An awful lot of right-wing rhetoric is about how horrible the government is. how horrible government is. Supposedly we don’t want government-run health care, government-run schools, government charity. And this is supposedly not because the right-wing hate health care, or schools, or charity, it’s because the government is too incompetent to do these things.
Well, if the government is so incompetent at *everything *(That’s the claim, isn’t it?), then, should the government be trusted to run the things it runs now? Prisons? How about courts? Police? Should the IRS be replaced by a privately held agency on the theory that the government can’t even fund itself competently? Do we trust the government to run a military responsibly?
The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the government shouldn’t even be in the government business. Too much power for a bunch of mouth-breathing incompetents like a government.
If they want to argue a naked assertion of government incompetence as a reason to defund certain programs, they should provide good reasons to not apply this reason to the military, police, and the courts using the same reasoning. Otherwise their argument, instead of “the government is lousy at everything”, becomes “the government is lousy at [the specific program I want to devolve]”, in which case they need to make the case that the government is lousy in that one arena.
Not what he said, John. The question is why the right doesn’t want this, given that the government supposedly can’t do anything right, not why it does want it.
Some places have privatized jails, with not very good results. You could argue that Bush/Cheney/Rummy privatized a good bit of the military’s role in Iraq, also with shocking results. I suspect that if you got a bunch of damn liberals in positions of power in the military you might see more calls to privatization of some roles.
And I must add that when some part of government screws up, they say you can draw conclusions about government in general, but when some private sector takes over a government role, and screws it up badly (like recording property transfers) you can make no such generalizations.
Used to be that way, too. And tax farmers were indeed exceedingly competent at funding the State and themselves. Sometimes thrice a month, weather a big burly guys with sticks permitting.
Another curious thing seems to be the co-mingling of pro-death penalty beliefs with “government sucks at everything” beliefs. Seems if that were true, you might want to leave some ability to correct errors at a later date.
“gubment” is a rather broad description of a group of people employed in public service. Starting from the top, the qualifications/process to be an elected official are the same as a prom queen. It’s a popularity contest punctuated with catchy phrases. Moving down to the level of engineer or police officer there is a list of educational requirements needed to do the job.
It’s logical that people with an educational discipline in their chosen field are better equipped to do their job than those who were voted in on the back of a focus group jingle.
When politicians don’t have a financial background and have never dealt with balancing a budget then the probability of getting a balanced budget is directly related to the election process where votes are traded for promises.
That’s why we have elections. Also that the President, who is a civilian, is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and the Chief of Police reports to elected, civilian officials.
That’s also why we need term limits, but that is another thread.
This ability is generally referred to as “the appeals process”.
Some reject government control of health care, charity, religion, etc. but accept government control of military, police, etc for pretty much the same reason you would not try polishing a mirror with a hammer, but you would pound a nail into the wall with it. Government is a tool, and like all tools, there are some things that break when it’s applied to them.
Allow me to illustrate the flaw in reductio-ad-absurdum arguments:
*An awful lot of left-wing rhetoric is about how horrible capitalism is. Supposedly we don’t want the market to regulate health care, private schools, private charity. And this is supposedly not because the left-wing hate health care, or schools, or charity, it’s because the market is too incompetent to do these things.
Well, if the market is so incompetent at everything (That’s the claim, isn’t it?), then, should the market be trusted to run the things it runs now? Shoes? Everyone needs shoes. How about housing? People need a house. Food? Shouldn’t the government be responsible for distributing food on the theory that markets aren’t capable of allocating essential goods? Should Wal-Mart be replaced by government food stores?
The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the market shouldn’t even be in the business of allocating goods and services at all. Too much power for a bunch of mouth-breathing capitalists.*
Please refute this. Then once you’ve done so, apply the same refutation to your own OP.
Maybe, but I still would prefer to debate the merits of an assertion that someone actually made, rather than some unsubstantiated statement about what people on “the right” think. But even then, if there are so many people out there on “the right” who think government sucks at everything, it should be easy to find at least a few who think that the military is incompetent.
Having said that, anyone who says “governments can’t do anything right” is either mistaken, or painting with a broad brush.
If someone on the left in fact did feel that the market could do nothing right, in other words was a real socialist or communist, he should definitely draw the conclusions you claim he should.
But most of us think there are some, not all, situations where a pure market solution clashes with basic human needs, or gets into a positive feedback situation and spins out of control without some sort of regulation.
We hear from the tea partyers how government is always the problem. You are invited to give us some real examples of the mainstream left saying the market is always the problem. If the right said only that there are cases where the market does a better job than government, I doubt you’d get much argument from the left. It is the people who claim the FDA is stepping on our rights that make the claims of the OP plausible.
It seems some people are bound and determined to make sweeping generalizations about what ‘the right’ or ‘tea partyers’ think, while refusing to do the same with the left.
Unless you can show me that there are no people on the right who both oppose, say, FDA restrictions will approving of other government functions, the reductio absurdum argument falls on its face.
For myself, I have good reasons for opposing the government policies I oppose, and supporting the ones I support. I believe I’m logically consistent. I’m not an anarchist.
One more thing: even if you think government is generally flawed and inefficient, it’s still reasonable to prefer government action in cases where you believe the alternative is worse.
Or to put it another way: The vaunted efficiency of markets is based on a willful disregard for the vast amounts of actual inefficiency in the real world. And truly free markets are destructive to the economy. For one example, race-to-the-bottom price wars encourage overproduction, resource wastage, & underpaid workers.
While those of us with a libertarian bent chafe against restrictions on our freedom, it is regulated markets that work best. Yes, private business, that’s fine–with licensing & such regulation as is necessary to keep that sector from destroying itself.
We have been running it like a business. Unfortunately it was a bank. That is why we went bankrupt and have the rich on top doing quite well while the people suffer.
if you take the anti-government tea party argument that the government can’t do anything to it’s logical conclusion then yes you are left with a government that shouldn’t run the courts or police
Maybe in a South American tin-pot country. Look at how much tax money was promised in ear marks to get a few votes for health care. How I love your vote, let me count the ways.