of corruption in my industry, poeple call it "capitalism" and "private", but it is by no definition so, it would be far better to socialize our countries medical system then allow it to be run as it is!
It has always amazed me that so many poeple that call themselves republican or conservative put so little thought into why an economy works or doesn't work, the importance of goverment spending and projects to business, taxes etc. Maybe they need to play "sim city" more or something. Tax to much, economy dies, tax to little, economy dies. Goverment loans and grants to business and a myriad of other things are as an important part of any succesful economy as the entrepenuer himself. Look at our economy and all other long term "capitalist" stable economies- they all have a large degree of goverment keeping the economy from to big of dips and rises. The bigger the economy, the higher of standard of living for the largest amount of the population, the bigger the goverment. It is a direct correlation in almost all of them. It can be debated what is the best balance of this so you do not stifle growth and ingenuity, but that is where the debate actually is, not that a goverment that only takes care of defense and public safety and perhaps some infrastructure has the best economy, because they don't. You can't find one in the world today or in history that is as robust as any in the G7 today.
Well, I am not sure about America, but in Russia, socialist goverment were MUCH more effective at running things than new private companies. The reason is that private enterprise almost never cares about long-term profit, and has quite narrow-minded view of the very definition of "profit", viewing profit only in monetary gains.
Let me remind you, that most of, if not all, modern inventions were direct result of goverment financing. Steam ships were at first produced almost exclusively by military, because they were useless in commerce. AND ONLY AFTER goverment found way to make them more effective, they became profitable, and began being used by private companies. Same was with computers. Same was with transistors. Same was with Internet. Without non-profit oriented groups, any progress is impossible. That's why we need either goverment, or some substitute to it.
For example, because modern Russian goverment lost its non-profit orientation factor and stopped all long-term projects, Russians developed "Brotherhood" project - shadow organisation, that will change the course of this situation.
As for America, its goverment is the only reason of its dominance. Without political and military instruments of influence, what will America be? Ordinary country, like Brazil or Poland.
That's my view of situation.
Let me remind you, that most of, if not all, modern inventions were direct result of goverment financing. Steam ships were at first produced almost exclusively by military, because they were useless in commerce. AND ONLY AFTER goverment found way to make them more effective, they became profitable, and began being used by private companies. Same was with computers. Same was with transistors. Same was with Internet. Without non-profit oriented groups, any progress is impossible. That's why we need either goverment, or some substitute to it.
For example, because modern Russian goverment lost its non-profit orientation factor and stopped all long-term projects, Russians developed "Brotherhood" project - shadow organisation, that will change the course of this situation.
As for America, its goverment is the only reason of its dominance. Without political and military instruments of influence, what will America be? Ordinary country, like Brazil or Poland.
That's my view of situation.
CruisingRam,
I couldn't help but notice how muchyour post contrdicted mine, but then I couldn't help but notice just how many half truths and omissions were in your post, so here's my reply.
[QUOTE]Yes? the US post office moves more mail than ANY private organization for far cheaper- case in point- a letter to russia, second day air by the US post office, costs 20 bucks, gets to the border in about 2 days. Fed ex does the same thing for 80 bucks. [/QUOTE]
The US Postal Service uses American Tax Dollars to offset the cost of the rest of what it takes to get that letter to Russia. The $20 is a subsidized fee you pay. And what are you doing mailing to the Russians anyway?
[QUOTE]No organization in the world is as inefficient as GM- what is funny JL is how little you understand big business- big business loses millions, if not billions of dollars, hides the losses in shell game accounting, and really keeps themselves afloat through subsideries and spin off "intrapenuer" corps and buyoffs. I am a car hobbiest, have been around it all my life, and I think even the Italian goverment could be more efficient and well run with less beauracracy than GM! The entrepenuer is what keeps our country going, not big business, and in fact I think is one of the chief ills of our economy and country, for many reasons, to many to list here. A good example is Wal-Mart, they buy sub-standard stuff, sell it below thier cost until the competition is gone, then jack up the price, it is called "predatory pricing" and the word was probably invented for them! [/QUOTE]
Perhaps GM would be much more efficient if they didn't have to abide by the Government red tape that came via the socialist unions and special interest groups that bought off politicians. GM didn't get to be one of the biggest corporations in the world by losing money and hiding it. And what you call "predatory pricing" is what most of us in the real world call smart business. You see the point of business is to buy product for cheap and sell it for a high price while maintaining a market base by not over pricing. I shop at Wal-Mart sometimes and I have never recieved "sub-standard" product.
[QUOTE]Now, that being said, yes, private enterprise is usually, especially in less than multinational corp size, more efficient than big goverment, HOWEVER there are far more opportunities for wrongdoing due to lack of oversight in business- consider the correction industry- up here we have jettisoned the idea of private prisons for just that reason- paying COs just above minimum wage and allowing security guidelines to lapse in an effort to cut costs etc [/QUOTE]
You're talking about prisons, I'm talking about business.
[QUOTE]There are also areas that are, by mission, not ethical to even have a profit motive in. For instance, police, military, fire service etc.[QUOTE]
Again, I didn't say no government control, I alaways have believed that these are ares that belong to the government.
[/QUOTE]It has always amazed me that so many poeple that call themselves republican or conservative put so little thought into why an economy works or doesn't work[QUOTE]
Apparently I've put more thought into it than you have. Big government is terrible not jsut because the reasons I listed, but also because they take away representation from the people. I agree with UnaBomber (
oh I can't believe I just said that 
) in that the local governments should be our main governments...I do disagree with him however on how much bigger they should be.
I couldn't help but notice how muchyour post contrdicted mine, but then I couldn't help but notice just how many half truths and omissions were in your post, so here's my reply.
[QUOTE]Yes? the US post office moves more mail than ANY private organization for far cheaper- case in point- a letter to russia, second day air by the US post office, costs 20 bucks, gets to the border in about 2 days. Fed ex does the same thing for 80 bucks. [/QUOTE]
The US Postal Service uses American Tax Dollars to offset the cost of the rest of what it takes to get that letter to Russia. The $20 is a subsidized fee you pay. And what are you doing mailing to the Russians anyway?
[QUOTE]No organization in the world is as inefficient as GM- what is funny JL is how little you understand big business- big business loses millions, if not billions of dollars, hides the losses in shell game accounting, and really keeps themselves afloat through subsideries and spin off "intrapenuer" corps and buyoffs. I am a car hobbiest, have been around it all my life, and I think even the Italian goverment could be more efficient and well run with less beauracracy than GM! The entrepenuer is what keeps our country going, not big business, and in fact I think is one of the chief ills of our economy and country, for many reasons, to many to list here. A good example is Wal-Mart, they buy sub-standard stuff, sell it below thier cost until the competition is gone, then jack up the price, it is called "predatory pricing" and the word was probably invented for them! [/QUOTE]
Perhaps GM would be much more efficient if they didn't have to abide by the Government red tape that came via the socialist unions and special interest groups that bought off politicians. GM didn't get to be one of the biggest corporations in the world by losing money and hiding it. And what you call "predatory pricing" is what most of us in the real world call smart business. You see the point of business is to buy product for cheap and sell it for a high price while maintaining a market base by not over pricing. I shop at Wal-Mart sometimes and I have never recieved "sub-standard" product.
[QUOTE]Now, that being said, yes, private enterprise is usually, especially in less than multinational corp size, more efficient than big goverment, HOWEVER there are far more opportunities for wrongdoing due to lack of oversight in business- consider the correction industry- up here we have jettisoned the idea of private prisons for just that reason- paying COs just above minimum wage and allowing security guidelines to lapse in an effort to cut costs etc [/QUOTE]
You're talking about prisons, I'm talking about business.
[QUOTE]There are also areas that are, by mission, not ethical to even have a profit motive in. For instance, police, military, fire service etc.[QUOTE]
Again, I didn't say no government control, I alaways have believed that these are ares that belong to the government.
[/QUOTE]It has always amazed me that so many poeple that call themselves republican or conservative put so little thought into why an economy works or doesn't work[QUOTE]
Apparently I've put more thought into it than you have. Big government is terrible not jsut because the reasons I listed, but also because they take away representation from the people. I agree with UnaBomber (
oh I can't believe I just said that ) in that the local governments should be our main governments...I do disagree with him however on how much bigger they should be.
Most poeple don't realize how beaurocratic and wierd Big business can be- it can be far worse than the feds, and has nothing to do with red tape, except of it's own making. You ever read Dilbert? That stuff is dead on! The difference is that it takes an act of God or a major lawsuit to get corporate culture changed, where as with the feds you can get change far easier, sometimes at the ballot booth or a call to your senator. And Unions REACT to a company, not proact, so every Union contract is usually because of company wrongdoing or abuses. You mentioned the DMV- you want your registration prices to quadruple or more in cost? You would definately get shorter lines then! Though that is not even always the case. We sold our public utilities because of this asinine belief that somehow big business is more efficient and less beaurocratic than goverment, it got us higher utility costs, horrible service and those automated customer service centers, of course, a CEO definately got paid some big bucks! ACS is our new phone company, for about 2 years or so, was allowed to buy out our goverment owned Alascom. Man, what a boondoggle. No matter how bad liberals run a goverment, wait to you see what happens when conservatives run one!
CruisingRam,
Am I to believe that Corporations intentionally make red tape for themselves so they will have to "loose money and hide it" ? That's a ridulous concept. The red tape comes from government laws and beuarcracy. It comes from unions as well. Unions as far as I have ever known are definitley proactive groups and they make things much worse. That's why Californian dock workers make over a hundred grand a year for standing around watching machines do their work . So far I have offered only the premium arguments and offered simple facts. You keep offering unsubstantiaed facts and fallacies. I'm not trying to rude here, I'm really not, but all the evidence in the world points to business being more effiecient and cheaper while governments only serve to create paper work and wasteful spending. And the only reason business can't effectiveley run our energy is because government regulations and restrictions that go with a nice scoop of unionizing on top.
Am I to believe that Corporations intentionally make red tape for themselves so they will have to "loose money and hide it" ? That's a ridulous concept. The red tape comes from government laws and beuarcracy. It comes from unions as well. Unions as far as I have ever known are definitley proactive groups and they make things much worse. That's why Californian dock workers make over a hundred grand a year for standing around watching machines do their work
. So far I have offered only the premium arguments and offered simple facts. You keep offering unsubstantiaed facts and fallacies. I'm not trying to rude here, I'm really not, but all the evidence in the world points to business being more effiecient and cheaper while governments only serve to create paper work and wasteful spending. And the only reason business can't effectiveley run our energy is because government regulations and restrictions that go with a nice scoop of unionizing on top.
Once again JL I am seriously doubting you have done much "real" business- becaue your statements are just parroting what Rush Limbaugh says and has no basis in the busniness world. Beauracracy size is directly proportional to the entity it "serves" and it does not care whether you call it "private" or "public"- a corporation with 250,000 employees and a goverment department with 250,000 employees acts almost the same in it's behavior, with some minor plusses and minuses in each favor depeding on the mission statement. GM is no more efficient than the EPA etc, when overall money for that entity and employees for that entity are taken into account, and in fact, there is far more opportunity for wrongdoing in the private sector because of lack of oversight i.e. Enron- would have never happened had it been a public utility, because of the mandatory second party accounting mandated by law, and the laws governing what the leaders of that entity are allowed to spend "descretionary" funds on!
Do you know where regulations come from? Do you regularly attend road board meetings, school board meetings, county or equivilent meetings? I went to a road board meeting the other day. There were 16 citizens present, and about 15 officials present, elected and appointed, making the quorum of 25 to make decisions "doable". We spent 44 million dollars of federal money effecting nearly 50,000 poeple, and a little over 30 poeple present to determine the appropriations of those funds. Notice went out to those 50,000 poeple weekly by mail, print and TV ads. 30 poeple made the regulation, with no further input than our personal experiances and wants. When you say "goverment regulations", 90% of those regulations are put forth at the local level, and the feds usually adopt MOST of the local regulation except where mandated by law!
I develope property and some of that property is for the disabled. Combine those two together and you have two of the most regulated industries on the planet. Who writes regs for disabled housing and hospitals? Local building codes, along with the ADA make up the majority, but compliance is maintained BY A PRIVATE ENTITY called Jacho, probably one of the worst organization in the nation, a subject of a thread all by itself.
I have no employees in my businesses. I sub contract everything, maintain myself as a general contractor and financier, with my money, the goverment's money, and the banks money. Each one of us writes our own regulations. My own regulation is that I hire nothing but Union labor on my projects. They are better trained, cut corners less, and do well with incentive clauses that reward for early completion of work, plus lower my own bonding insurance and liability insurance because the Union hall trains these guys at thier own expense in safety issues!
Regulations also keep out shady operators in a large sense, and help businessmen such as myself determine who to work with. A guy that cuts corners on regs I won't do business with, because what keeps him from cutting corners with me? Thieves and charlatans are almost universially lazy and slipshod, so regulations just makes it too much of a hassle for a large portion of those poeple, helping me go from weeding out poeple wholesale to weeding out poeple retail LOL
I have sat on the boards of health care trusts, been an executive member and president of a public employees union, sat on the board of hospitals, and sat on the board as voting members on two major corporations with more than 500million in annual revenue, so I know all about monolithic behavior and effiency! IT is strictly determined by size, not by who is the ultimate owner, and the goverment has greater control over wrongdoing.
Now, does that mean I think the goverment should take over and nationalize business? Hell no! But some major reform on responsibility and oversight for big business does need to take place, especially in the area of accountablity for board members and executives. This might even make big business more efficient and accountable than big goverment LOL
Do you know where regulations come from? Do you regularly attend road board meetings, school board meetings, county or equivilent meetings? I went to a road board meeting the other day. There were 16 citizens present, and about 15 officials present, elected and appointed, making the quorum of 25 to make decisions "doable". We spent 44 million dollars of federal money effecting nearly 50,000 poeple, and a little over 30 poeple present to determine the appropriations of those funds. Notice went out to those 50,000 poeple weekly by mail, print and TV ads. 30 poeple made the regulation, with no further input than our personal experiances and wants. When you say "goverment regulations", 90% of those regulations are put forth at the local level, and the feds usually adopt MOST of the local regulation except where mandated by law!
I develope property and some of that property is for the disabled. Combine those two together and you have two of the most regulated industries on the planet. Who writes regs for disabled housing and hospitals? Local building codes, along with the ADA make up the majority, but compliance is maintained BY A PRIVATE ENTITY called Jacho, probably one of the worst organization in the nation, a subject of a thread all by itself.
I have no employees in my businesses. I sub contract everything, maintain myself as a general contractor and financier, with my money, the goverment's money, and the banks money. Each one of us writes our own regulations. My own regulation is that I hire nothing but Union labor on my projects. They are better trained, cut corners less, and do well with incentive clauses that reward for early completion of work, plus lower my own bonding insurance and liability insurance because the Union hall trains these guys at thier own expense in safety issues!
Regulations also keep out shady operators in a large sense, and help businessmen such as myself determine who to work with. A guy that cuts corners on regs I won't do business with, because what keeps him from cutting corners with me? Thieves and charlatans are almost universially lazy and slipshod, so regulations just makes it too much of a hassle for a large portion of those poeple, helping me go from weeding out poeple wholesale to weeding out poeple retail LOL
I have sat on the boards of health care trusts, been an executive member and president of a public employees union, sat on the board of hospitals, and sat on the board as voting members on two major corporations with more than 500million in annual revenue, so I know all about monolithic behavior and effiency! IT is strictly determined by size, not by who is the ultimate owner, and the goverment has greater control over wrongdoing.
Now, does that mean I think the goverment should take over and nationalize business? Hell no! But some major reform on responsibility and oversight for big business does need to take place, especially in the area of accountablity for board members and executives. This might even make big business more efficient and accountable than big goverment LOL
I don’t know about you but the complete privatization of healthcare, education, military and other related stuff should not occur and such should remain government run where all people have a voice. The thought of business running such things scares me, period. A company in the free market must strive for itself, thus it can only do things such as being environmentally conscious when it can afford with ease, otherwise the company wont, and is nothing more then a cut throat establishment trying to get power via what it does. I just firmly believe some things should never go to the private sector, mostly human factors on why.
Before any standards came to American business there was a firm lack of stability and the condition the workers faced was utterly horrid, this coupled with child labor. The only thing that stops various companies really becoming our government, their secret plan, is our government, its the only thing that empowers the common person. Private schools cost money, how would you educate Americas masses to be able to read and write plus related, or how would you allow for people to be able to have access to heath care when private versions cost an arm and a leg.
Before any standards came to American business there was a firm lack of stability and the condition the workers faced was utterly horrid, this coupled with child labor. The only thing that stops various companies really becoming our government, their secret plan, is our government, its the only thing that empowers the common person. Private schools cost money, how would you educate Americas masses to be able to read and write plus related, or how would you allow for people to be able to have access to heath care when private versions cost an arm and a leg.
It was the industrial revolution that led to the need of public education, and big business DIDN'T WANT to pay for it, but needed a certain level of education for industry.
Prior to poblic education as we know it today, towns hired a schol teacher, provided her housing, a very small stipend, and that was education, and few poeple were able to "cipher" that well- in fact, reading the bible was the hope for most "schoolin'"
If you look at alot of efforts to make the goverment do things, you will see big business in on it, sometimes it is not all bad either. HMOs were primarily created by big business in order to have some cost containment on health care prices, But the goverment didn't regulate them, insurance companies did, and that is why we have file clerks decided if poeple live or die, and overiding Drs recomendation with no medical experiance according to a pie chart!
I will be willing to bet money that within 10 years, we have universal health care, because the corporations can no longer afford individual plans etc, and will no longer wish to manage the money. It simply will hurt the bottom line of the companies, and a positive growth economy depends on a healthy, productive population.
Why do you think that, no matter who is in charge of spending in our goverment, there is never any real cuts? Because to do so would make a major shrinkage in our economy, and we could not do all the fun things we like to do, like invade other countries with smart bombs and such. If the republicans were to simply freeze goverment spending and not make an adjustment upward for Inflation (the CPI) we would be in depression in a year, and anybody that looks hard at our govement knows it. That is why the republicans will never make any real cuts in goverment spending, because THEY will be jobless as well by the next election LOL.
Prior to poblic education as we know it today, towns hired a schol teacher, provided her housing, a very small stipend, and that was education, and few poeple were able to "cipher" that well- in fact, reading the bible was the hope for most "schoolin'"
If you look at alot of efforts to make the goverment do things, you will see big business in on it, sometimes it is not all bad either. HMOs were primarily created by big business in order to have some cost containment on health care prices, But the goverment didn't regulate them, insurance companies did, and that is why we have file clerks decided if poeple live or die, and overiding Drs recomendation with no medical experiance according to a pie chart!
I will be willing to bet money that within 10 years, we have universal health care, because the corporations can no longer afford individual plans etc, and will no longer wish to manage the money. It simply will hurt the bottom line of the companies, and a positive growth economy depends on a healthy, productive population.
Why do you think that, no matter who is in charge of spending in our goverment, there is never any real cuts? Because to do so would make a major shrinkage in our economy, and we could not do all the fun things we like to do, like invade other countries with smart bombs and such. If the republicans were to simply freeze goverment spending and not make an adjustment upward for Inflation (the CPI) we would be in depression in a year, and anybody that looks hard at our govement knows it. That is why the republicans will never make any real cuts in goverment spending, because THEY will be jobless as well by the next election LOL.
First, I'm wondering why so much of this discussion has involved a debate about big business as though this were a debate about big business vs. big government. These are the alternatives??? I will, therefore, leave my opinions on big business for an appropriate thread. This one, I believe, was asking for views - in particular (though not exclusively), liberal views - on big government.
Frankly, I'm never quite sure what conservatives mean by "big government". Or what anyone means, for that matter. I had always thought it had something to do with fiscal policies and the size of government spending. However, Ronald Reagan, an alleged champion of "smaller government" pursued a roughly Keynesian policy incorporating "fiscal stimulation" in the form of high government spending (and deficit spending at that). His combined tax cuts and astronomical defense budgets more than doubled the national debt, turned us from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor, and increased our trade deficit from $20 billion to well over $100 billion.
Under Clinton, much of this seemed to be reversed. But with the our current administration, it seems that, as The Onion put it, "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over". The record of our most recent conservative opponent to "big government", George W Bush looks pretty grim. Our current budgets are examples of "small government"? Discretionary spending on non-military items has increased by 21% under Bush, pork barrel spending is up 48% since 2001, and I don't think I need remind anyone what kind of deficits we're facing over the next several years.
And, with Bush, it's not just big spending. Government bureaucracy and interference in state and local government has been growing as well. There are one million more government workers today than there were in 1999. And in education, for example, his federal standards for schools are interfering with state and local reform efforts and usurping what have never been national concerns. The homeland security effort is infiltrating local public health and safety agencies and preempting many of the functions of state and municipal police.
johnlocke mentioned the DMV (a state body). Frankly, the last time I visited my DMV office, there was one person ahead of me in line, my registration renewal took less than two minutes, and, as I was fairly late with the renewal
, the very helpful woman allowed me to pay for next year's registration at the same time - saving me a second trip to their office. I was in and out in less than five minutes. But Tom Ridge is now pushing for federal involvement in state license issue, instituting "a minimum set of standards" and creating, in essence, a national identity card. He also wants national standards for information systems. I can imagine what my next trip to the DMV might be like. 
So, if the government under Reagan and Bush is anything to go by, "small government" has nothing to do with budgets, fiscal responsibility, or even bureaucracy. Personally, I think that in terms of spending, we need "appropriate government" - and, to an extent, no president or Congress is entirely responsible for the minimum size of government in this respect. Face it, this is a big country - and there is much to administrate. And, as the federal government has been taking much of the responsibility for administration on all levels since, oh, about 1792, that necessarily implies somewhat substantial funds. What I feel we need is a much more stream-lined government. Less waste, more efficiency, fewer pointless bureaucracies, no pork - and that goes for federal, state, and local government.
Overall, I would agree with whoever said "the government that governs least governs best" (generally attributed to Jefferson) - especially when it comes to individual rights. I feel there should be a balance between states' rights and central government, tipped slightly toward the latter (we are, after all, a federation of united states) - especially regarding national standards for individual rights.
While I generally believe (like most libertarians) in as little government interference in human affairs as possible - and feel that its main purpose (apart from securing the national infrastructure) should be ensuring the inalienable and equal rights of all citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever consensually turns them on - there are a couple of related exceptions. I believe that a government as large as ours, even at it's most genuinely conservative, has the power and the ability to solve (or at least alleviate) many social problems. I believe it should also have the authority to do so - so long as that authority does not interfere with any individual rights.
I also believe (and here I would depart from most libertarians) that the central government should have certain regulatory powers over industry, commerce, and agriculture to establish minimum standards not only for the health and safety of workers and consumers, but to ensure fair competition and to protect investors - so long as it does not directly interfere with free trade or overly restrict free enterprise. And, let's face it, crony capitalism has done more damage to free enterprise than any amount of government regulation.
So, I don't know if this makes me liberal or conservative - or whether I fall more on the side of "big" or "small government" (mostly because I'm still not sure what that means). Obviously, even to support the basic infrastructure of a nation this size - from postal services and interstate highways to the military and the justice system - requires a fairly substantial entity. But that entity should always strive for the minimum in terms of budget, bureaucracy, regulation, and legislation to provide for the common good. And, to me, it doesn't look like either Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, are doing that.
Frankly, I'm never quite sure what conservatives mean by "big government". Or what anyone means, for that matter. I had always thought it had something to do with fiscal policies and the size of government spending. However, Ronald Reagan, an alleged champion of "smaller government" pursued a roughly Keynesian policy incorporating "fiscal stimulation" in the form of high government spending (and deficit spending at that). His combined tax cuts and astronomical defense budgets more than doubled the national debt, turned us from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor, and increased our trade deficit from $20 billion to well over $100 billion.
Under Clinton, much of this seemed to be reversed. But with the our current administration, it seems that, as The Onion put it, "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over". The record of our most recent conservative opponent to "big government", George W Bush looks pretty grim. Our current budgets are examples of "small government"? Discretionary spending on non-military items has increased by 21% under Bush, pork barrel spending is up 48% since 2001, and I don't think I need remind anyone what kind of deficits we're facing over the next several years.
And, with Bush, it's not just big spending. Government bureaucracy and interference in state and local government has been growing as well. There are one million more government workers today than there were in 1999. And in education, for example, his federal standards for schools are interfering with state and local reform efforts and usurping what have never been national concerns. The homeland security effort is infiltrating local public health and safety agencies and preempting many of the functions of state and municipal police.
johnlocke mentioned the DMV (a state body). Frankly, the last time I visited my DMV office, there was one person ahead of me in line, my registration renewal took less than two minutes, and, as I was fairly late with the renewal
, the very helpful woman allowed me to pay for next year's registration at the same time - saving me a second trip to their office. I was in and out in less than five minutes. But Tom Ridge is now pushing for federal involvement in state license issue, instituting "a minimum set of standards" and creating, in essence, a national identity card. He also wants national standards for information systems. I can imagine what my next trip to the DMV might be like. So, if the government under Reagan and Bush is anything to go by, "small government" has nothing to do with budgets, fiscal responsibility, or even bureaucracy. Personally, I think that in terms of spending, we need "appropriate government" - and, to an extent, no president or Congress is entirely responsible for the minimum size of government in this respect. Face it, this is a big country - and there is much to administrate. And, as the federal government has been taking much of the responsibility for administration on all levels since, oh, about 1792, that necessarily implies somewhat substantial funds. What I feel we need is a much more stream-lined government. Less waste, more efficiency, fewer pointless bureaucracies, no pork - and that goes for federal, state, and local government.
Overall, I would agree with whoever said "the government that governs least governs best" (generally attributed to Jefferson) - especially when it comes to individual rights. I feel there should be a balance between states' rights and central government, tipped slightly toward the latter (we are, after all, a federation of united states) - especially regarding national standards for individual rights.
While I generally believe (like most libertarians) in as little government interference in human affairs as possible - and feel that its main purpose (apart from securing the national infrastructure) should be ensuring the inalienable and equal rights of all citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever consensually turns them on - there are a couple of related exceptions. I believe that a government as large as ours, even at it's most genuinely conservative, has the power and the ability to solve (or at least alleviate) many social problems. I believe it should also have the authority to do so - so long as that authority does not interfere with any individual rights.
I also believe (and here I would depart from most libertarians) that the central government should have certain regulatory powers over industry, commerce, and agriculture to establish minimum standards not only for the health and safety of workers and consumers, but to ensure fair competition and to protect investors - so long as it does not directly interfere with free trade or overly restrict free enterprise. And, let's face it, crony capitalism has done more damage to free enterprise than any amount of government regulation.
So, I don't know if this makes me liberal or conservative - or whether I fall more on the side of "big" or "small government" (mostly because I'm still not sure what that means). Obviously, even to support the basic infrastructure of a nation this size - from postal services and interstate highways to the military and the justice system - requires a fairly substantial entity. But that entity should always strive for the minimum in terms of budget, bureaucracy, regulation, and legislation to provide for the common good. And, to me, it doesn't look like either Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, are doing that.
QUOTE
For example, because modern Russian goverment lost its non-profit orientation factor and stopped all long-term projects, Russians developed "Brotherhood" project - shadow organisation, that will change the course of this situation
And therein lies the proof of the efficiency of the private sector, able to respond to the needs of the people....
QUOTE
I believe it should also have the authority to do so - so long as that authority does not interfere with any individual rights.
And therein lies the rub. For, in giving the Federal government the authority to do so, you de facto remove the right of the individual to choose where his/her money is spent.
Wertz: good post. There is certainly a lot of confusion in this area, and I'll be the first to admit it's because far too many Republicans in office do not practice what they preach. For myself, I have a simple rule: nothing should be under Federal governmental control unless it can be shown that that is the most efficient, effective place to put it. For instance, there really isn't any viable alternative to having the military under Federal governemental control and financing. Ditto for interstate highways. However, for the vast majority of other programs, they could be run better, and provide more benefits, it they were controlled by local governments or privatized. The reason for this is quite simple: governmental programs have absolutely no reason to be efficient. This is true at both the macro and micro levels. At the macro level, exactly how does a governmental program benefit from running more efficiently? They don't. In fact, with the way most budgets are prepared, these programs benefit from being as inefficient as possible (employing more people, and therefore requiring a bigger budget, and therefore having more 'power'). On the micro level, how does Jane Doe at some governmental office benefit from doing her job more efficiently? She doesn't. In general, she doesn't get any credit for being more efficient, being more service oriented, or for better customer service. So, all the people funding these programs get less of the service they are paying for than they would through other mechanisms, and those who receive the benefits get less benefits than they should.
The US Government is at its smallest size since before WWII. It does what it does. Some areas function well. Some are totally dysfunctional. The problem as I see it is that people want to cut everything that doesn't effect them. Midwestern republicans rail against the Feds. Then they lie to themselves and try to pretend that massive federal farm subsidies and excess production buyout programs aren't just another form of welfare. We have enough powdered milk stored in caves to meet US demand for hundreds of years. The price of sugar is held at artificially rates that are absurdly high. We pay ADM millions a year to buy corn so that farmers don't go broke. USAID grain shipments do essentially the same thing. But at least they contribute to an overall social good, instead of just lining the pockets of Nebraska farmers who seem to think they have a god given right to earn a net loss every year before government subsidies. How about the Republicans take a REAL stand and cut farm, and logging welfare checks. Then I'd be more interested in hearing them complain about providing low income housing to the homeless.
Government isn't the problem. innate human hyporcisy is. Each side just tries to cut only what will hurt people who weren't going to vote for them anyways.
Government isn't the problem. innate human hyporcisy is. Each side just tries to cut only what will hurt people who weren't going to vote for them anyways.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 29 2003, 10:47 AM)
I have a simple rule: nothing should be under Federal governmental control unless it can be shown that that is the most efficient, effective place to put it.
What kind of proof do you require? How do you measure efficiency? What about things that won't be done more or less efficiently by the private sector but rather won't be done at all? I think you're setting the bar too high, or perhaps in the wrong place. A monopoly can be very efficient in some ways, but there's an obvious downside. The interstate highway system, or the rail system that preceded it, would never have existed were it not for government "intervention" and we've all seen how well increased privatization has worked in the power industry. I think Wertz's question, of whether big business or big government are the only options, sheds light on the flaws in your proposed criterion. I'd prefer to maintain as much control as possible over my own life but, when it comes down to a choice of which large organization will have control over some part of my life, I think I'd prefer the one that is at least nominally accountable to the people it serves and not entirely beholden to a separate group of stockholders whose only interest is profit.
Whenever there's a question of government getting involved in something, there are at least two questions that must be asked:
- What level of government?
- What kind of involvement?
I would replace your simple criterion with a more general one: can the government help? Can it add some value, as recognized by the people, that outweighs the cost? Can it do so without violating some constitutional or other basic moral principle? The idea (some would call it reification) that a totally unregulated private sector should always be the first answer and only modified in the face of overwhelming proof of failure needs to be replaced with the idea that we need to think proactively about what will provide the best public/private balance. The market is an answer, and quite often the best one, but it's not the only answer.
QUOTE
What kind of proof do you require? How do you measure efficiency? What about things that won't be done more or less efficiently by the private sector but rather won't be done at all?
My main concern would be that the question is at least asked, with an attempt at an answer. In merely trying to answer this question, I think it would become obvious that many current government programs could be better addressed through different means. Currently, I think the only question asked is "Could the government do this?". Almost always, the answer would be 'Yes'. I'm only suggesting the follow on "Should the government do this?". Which seems to be the same motive behind the questions you suggest.
QUOTE
I would replace your simple criterion with a more general one: can the government help? Can it add some value, as recognized by the people, that outweighs the cost? Can it do so without violating some constitutional or other basic moral principle? The idea (some would call it reification) that a totally unregulated private sector should always be the first answer and only modified in the face of overwhelming proof of failure needs to be replaced with the idea that we need to think proactively about what will provide the best public/private balance. The market is an answer, and quite often the best one, but it's not the only answer.
I would agree with this--the 'adding value' falls right in line with what I was trying to say. Also, although I didn't address it, I am NOT an advocate of unregulated privatization. In fact, for many current gov't functions, regulated privatization is probably the best answer. I would repeat your final sentence, only inserting the word 'government' for 'market', and 'sometimes' for 'quite often'. However, all-in-all, it seems like we are arriving at the same place, albeit from different directions. I would also add that, within this definition, there is all sorts of room for various government programs, many beyond even the current scope.
Now if we can just get our Congressmen to agree
Well one downside of haveing government along with powerful free market entitys is there involvemnt within the government. Call it lobbying or purchasing power with power, its all a rather complex ecosystem.
I stand behind government regulation to a point, some being healthcare, education, public works such as roads and institutions like law and related for various reasons.
Simple examples would be families that could not afford private versions of education, those that can do if they choose. Business itself at least to me seems to erode the principal of free markets via monopolies, things the government has to come in and break up.
I would go as far as a separation of government and company should also exist in the constitution but good luck on that one Then reason being government could not regulate business as much as it cant protect from company interest compromising the same government. The only way would to have politicians that did not give into the dark side
Well anyways i support democratic socialism, so i am probably not the best person to ask on this.
I stand behind government regulation to a point, some being healthcare, education, public works such as roads and institutions like law and related for various reasons.
Simple examples would be families that could not afford private versions of education, those that can do if they choose. Business itself at least to me seems to erode the principal of free markets via monopolies, things the government has to come in and break up.
I would go as far as a separation of government and company should also exist in the constitution but good luck on that one
Then reason being government could not regulate business as much as it cant protect from company interest compromising the same government. The only way would to have politicians that did not give into the dark side Well anyways i support democratic socialism, so i am probably not the best person to ask on this.
CruisingRam,
I'm sorry about the wide gap in time in between posts. I will only answer your last post that I feel was directed at me.
I would like to start out by saying (without offending you) that most of your post is a series credentials you state that walk the line of blowhardism. I didn't want to go that way so I'll just tell you that I have worked for two large corporations most of my life and I've worked for small business. I also do my own business, sort of. It's more like a small enterprise. Anywho, I know that most of any beuaracracy inside business comes from government. For instance, to hire anyone my corporation requires 14 pages of paper work. The paperwork is not to create jobs in the tree industry, nor in the Human Resources departments.... That paperwork is a trail for the government, so that under any circumstances in which the government might require any knowledge of him or any litigation he may start, we have it. Everything in business is like that. Small government is necessary to avoid child labor problems and uphold health standards etc... but when they but into hiring and firing and telling business what they can and can't do, it gets unconstitutional! That's why big government is bad. Please review every problem in efficiency you've ever had at work. You'll see that the paper trail leads back to the government.
I'm sorry about the wide gap in time in between posts. I will only answer your last post that I feel was directed at me.
I would like to start out by saying (without offending you) that most of your post is a series credentials you state that walk the line of blowhardism. I didn't want to go that way so I'll just tell you that I have worked for two large corporations most of my life and I've worked for small business. I also do my own business, sort of. It's more like a small enterprise. Anywho, I know that most of any beuaracracy inside business comes from government. For instance, to hire anyone my corporation requires 14 pages of paper work. The paperwork is not to create jobs in the tree industry, nor in the Human Resources departments.... That paperwork is a trail for the government, so that under any circumstances in which the government might require any knowledge of him or any litigation he may start, we have it. Everything in business is like that. Small government is necessary to avoid child labor problems and uphold health standards etc... but when they but into hiring and firing and telling business what they can and can't do, it gets unconstitutional! That's why big government is bad. Please review every problem in efficiency you've ever had at work. You'll see that the paper trail leads back to the government.
Simply saying that red-tape can be traced back to big government is quite the leap; perhaps you can identify how this was so. Can you suggest with a straight face that beauracracy would cease to exist in a small-government state?
JL- "That paperwork is a trail for the government, so that under any circumstances in which the government might require any knowledge of him or any litigation he may start, we have it. "
Litigation is by a private lawyer, unless it is of a criminal nature, but all civil litigation is a private industry- I take it you like the private industry of lawyers that this country has? Nothing REally makes business more efficient that private industry of lawyers eh? LOL
It is not the goverment writing of regulations that employes these lawyers, it is the goverment writing regulations to protect business from lawyers, and lawyers exploiting the good intentions but bad language in law.
So you are 23 and you have worked for corporations for years have you?
Litigation is by a private lawyer, unless it is of a criminal nature, but all civil litigation is a private industry- I take it you like the private industry of lawyers that this country has? Nothing REally makes business more efficient that private industry of lawyers eh? LOL
It is not the goverment writing of regulations that employes these lawyers, it is the goverment writing regulations to protect business from lawyers, and lawyers exploiting the good intentions but bad language in law.
So you are 23 and you have worked for corporations for years have you?
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Sep 29 2003, 10:07 PM)
That paperwork is a trail for the government, so that under any circumstances in which the government might require any knowledge of him or any litigation he may start, we have it.
That paperwork is done for not one but two reasons: protection against litigation, and compliance with regulation. They're two different things. The problem with our society being overly litigious probably deserves a separate topic, and is of no relevance here, so let's concentrate on the second reason.
Does anyone think government creates regulations just for the hell of it? No, not quite. Most regulations exist for the simple reason that at some time an abuse - something injurious either to individual rights or to society - occurred which was not checked by the private sector, so the regulation was made to address or prevent that abuse. In a smaller number of cases, the regulation was part of a proactive attempt to prevent abuse before it happened, but the goal remains the same. Regulations - and nobody's claiming they're perfect, or perfectly enforced - exist because the private sector does not police itself adequately.
Thus, half of that paperwork - and we're not even counting that which exists for purely internal reasons such as identifying problems and solutions within the business - has nothing to do with government. The vast majority of what's left exists for very good and historically supportable reasons. Maybe there's some that represents unwarranted government "meddling" in the private sector. Overall, blaming the government for inefficiency is like blaming the ref for losing a game. Maybe it's true once in a great while, but usually it's just a way to avoid accountability for one's own failure. I'd still rather have the government set the rules than Standard Oil or US Steel.
Exactly Platy- somehow the thought that the nebulous "goverment" just starts regulating away for no damn reason whatsoever LOL- it is always public demand for someone to "do something" about this or that. Enviromental regulations are because some rivers are catching on fire- and companies hate it because it actually forces them to curb thier behaviors.
But that is a very small function of regulation really- the majority of "regulations" aimed at a business that is not resource extraction oriented or human consumption oriented (like the beef industry) comes not that they are directly regulated, but the fact that they have to operate in a certain manner to get goverment contracts, loans and grants. There is alot of businesses out there that have nearly no goverment oversight unless they except the goverment dough (advertising would be a good example, they are only really restricted by what can be legally shown in what media) or scholastic (like VMI, that could have stayed all male had they refused the goverment handout).
Then there is the private industry regulation, which is the most restrictive of all, and far more restrictive than goverment regulations <gasp> private industry regulates other private industries? I said I am a real estate investor. The regulations are very small as long as I don't accept goverment money. When I accept goverment money, I have to do certain things. The real restrictions come from my insurance companies. They tell me what I can do with the building, who I can hire to work on them, who can and can't live in them, if they can own pets etc etc etc. This goes for many businesses, the most restrictive regulations come from insurance companies. I have a plumber friend I wanted to hire to work on all my buildings, because the guy is super competant. But he is not licensed and bonded, so the insurance company will not let me hire him because they don't cover non-owner work done by a sub contractor that is not licensed and bonded!
But that is a very small function of regulation really- the majority of "regulations" aimed at a business that is not resource extraction oriented or human consumption oriented (like the beef industry) comes not that they are directly regulated, but the fact that they have to operate in a certain manner to get goverment contracts, loans and grants. There is alot of businesses out there that have nearly no goverment oversight unless they except the goverment dough (advertising would be a good example, they are only really restricted by what can be legally shown in what media) or scholastic (like VMI, that could have stayed all male had they refused the goverment handout).
Then there is the private industry regulation, which is the most restrictive of all, and far more restrictive than goverment regulations <gasp> private industry regulates other private industries? I said I am a real estate investor. The regulations are very small as long as I don't accept goverment money. When I accept goverment money, I have to do certain things. The real restrictions come from my insurance companies. They tell me what I can do with the building, who I can hire to work on them, who can and can't live in them, if they can own pets etc etc etc. This goes for many businesses, the most restrictive regulations come from insurance companies. I have a plumber friend I wanted to hire to work on all my buildings, because the guy is super competant. But he is not licensed and bonded, so the insurance company will not let me hire him because they don't cover non-owner work done by a sub contractor that is not licensed and bonded!
I didn't read any post but the first one. I want to answer the question at hand and I will edit my post if I see reason to reply to any one post.
One of the Ten Key Values of the Green Party is Decentralization. In other words bringing the spheres of influence toward the smaller community. For the reason that it will greater help the people. State and federal Governments can help out problem areas while the County and townships can receive more tax dollars directly and can put them to greater goods.
This isn't smaller Government though, this is smarter government. This will actually make government a lot bigger.
Edit: As for the rest of the posts here. I live in NY, GM is one of the biggest polluters in the north East. Red Tape = Good. As for unions, GM has horrible Scrupples so Unions = good.
Why stick up for a company that would just as soon try and dump PCB's in your backyard and kill you.
Monty
One of the Ten Key Values of the Green Party is Decentralization. In other words bringing the spheres of influence toward the smaller community. For the reason that it will greater help the people. State and federal Governments can help out problem areas while the County and townships can receive more tax dollars directly and can put them to greater goods.
This isn't smaller Government though, this is smarter government. This will actually make government a lot bigger.
Edit: As for the rest of the posts here. I live in NY, GM is one of the biggest polluters in the north East. Red Tape = Good. As for unions, GM has horrible Scrupples so Unions = good.
Why stick up for a company that would just as soon try and dump PCB's in your backyard and kill you.
Monty
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Sep 29 2003, 09:07 PM)
I know that most of any beuaracracy inside business comes from government. For instance, to hire anyone my corporation requires 14 pages of paper work. The paperwork is not to create jobs in the tree industry, nor in the Human Resources departments.... That paperwork is a trail for the government, so that under any circumstances in which the government might require any knowledge of him or any litigation he may start, we have it.
JL, I don't know what corporations you have worked for, but at almost twice your age, it's safe to assume that I've probably worked for a few more companies than you in the course of my working life.
That said, in terms of hiring an employee, the only paperwork required in any state I have ever worked has been 3 (or maybe 4) pages at best. First, the I-9, which shows the government that the person you hired has the legal right to work in this country. Second, the W-2, which allows for income tax withholdings. Third, a state W-2, where applicable, for state income tax purposes. A possible fourth, is where required, a signed form stating that the employee has been made aware of hazardous chemicals he may come into contact with, and how to properly handle them. That's it.
If companies you work for require another 10 pages of paperwork, they may be there to protect their interest in trade secrets, company policies or the like, but they are not required by the government. They are there because the company has a vested interest in it's business, and from the point of view of the accountants and lawyers are good business practices.
I believe small government is better. Any powerful organization becomes corrupt eventually, just like any too-powerful leader. Once a government is large, it invariably stays that way, and its power grows. The general population has virtually no control over the decisions that are made. Large businesses are bloodlessly toppled all of the time. No so with corrupt governments. People are (more) free to leave a company than a government and find greener pasteurs.
If a government becomes corrupt and powerful, the entire population is screwed, and they potentially become servants to the state. If a corporation becomes too powerful (anti-monopoly laws help ameliorate that potentiality) the workers have the choice to leave, or form a union, which holds a lot more power over a company than casting a ballot or picketing.
If a government becomes corrupt and powerful, the entire population is screwed, and they potentially become servants to the state. If a corporation becomes too powerful (anti-monopoly laws help ameliorate that potentiality) the workers have the choice to leave, or form a union, which holds a lot more power over a company than casting a ballot or picketing.
I don't disagree with you entirely Mrs P- power does in fact corrupt, however, our goverment has important checks and balances built in, and they have been chipped away by big business. I mean, look at how our goverment is beholden to big business, and not the other way around corrrect?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 1 2003, 01:44 PM)
I don't disagree with you entirely Mrs P- power does in fact corrupt, however, our goverment has important checks and balances built in, and they have been chipped away by big business. I mean, look at how our goverment is beholden to big business, and not the other way around corrrect?
Those checks and balances are eroded all of the time....look at the patriot acts I and II.
Certainly big business and government often work together, but the former can be boycotted by the populace, the latter cannot.
In theory, yes, in action, no. Even the participation in our goverment is spotty (voting) much less any real organization against real wrongdoing by business. One thing that business has all over goverment is the ability to buy the actual people running the goverment and the ability to spread thier propaganda without any real oversight (some poeple call it advertising LOL). It is very easy for consumers to boycott a company with less than say, 10,000 employees and have some impact. Larger than that the only check against thier power is Unions, and they are even in a david vs goliath struggle. Look at it this way, many of the fortune 500 companies have gross yearly revenues larger than all but the G-7 nations, and that is real power.
QUOTE
It is very easy for consumers to boycott a company with less than say, 10,000 employees and have some impact. Larger than that the only check against thier power is Unions, and they are even in a david vs goliath struggle. Look at it this way, many of the fortune 500 companies have gross yearly revenues larger than all but the G-7 nations, and that is real power.
...and that is what gives the consumer power, as these larger companies have far more to lose than any of their smaller brethren (which is also what gives the unions at these companies their power). As they saying goes, the bigger they are, the harder they fall...
QUOTE
our goverment has important checks and balances built in, and they have been chipped away by big business. I mean, look at how our goverment is beholden to big business, and not the other way around corrrect?
Although I agree with the latter, I'm not sure what you mean by the former. How have the checks and balances been chipped away by business. I would also point out that, if in fact you feel government is beholden to business, you are arguing in favor of a smaller government, as that would be the only way to minimize the damage.
I would argue that both business and government grew together, and as long as there is big business, there has to be a government large enough to stand up to it. I would love to pay less taxes and not have to worry about the government interfering with my life, but I am afraid of what could happen if business became more powerful than government.
Private businesses have demonstrated that they can not be trusted to police themselves. The tenets of the business world (profit first, ethics later) can not serve to fulfill our rights as individuals, so we need a government which can ensure that a basic human standard is kept.
So why don't we try to move away from large corporations and back toward local business? Small businesses can be better regulated by small, decentralized governments, so why not get rid of big business so we can be rid of the bureacracy that comes with big government? If large corporations can be so easily toppled, then let's do it. Don't go to Safeway for your vegetables, drive to the nearest farmer's market and buy there. Quit shopping at Wal-Mart, go to your local clothier, drug store, grocery store, electronics store, toy store, and music store instead. Why not?
Because the average American can't afford to. Big business has brought so much convenience into our lives that most of us can't give it up now. So, since we are reliant upon big business for our jobs, our health, our insurance, our lives, we don't have a choice but to live with the problems that come along with it. But we still need to have some sort of control over it. That's where the government enters. True, we don't have much power over it either, but I would rather trust an agency with no personal stake in matters than a business which will behave to maximize its profit.
I don't like big government. But it's a necessary evil.
Private businesses have demonstrated that they can not be trusted to police themselves. The tenets of the business world (profit first, ethics later) can not serve to fulfill our rights as individuals, so we need a government which can ensure that a basic human standard is kept.
So why don't we try to move away from large corporations and back toward local business? Small businesses can be better regulated by small, decentralized governments, so why not get rid of big business so we can be rid of the bureacracy that comes with big government? If large corporations can be so easily toppled, then let's do it. Don't go to Safeway for your vegetables, drive to the nearest farmer's market and buy there. Quit shopping at Wal-Mart, go to your local clothier, drug store, grocery store, electronics store, toy store, and music store instead. Why not?
Because the average American can't afford to. Big business has brought so much convenience into our lives that most of us can't give it up now. So, since we are reliant upon big business for our jobs, our health, our insurance, our lives, we don't have a choice but to live with the problems that come along with it. But we still need to have some sort of control over it. That's where the government enters. True, we don't have much power over it either, but I would rather trust an agency with no personal stake in matters than a business which will behave to maximize its profit.
I don't like big government. But it's a necessary evil.
Funny how big business has grown at about the same pace as goverment and vice versa to some degree, and the same with our economy, and the same with our population. I don't think smaller goverment is even possible with our population and economy size, I think it is just a bumper sticker solution for conservatives for the most part, though there is always room for improvement as well.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.