when someone defends increased govt power, what does one say?
OK,
what if someone says that the government would do a better job of regulating something than a private business because they're not motivated by profit? I've been put on the spot somewhere and I don't know how to answer.
Me, the wimp, said something like this (and I'm certain that it is so off the mark):
Profits equal revenues minus expenses, net of tax.
Revenues minus expenses in a govt standpoint is either a surplus or deficit. It's not like the govt doesn't have to watch out how it spends for what They may not call it a profit, but it's computed the same way a profit is, in a way.
I don't really care to be hostile or anything LOL. I just would appreciate that self-professed open-minded people would show the respect for different views that open-minded people are supposed to have
__________________
I miss my Mom's meatballs
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.
what if someone says that the government would do a better job of regulating something than a private business because they're not motivated by profit? I've been put on the spot somewhere and I don't know how to answer.
Me, the wimp, said something like this (and I'm certain that it is so off the mark):
There are lots of sides to this. I'll start with the cynical side, because that's where my head is at right now.
Government isn't exactly free of self-interest either. The dedicated public servant who seeks only to do the public good is very rare; and when you do encounter them, they're probably motivated by an ideological agenda. seeking to force you to do what they perceive as good.
In the case of elected officials, they're motivated by power rather than money, and keeping power at all costs is what they're about... or in some cases, by using power to transform society into their vision, which may not be your vision. Keeping power almost always requires kowtowing to lobbyists and big donors, who have in mind their own profit or power.
In the case of bureaucrats, they're motivated by careerism. They want to make it to retirement with a fat pension and benefits without making waves, which could endanger their advancement. And they want to enhance their power and influence, which is achieved mainly by increasing the number of people under them. Whether there's any actual public need for those subordinates is irrelevant.
The rule is that the primary purpose of any bureaucracy is to hire and pay bureaucrats. Once that's done, and done as much as possible, they may also try to accomplish their stated purpose; but the stated purpose is always secondary to the primary purpose.
So tell me again how pure and disinterested government is in looking after the people's well being?
Of course there is also a positive case for the free market, a very good one, but I'll need coffee first, lots of coffee.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. No guilt of life, no fear of death This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘Til He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand
Last edited by Izdaari; 30th October 2009 at 07:09 PM.
Boggles my mind that *anyone* can believe that a gov't can do a better job then the private sector.....
le's face it... the gov't will not lose their job, thier lively hood etc unless.... on the rare occasion, they are voted out, an even then they've got plenty stock piled, not only in money etc but people etc.
A private sector positions livelyhood rests on makin it good, keepin in buisness... otherwise they go out of buisness....
for me.... this one is always in the forefront of my mind... folks say the loggin industry is destroyin the forests etc... an we need gov't control to make sure we keep forests.... now the flip side.... those who own an cut thier logs to sale etc... are nuthin more then forest farmers... an I'm sorry to say, the farmer knows one heck of a lot better then an idiot behind a desk on how to grow up a piece of land/forest.
You bet the private sector knows better how to run THIER buisness then any gov't. More regulation is NEVER the answer. If ppl do not like a product er a service, they are FREE to do sumthin different. To buy sumthin else, go somewhere else.... gov't control is NEVER the answer.
__________________ Why is it as the army of God we spend most of our time polishing our armor or fighting with each other?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The body of Christ, only place you can come wounded and leave dead! God's army, the only army in the universe that shoots it's own wounded.
I don't talk for you, I talk for me, if'n you don't like it, deal wit it.
I suppose that there is no single answer to the question but that you'll collect a bunch of different personal views on it. Here's mine--
I'd begin by saying that the premise is faulty. There is an assumption that if there is no profit motive, that the result will be better. There is absolutly no reason to conclude that.
History doesn't show that those who work for government are more efficient or driven, just the opposite. And it's a fact that government-operated industries, here and abroad, are less environmentally sensitive, less responsive to the public, and less efficient in keeping within a budget. So where does the notion come that making a profit is LESS a motivation for excellence than a lack of such an incentive? Never never accidentally buy into a Classist argument when engaged in a debate!
Should the government run the military? Oh yes. I think so. We all know what happens when contractors get over-used.
Should the government run child services? This is a sticky one, but I still say yes. In Florida, child care was privatized and contract granted to Lockheed Martin (what?? yes, that was my reaction). They very quickly decided they couldn't take it on and the whole system fell into a shambles with the government to pick up the pieces. Why? No profit in finding foster homes for kids. (my father described that to me around 2000 or so when it happened...he was working for child services at the time)
Should government run banking? No! But it should regulate it to a point.
Just some examples.
__________________ "Recommend Macs to your friends. Recommend PCs to people you don't mind charging by the hour."
WalksWithLimp (yes, that's a real CF member!)
"I tried to walk into Target, but I missed."
Mitch Hedberg
what if someone says that the government would do a better job of regulating something than a private business because they're not motivated by profit? I've been put on the spot somewhere and I don't know how to answer.
"Regulating something." The question is what. Obviously you need a government to run a criminal justice system, and part of that is protecting property rights - prosecuting theft and fraud. However, you do not need or want a government to run your factories, your hospitals, your offices, your grocery stores, your car dealerships, or as we are finding out now, even your schools. Everything gets too mired in rules, and no competition means a lack of accountability.
Yes, let me say that again - no competition. When people are paying taxes and are barely getting by, they're going to choose the government service they paid for rather than the private service they cannot afford, even though the government service is worse. This of course gives the rich a tremendous advantage over the rest of us. And the rest of us have to just sit and take what the government is willing to provide, unless we are fortunate enough to get rich ourselves. This lack of competition essentially makes the government into a monopoly.
Now, I'm sure this person you're talking to wouldn't be too happy with a corporate monopoly. Self-absorbed people making money off the rest of us who have no choice and all that. But how is a government monopoly any better? You've got people who are just as self-absorbed working there. You've got the same lack of incentive for excellence. You don't really have control over what you're paying for the service. And on top of that, this same entity has the power a corporate monopoly does not have, which is the power to throw you in jail.
__________________ Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
- Proverbs 30:5-6
__________________ "... not an unconcerned sitting of God in heaven, from which He merely observes the things that are done in the world; but that all-active and all-concerned seatedness on His throne above, by which He governs the world which He Himself hath made." John Calvin
To us, O LORD, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you.
__________________ "Recommend Macs to your friends. Recommend PCs to people you don't mind charging by the hour."
WalksWithLimp (yes, that's a real CF member!)
"I tried to walk into Target, but I missed."
Mitch Hedberg
what if someone says that the government would do a better job of regulating something than a private business because they're not motivated by profit? I've been put on the spot somewhere and I don't know how to answer.
I guess I see only one fault in your premise - the notion that "profit = financial gain" which is an issue (that government seeks financial gain) can be argued as well, but my point is that not all profit is necessarily financial or economic in nature. One can "profit" in greater prestige; one can profit in greater security; one can profit in greater power - truly the sort of "gain" one seeks in any venture need not be limited to economic gain to be called "profit" - for that is what profit is - gain.
Given our exponentially expanding massive government deficit and debt - economic gain is CLEARLY NOT what the government and its minions are after.
Perhaps a better tack would first be to ask (and address) what government [bureaucrats] seek to GAIN in all their [regulatory] machinations?
I would also point out that government - being an "umbrella entity" - can indeed better regulate things than can any private entity or enterprise which, by definition (and construct) does not have such "umbrella powers." Understand, the term "regulate" means fundamentally "to control." This cannot be understated or overemphasized - regulate = control.
Understanding this then, another tack to take would be to address the relative rights/wrongs of a monopolistic entity. We have laws to prevent any private enterprise from becoming a monopoly - because it's a "bad" thing (and arguably can be). But those who argue for greater government control (regulation) have no answer for the fact that when a government seeks to establish an enterprise (government program) it becomes, by definition a monopoly in that area, particularly when it uses its legislative and judicial powers to protect such a program from encroachment (competition) by private enterprise.
"Health Care Reform" is a classic example of a government enterprise and government encroachment into the private sector and its proponents have every intent of making it a monopoly at some point.
Again - one must ask what those who desire to create in such a monopoly seek to gain in its establishment? You can be certain that "humanitarianism" is just an excuse - a ruse - a disguise for their real nefarious purposes. Only the naive and ignorant, whose naive and ignorant support the government bureaucrats need to implement their monopoly (they're truly being used and manipulated), may in their naivete and ignorance altruistically care about the humanitarian arguments they're given, and give. Those who will run the system however are anything but [altruistic] - the gain in power (and personal financial gain) they will have being altogether astronomical.
__________________
"I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you." - Isa 44:22
when someone defends increased govt power, what does one say? 
They may not call it a profit, but it's computed the same way a profit is, in a way. 
Linear Mode
