Is "Government Is The Problem" Attitude The REAL Problem?

thatguyoverthere · 07-22-2007, 10:12 AM

(I've been thinking this one over for a while, and haven't really figured out the best way to phrase it to begin a discussion about it here. Since I kind of touched on it in another thread just now anyway, I decided to give it a try.)

-

Perhaps conservatives attitude about government being the problem and not the solution to the problem, is the real reason why the conservative controlled government of recent years seems to be so incompetent. Perhaps is is what some people refer to as a "self fulfilling prophecy?"

Republicans continually complain about how government is the problem, government is bad, government is inefficient, ect. ...then Republicans get voted into office, whereupon they promptly go about proving themselves right.

If you were going to hire a nanny, and you hired one that hated children, why would you be surprised if your children were mistreated or neglected under their care?

It's not a question of "big" vs. "small" government. It's about bad vs. good government. The Republicans have been in control of the executive branch of the US government for a considerable amount of time, and government has only gotten bigger and more invasive, and has run up more debt and deficit during that time. A conservatives claim of wanting "small" government just doesn't hold water when compared to their actual record while in power.

Stylerod · 07-22-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

(I've been thinking this one over for a while, and haven't really figured out the best way to phrase it to begin a discussion about it here. Since I kind of touched on it in another thread just now anyway, I decided to give it a try.)

-

Perhaps conservatives attitude about government being the problem and not the solution to the problem, is the real reason why the conservative controlled government of recent years seems to be so incompetent. Perhaps is is what some people refer to as a "self fulfilling prophecy?"

Republicans continually complain about how government is the problem, government is bad, government is inefficient, ect. ...then Republicans get voted into office, whereupon they promptly go about proving themselves right.

If you were going to hire a nanny, and you hired one that hated children, why would you be surprised if your children were mistreated or neglected under their care?

It's not a question of "big" vs. "small" government. It's about bad vs. good government. The Republicans have been in control of the executive branch of the US government for a considerable amount of time, and government has only gotten bigger and more invasive, and has run up more debt and deficit during that time. A conservatives claim of wanting "small" government just doesn't hold water when compared to their actual record while in power.

That's because there isn't a conservative in power.

Conservatives think the private sector can do almost anything better and cheaper then the government (and that is pretty much proved daily). Liberals don't think anyone can do it better then themselves.

Ardentfrost · 07-22-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Perhaps conservatives attitude about government being the problem and not the solution to the problem, is the real reason why the conservative controlled government of recent years seems to be so incompetent. Perhaps is is what some people refer to as a "self fulfilling prophecy?"

Republicans continually complain about how government is the problem, government is bad, government is inefficient, ect. ...then Republicans get voted into office, whereupon they promptly go about proving themselves right.

I agree that conservatives tout small-government, but then create a larger government once elected, but I think that is just more evidence against what you're trying to say. You have one group of politicians that say they want smaller government, then when in office they say something like "well... I mean, we should at least have this though, right?" and then you have another group of politicians that just want the government in control of more and more stuff. Either way we get more government control and it just gets worse and worse for the common man.

But given that you like your side's gov't programs, and hate the other's, I submit that you can't have one without allowing the other. This is actually outlined very well by F.A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom. He studied the history of Germany leading up to WW2, and saw the same stuff he was seeing in his home country of Britain and in the US even way back in the 70's when he wrote it. Part of the book says how we had started down that path (as looked at from the 1970's), and the rest looks at the direction we're heading, and if you read it, you'll see that the stuff he's warning us against has come (and is coming) true! It's real scary

The only way to prevent one side is to disallow the other.

RMNIXON · 07-22-2007, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

It's not a question of "big" vs. "small" government. It's about bad vs. good government.

I am not to clear on what is considered to be good government? I have a very strong impression that all is to be considered "good" when leftists are in charge of huge bureaucracies and not anyone who could be considered to the right? Am I mistaken with that impression? I, on the other hand think too much power corrupts no matter who has it, and there are many things government should not do or even try to do!

I hope nobody is making the absurd suggestion, like that made in the late 90's, that these conservative and libertarian critics are some serious threat to growth of government? That they would shrink all this "good deed" doing down to almost nothing?

You are winning! I only hope you know what your prize is going to be?

6SpeedTA95 · 07-22-2007, 05:51 PM

Republicans are the problem because they had all the power, just like democrats were causing problems for years, republicans took all power and the same thing happened.

Kytro · 07-23-2007, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

That's because there isn't a conservative in power.

Conservatives think the private sector can do almost anything better and cheaper then the government (and that is pretty much proved daily). Liberals don't think anyone can do it better then themselves.

The thing is if private organisations can make money, there is a more efficient way of doing the same thing that does not turn a profit.

Publius · 07-23-2007, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

The thing is if private organisations can make money, there is a more efficient way of doing the same thing that does not turn a profit.

I hope you're kidding. The profit motive is what DRIVES creative efforts to maintain maximum efficiency, without it there is no impetus to push for more efficiency.

Kytro · 07-23-2007, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

I hope you're kidding. The profit motive is what DRIVES creative efforts to maintain maximum efficiency, without it there is no impetus to push for more efficiency.

When profit is present it means there is more room to be efficient - at least technically. Profit isn't the motive as such, reward in general is.

Profit can also harm product quaility

David Octavius · 07-23-2007, 02:28 AM

The paradox is that in order for any ideology to gain power in a country - as vast and with such a large population as ours - there must be a large "something" to enforce whatever the ideology preaches, whether it is moral, liberal, conservative or even market base.

That something can take on many roles, for the libs and the moralists (aka the "conservatives") it is bigger government via bureaucracy, for small government and free market ideology it must be something else - perhaps a myriad of private regulatory agencies or just as probable, the market using its collective lobbyists to have government enforce the things they either cannot or are inefficient at, thus big government is still here, it would just be called something different by its advocates. Unfortunately big government is here to stay and it will only get bigger, never in our history has overall government power shrank, it always gets bigger and will continue to do so until it can't sustain itself.

Also, just because government does not very well in its current state, it does not mean that given better leaders, reforms etc that it will still suck, it may become greater than we could ever imagine, it would be like saying that because the market had a bust year that it doesn't work, it does, it corrects itself and grows higher than ever before. It is through our political process - voting, reforms etc that we can find the best version of government for us.

Diesel66 · 07-23-2007, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

When profit is present it means there is more room to be efficient - at least technically. Profit isn't the motive as such, reward in general is.

Profit can also harm product quaility

and a guaranteed income can harm product quality even more.

DMV has no motivation to expand, better customer service, etc... because it wont bring them anymore money.

Publius · 07-23-2007, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

When profit is present it means there is more room to be efficient - at least technically. Profit isn't the motive as such, reward in general is.

Profit can also harm product quaility

I'm fairly certain you're confusing economic profit and accounting profit. A higher accounting profit (what most people are talking about when discussing profit) means that a company is more efficiently producing their product/service than they otherwise could. Economic profit has nothing to do with efficiency, and is the only kind of profit that is "acceptable" when it equals zero.

Zero accounting profit means that a company is extremely INEFFECIENT, not efficient.

hsmith · 07-23-2007, 03:03 PM

Men with power are the problem, thus government is a problem.

David Octavius · 07-23-2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Men with power are the problem, thus government is a problem.

Going by that logic that men with power are the problem, then capitalism is a problem too since it gives men power (and some a whole bunch of power)

hsmith · 07-23-2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Going by that logic that men with power are the problem, then capitalism is a problem too since it gives men power (and some a whole bunch of power)

Since when do capitalists force you to do anything through the threat of violence?

Rouger2 · 07-23-2007, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

That's because there isn't a conservative in power.

Conservatives think the private sector can do almost anything better and cheaper then the government (and that is pretty much proved daily). Liberals don't think anyone can do it better then themselves.

We can put the executives that have run Ford and General motors in charge of the government. They have done such a great job of competing with foreign auto companies losing auto sales every year to them, and they refuse to make fuel efficent autos while pushing the giants on us, by advertising on television, because they know we are a slave to television thus making us more dependent on foreign oil. Government can be efficient just like some companies can be, but the private sector in not perfect and does good and bad just like the government.

David Octavius · 07-23-2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Since when do capitalists force you to do anything through the threat of violence?

Did I say that? I am just going by your logic in your previous post. Btw, in the absence of government the corporate world would have the ability to use the force you are speaking of since they will take over security. Different guard, same result...

DosEquis · 07-23-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

and a guaranteed income can harm product quality even more.

DMV has no motivation to expand, better customer service, etc... because it wont bring them anymore money.

DMV is state government run, and if it doesn't do well and is real shitty, those who were elected face the consequences...possibly losing their jobs. The drive to become efficient is there to reduce the tax dollars the dmv requires to function..thus allocating more funds to a different program or making a tax cut more affordable for the state.

There are rewards for government efficiency... the main problem comes from voters not holding their elected officials accountable.

Publius · 07-23-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

DMV is state government run, and if it doesn't do well and is real shitty, those who were elected face the consequences...possibly losing their jobs. The drive to become efficient is there to reduce the tax dollars the dmv requires to function..thus allocating more funds to a different program or making a tax cut more affordable for the state.

There are rewards for government efficiency... the main problem comes from voters not holding their elected officials accountable.

Can you think of the last time that a government entity in your state actually got called out for wasting tax dollars though? I can't even think of one in Texas, which is very anti-tax (we don't even have a frickin' income tax).

Theoretically you're right, in practice there is really no reason to be more efficient as a government program. Government programs employ people, and those people want to keep their jobs. If they become more efficient and thus make the program need less money, they're in danger of losing their jobs or being forced to take a pay-cut.

Government bureaucracy is not only self-perpetuating, but it also is self-feeding: the more bureaucracy there is the less efficient they are, and yet to cover their asses the less efficient they are the more they claim to need more bureaucratic support.

Rouger2 · 07-23-2007, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Can you think of the last time that a government entity in your state actually got called out for wasting tax dollars though? I can't even think of one in Texas, which is very anti-tax (we don't even have a frickin' income tax).

Theoretically you're right, in practice there is really no reason to be more efficient as a government program. Government programs employ people, and those people want to keep their jobs. If they become more efficien