This interpretation of what I said
is not normal. Yes, so it is.
I would advise you do two things before posting:
- Read.
- Think.
If you’ll notice, RickJay is suggesting the reduction of numbers of people employed by government.
I’m suggesting the reduction of the scope of your hypothetical investigation into hypothetical governmental malfeasance, noting that, whatever particular malfeasance you’re concerned about, it’s unlikely that more than a minute fraction of the 22 million employees of all levels and branches of government had the potential of being involved.
These are two very different things, and hard to confuse with one another.
A normal person? Yes. But as Frank says, that excludes you. You have those recourses only in theory, because in practice you will be you, and undermine the willingness of anyone to help or cooperate with you.
You’ll notice my failure to use the word ‘big’ or ‘large’ or any other synonym.
That doesn’t contradict what I said.
I didn’t see him say anything of the sort. If you took a couple hyperbole pills today, I think you’ll be wanting to go find an antidote. I’m seeing here a rather bizarre attempt to dodge your own responsibility. Ya know how it goes; “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”.
When was the last time you visited a government office? Dude, precious few of your gummint hamsters have ‘power’. They’re all running in their wheels, same as any other joe in a non-gov’t job.
You’re sounding like a naif from the sticks all agog at seeing tall buildings. There’s a lot of people paid by a single overall employer, but under that blanket exist many, many jobs and many, many regular people just like you.
It’s easy to stand far away from something that seems large and mysterious and be all over bamboozled by it, but were you to go up close and talk to some of these cube denizens, you’d see they’re no more scary or powerful than Joe-Bob-Billy-Fred who runs the local gas station.
Now quit making up stories and go write some letters to your elected reps.
I’m so confused! 
How did this thread about Old Gnatbrain turn into a debate about the nature of government??
I mean, this sort of disgression never happens in a political thread. . . .
I know that’s what you suggested. “I disagree” and “I don’t understand” do not mean the same thing. Setting aside the issue of whether your wild guess about percentages is at all meaningful, the simple fact of the matter is that if the overall number is reduced, as RickJay suggested, then the number to hold responsible is also decreased, as I suggested.
In fact, you’re making my point for me by stating it as a formula: R = E * P, where R is the number you can hold responsible, E is the number of employees, and P is the percentage that are accessible (presumably a constant if you don’t waffle). As E decreases, so does R.
Your own argument is damaged, not assisted, when it includes personal insults directed at your opponent.
Deflection of blame.
Who could have imagined that starting a couple of wars would increase the number of patients in military hospitals?
Who could have imagined that replacing government staff with a smaller number of corporate employees might cause problems? (Especially when the company has a bad track record.)
Just about everybody, actually.
Numerous relatives had Military and/or Civil Service careers. They were neither slackers nor power-mad bureaucrats.
Oh, I don’t know. I suspect that no matter how much luxury and power he were given, Jesus would still be a pretty good guy.
Well, let’s go back to my first post, because you are not seeing the forest for the trees here. The analogy of government and corporations doesn’t work because government is, by its very nature, a monopoly. Corporations, on the other hand, are rarely in such a position, and when they are, it’s usually because the government has made it so. That is all.
Take responsibility for your own words, spittlefuck. You said: “But that’s exactly what RickJay suggested, and what Frank and you attacked — reduce the numbers. What are you, arguing with yourself?”
You weren’t saying you agreed, disagreed, understood, or misunderstood. You were claiming that I was simultaneously agreeing with and attacking RickJay’s position.
It was blatantly obvious that that wasn’t that case. You weren’t disagreeing with my position - you were misunderstanding it.
Now you’re playing “let’s pretend I said something completely different from what I said, so that I can pretend I look good.”
Have fun playing by/with yourself.
I happen to disagree with that, and didn’t find your last response particularly on point.
Even the water company isn’t an absolute monopoly - I could always get bottled water trucked in. But it’s a monopoly for all practical purposes. And the world is full of natural monopolies. But AFAICT, you’ve got a very stringent definition of monopoly, and that’s where we differ. By what I consider a reasonable definition, natural monopolies aren’t uncommon.
If you don’t like the government here, you can always move to Canada. Where’s your monopoly then?