I don't think bigger government is the solution to our ills, nor do I think that a strictly smaller government is. I would like a government that is focused, ideologically unbiased, efficient, nimble, and which puts individuals on the whole above the interest of lobbies and corporations.

I think there are ways in which the government should grow (Universal healthcare provided though taxes and government, not the castrated stuff we already got passed) and places in which it should shrink (The military, for instance, altogether spends more money fighting corrosion -- yes, rust and the effects of fuel and seawater -- of its facilities and equipment than we spend on K-12 education.) A strong defense is indeed important, but we probably don't need the standing army that we have.

Its really unfortunate that no one in government is really looking at how to make things more efficient, or to get more bang for the existing buck -- everything costs money and Uncle Sam passes the collection hat once again rather than seeing what he could be doing to save money.

I know what he's thinking...

He probably thinks Obama is trying too hard to be cross platform and instead of fixing the current code, he just adds new modules. He probably thinks the government doesn't comment code as well as they said they would, and that the excess of global and public declarations denigrates the private sector. He probably thinks that inefficient programs have too big of a resource pull and that Obama is nothing but a bumpmap - looks good but lacks any real depth. Or a bloom effect - means well but often does more harm than good.

... then there's those that think Obama is trying to turn the whole country open source... x)

Ok, I'm done.

As my rating suggests, I agree with everything he had to say.

[Edited by - Chris Reynolds on October 29, 2010 7:34:52 AM]

Quote:Original post by Chris Reynolds
I know what he's thinking...

He probably thinks Obama is trying too hard to be cross platform and instead of fixing the current code, he just adds new modules. He probably thinks the government doesn't comment code as well as they said they would, and that the excess of global and public declarations denigrates the private sector. He probably thinks that inefficient programs have too big of a resource pull and that Obama is nothing but a bumpmap - looks good but lacks any real depth. Or a bloom effect - means well but often does more harm than good.

... then there's those that think Obama is trying to turn the whole country open source... x)

Ok, I'm done.

As my rating suggests, I agree with everything he had to say.

Well done Chris, that's very clever.

What I took from it, as regards, "what to do about it" is to attempt to discover means to provide the same social goods currently monopolized by government in a private manner.

I think he may have intentionally dodged the "what to do about it" part because that's where it gets contentious. As he states, it's not difficult to get a head nod when you say government is inefficient and the incentives are counter-productive. The debate doesn't really start until you suggest a non-shrink wrapped solution.

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Ok, so the government is inefficient and private corporations handles things more efficiently. So let businesses provides services not government. Well for one, corporations are for shareholders and government is for the people. Two, we've already seen what happens when government lets the market run without oversight. Also Carmack made a comment about quality of service from a corporation is superior to a government counterpart. That's only because there is government oversight. Corporations will pass low-quality products for a high price if they can get away with it. Regulation (ie. anti-monopoly) creates competition which in turn creates advances in quality and performance. Corporations by nature look to profit first, not progress.

Everyone knows that government is inefficient. That its citizens can be sheep. And change does not come unless the mob is enraged. But a government can be dictated to by the population with a vote. The corporation can be efficient. Its customers can be lulled and turned into zealots. Change can come by supporting the corporation's competitor. The corporation can only be dictated to by the shareholder.

I don't want to parse your statement line by line(although I will) but there's just so much in it I disagree with I have to comment.

First understand that modern day corporations, at least the ones that are in the news aren't proper corporations, they're cartels.

You also stated

Quote:
we've already seen what happens when government lets the market run without oversight.

Which is untrue. Perhaps not the type or quantity of oversight you feel is proper but there is no extra-governmental organization that is actually non-regulated.

Quote:
Regulation (ie. anti-monopoly) creates competition which in turn creates advances in quality and performance.

The profit motive creates competition. Regulation creates cartels and artificial barriers to entry. You have this exactly backwards.

Quote:Everyone knows that government is inefficient. That its citizens can be sheep. And change does not come unless the mob is enraged. But a government can be dictated to by the population with a vote. The corporation can be efficient. Its customers can be lulled and turned into zealots. Change can come by supporting the corporation's competitor. The corporation can only be dictated to by the shareholder.

The political process doesn't produce the type of candidate I can morally support. Therefore I can't vote without betraying my morals. I can't shop another government nor do I have a reasonable expectation that the political process will provide me with such a candidate. Further I can only vote in a predetermined, regimented process and my desires are dilluted to the lowest common denominator.

Finally the political process is dominated by a duopoly that has shaped the rules to insure their cartels for the remainder of my life.

I'm not arguing for government via corporation, I'm just respectfully putting forth the counter to each of your assertions.

Quote:Original post by Promit
I respect Carmack as much as anybody.

But.

"Government is a poor solution to everything, thus I will suggest absolutely nothing useful in comparison." That is apparently the standard libertarian line nowadays -- everything's screwed up, stop trying to ask government to fix it! What should we do instead, you ask? Well government is the problem! The solution is...government is the problem!

Thanks for the update. You're goddamn geniuses.

When your premise is "taxation is fundamentally violent and therefore immoral in the majority of modern cases", then that pretty much follows. He's saying, "You shouldn't beat people up to get your way", and you're replying, "well, what *else* do you suggest we do?" Note that he explicitly says that there are moral uses of government. We believe in such things as police departments and defensive militaries because those things that are paid for through the force of violence are there to prevent a greater violence.

Quote:Original post by Rycross
That assumes that competition (which is a cornerstone of a free market) always leads to optimal outcomes. Rudimentary knowledge of game theory shows that this is not the case. The libertarian response (in my experience) is often to simply assert that its not an issue. This is what I'm talking about when I complain about un-nuanced points of views.

Even if the government knew the optimal way to catch fish, I believe it would still end up just giving its citizens fish instead of teaching them.

Besides, it's not always about catching the biggest or the most fish. Sometimes it's just nice to spend some time on the water with some time to reflect. Dutch freeways may be straight, smooth, and able to get you to your destination quickly, but I much prefer driving LA freeways, even with all the potholes and traffic jams.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Ok, so the government is inefficient and private corporations handles things more efficiently. So let businesses provides services not government. Well for one, corporations are for shareholders and government is for the people. Two, we've already seen what happens when government lets the market run without oversight. Also Carmack made a comment about quality of service from a corporation is superior to a government counterpart. That's only because there is government oversight. Corporations will pass low-quality products for a high price if they can get away with it. Regulation (ie. anti-monopoly) creates competition which in turn creates advances in quality and performance. Corporations by nature look to profit first, not progress.

Everyone knows that government is inefficient. That its citizens can be sheep. And change does not come unless the mob is enraged. But a government can be dictated to by the population with a vote. The corporation can be efficient. Its customers can be lulled and turned into zealots. Change can come by supporting the corporation's competitor. The corporation can only be dictated to by the shareholder.

I don't want to parse your statement line by line(although I will) but there's just so much in it I disagree with I have to comment.

First understand that modern day corporations, at least the ones that are in the news aren't proper corporations, they're cartels.

Ok. So what business/conglomerate adheres to the actual definition of a corporation?

Quote:You also stated

Quote:
we've already seen what happens when government lets the market run without oversight.

Which is untrue. Perhaps not the type or quantity of oversight you feel is proper but there is no extra-governmental organization that is actually non-regulated.

I misspoke. You are right. Regulation was there, but extremely lax and in some cases not being enforced.

Quote:

Quote:
Regulation (ie. anti-monopoly) creates competition which in turn creates advances in quality and performance.

The profit motive creates competition. Regulation creates cartels and artificial barriers to entry. You have this exactly backwards.

Well maybe I don't understand the term cartel (I'm being serious). The profit motive only creates more way to increase profit. One can always be swallowed up by another company and still make a profit. Swallow up enough companies and you become a monopoly.

Quote:

Quote:Everyone knows that government is inefficient. That its citizens can be sheep. And change does not come unless the mob is enraged. But a government can be dictated to by the population with a vote. The corporation can be efficient. Its customers can be lulled and turned into zealots. Change can come by supporting the corporation's competitor. The corporation can only be dictated to by the shareholder.

The political process doesn't produce the type of candidate I can morally support. Therefore I can't vote without betraying my morals. I can't shop another government nor do I have a reasonable expectation that the political process will provide me with such a candidate. Further I can only vote in a predetermined, regimented process and my desires are dilluted to the lowest common denominator.

Finally the political process is dominated by a duopoly that has shaped the rules to insure their cartels for the remainder of my life.

For the political process to work, people have to be willing to exercise their rights. Obviously now, either party is nothing to write home about. But if every election a swath of these bums were voted out then the politicians would get the message. Government fails for the same reason modern-day corporations fail. The people are not leading, they are being led.

Quote:I'm not arguing for government via corporation, I'm just respectfully putting forth the counter to each of your assertions.

I respectfully accept but disagree with your answer.