Streamlining Goverment

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
There’s definitely some rules that have to be in place for a free market to function within the context of our society. For example, the cheapest way of disposing waste would be to dump it in the river but that would be contrary to the public interest. There’s also regulation required in the financial sector (we can see what happens when we remove all controls). I would imagine that even yourself, Beans, would admit that there are checks and balances required even in the free market.

And those who think that the private sector is always more efficient haven’t worked at some of the large corporations that I have. Hell, GM is a great example of a less than efficient corporation.

james[/quote]

Hypothetically the free market should drive companies to dispose of their products in a manner that is good/best for society. It’s a pipe dream though. Some regulation is needed and I don’t think there are many that would disagree.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I would imagine that even yourself, Beans, would admit that there are checks and balances required even in the free market.

[/quote]

I’d be the first to say clear, simple regulation that prevents irrational behavior becomes needed as the market becomes larger.

But, the point I was making to pitt is that, once you regulate a market it isn’t free. Regulation prevents freedom. There is a difference between what you said and what he said. [/quote]

With out laws what would prevent some one from stealing ?[/quote]

Regulating a market and basic laws are different things.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact[/quote]

You are saying that in order for something to be free, it needs rules that determine how it can behave?[/quote]

Yes , to a degree
[/quote]

That isn’t freedom. You are confusing order through rule of law, and freedom to act within that rule of law, with freedom.

Yes I am nit-picking one tiny part of your larger point, because I found it funny.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Hypothetically the free market should drive companies to dispose of their products in a manner that is good/best for society. It’s a pipe dream though. Some regulation is needed and I don’t think there are many that would disagree.
[/quote]

That is where theory and real life break apart.

The free market, much like our government’s orginal design, requires individual responsibility. There isn’t much of that in the land of Dancing With The Stars is more widely analysed than the effect of bond buying by the Fed…

EDIT: the responsibility being consumers need to pay a bit more for products made by companies that “do the right thing” and take the time to figure out which companies “do the right thing”. Whatever the right thing may be at that moment.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact[/quote]

You are saying that in order for something to be free, it needs rules that determine how it can behave?[/quote]

I am equally as confounded.

Pitt, you know Somalia is not really free right? There might not be an official government, but there is a power elite. Free enterprise doesn’t work there because those in power won’t allow it.

If Somalia was a peaceful place where they left each other alone capitalism would thrive. [/quote]

Exactly , there are no rules (Freedom)

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact[/quote]

You are saying that in order for something to be free, it needs rules that determine how it can behave?[/quote]

Yes , to a degree
[/quote]

That isn’t freedom. You are confusing order through rule of law, and freedom to act within that rule of law, with freedom.

Yes I am nit-picking one tiny part of your larger point, because I found it funny. [/quote]

The error in your way is that I am confused

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact[/quote]

You are saying that in order for something to be free, it needs rules that determine how it can behave?[/quote]

I am equally as confounded.

Pitt, you know Somalia is not really free right? There might not be an official government, but there is a power elite. Free enterprise doesn’t work there because those in power won’t allow it.

If Somalia was a peaceful place where they left each other alone capitalism would thrive. [/quote]

Exactly , there are no rules (Freedom)
[/quote]

No tyranny

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

A stretch? The post office loses millions of dollars every day, ups and fedex make profits.

The only reason people don’t use ups or fedex for general letters is bc the post office has a monopoly on first class mail. Nobody is allowed to sgip first class mail except the post office. I am 100% sure that if the post office shut down there would be no problems.

I still think the government should be responsible for public roads, military, some welfare programs, etc. But they are involved in WAY more stuff then they should be.

If you don’t think businesses are more efficient than government, I’ll give a couple examples : social security and education. Social security is an absolute clusterfuck, would you trust your money to social security or to a private retirement account? Then have a look at private vs public education. Private is pretty much always better. I take the same side as Bill Gates on public education. The government should still fund it, but the money should follow the student, not the school. All the schools are privatized, and will have to compete to get students, and therfore funding.

If you read my post, I never said government wasn’t neccessary. Those countries you mentioned have/had tyrannical governments that stifiled their development as a nation. My argument is for smaller government, not larger, so you are actually proving my point.[/quote]

You can have any trucking company in America deliver a letter , UPS and Fed Ex are probably best equipped to compete with USPS

I agree the gov should be responsible for what you said, but in my opinion we could throw health Care in there . It is something we will all need at some time of our life . Those that do pay their bills are presently subsidizing those that do not pay.It has the potential to be a great thing
[/quote]

Well if health care is taken over by the government, you will still have the same system.

Currently, those that pay subsidize those that don’t.

With government takeover, those who can afford it will subsidize those who can’t.

Pretty much the same system.

I think there should be systems in place for a homeless person that gets sick, a baby needs surgery that their parents cannot afford, etc.

But at the same time, I am tired of the government forcing people to buy things because they are too irresponsible to buy it themselves. It’s the same situation that happened with social security. People were too irresponsible to save for retirement, so the government stepped in and forced everyone to. And you can see how that worked out.

In my opinion, when in doubt, leave the government out of it.

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

A stretch? The post office loses millions of dollars every day, ups and fedex make profits.

The only reason people don’t use ups or fedex for general letters is bc the post office has a monopoly on first class mail. Nobody is allowed to sgip first class mail except the post office. I am 100% sure that if the post office shut down there would be no problems.

I still think the government should be responsible for public roads, military, some welfare programs, etc. But they are involved in WAY more stuff then they should be.

If you don’t think businesses are more efficient than government, I’ll give a couple examples : social security and education. Social security is an absolute clusterfuck, would you trust your money to social security or to a private retirement account? Then have a look at private vs public education. Private is pretty much always better. I take the same side as Bill Gates on public education. The government should still fund it, but the money should follow the student, not the school. All the schools are privatized, and will have to compete to get students, and therfore funding.

If you read my post, I never said government wasn’t neccessary. Those countries you mentioned have/had tyrannical governments that stifiled their development as a nation. My argument is for smaller government, not larger, so you are actually proving my point.[/quote]

You can have any trucking company in America deliver a letter , UPS and Fed Ex are probably best equipped to compete with USPS

I agree the gov should be responsible for what you said, but in my opinion we could throw health Care in there . It is something we will all need at some time of our life . Those that do pay their bills are presently subsidizing those that do not pay.It has the potential to be a great thing
[/quote]

Well if health care is taken over by the government, you will still have the same system.

Currently, those that pay subsidize those that don’t.

With government takeover, those who can afford it will subsidize those who can’t.

Pretty much the same system.

I think there should be systems in place for a homeless person that gets sick, a baby needs surgery that their parents cannot afford, etc.

But at the same time, I am tired of the government forcing people to buy things because they are too irresponsible to buy it themselves. It’s the same situation that happened with social security. People were too irresponsible to save for retirement, so the government stepped in and forced everyone to. And you can see how that worked out.

In my opinion, when in doubt, leave the government out of it.
[/quote]

IMO what Insurance companies see as profit and bonuses are us over paying

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

A stretch? The post office loses millions of dollars every day, ups and fedex make profits.

The only reason people don’t use ups or fedex for general letters is bc the post office has a monopoly on first class mail. Nobody is allowed to sgip first class mail except the post office. I am 100% sure that if the post office shut down there would be no problems.

I still think the government should be responsible for public roads, military, some welfare programs, etc. But they are involved in WAY more stuff then they should be.

If you don’t think businesses are more efficient than government, I’ll give a couple examples : social security and education. Social security is an absolute clusterfuck, would you trust your money to social security or to a private retirement account? Then have a look at private vs public education. Private is pretty much always better. I take the same side as Bill Gates on public education. The government should still fund it, but the money should follow the student, not the school. All the schools are privatized, and will have to compete to get students, and therfore funding.

If you read my post, I never said government wasn’t neccessary. Those countries you mentioned have/had tyrannical governments that stifiled their development as a nation. My argument is for smaller government, not larger, so you are actually proving my point.[/quote]

You can have any trucking company in America deliver a letter , UPS and Fed Ex are probably best equipped to compete with USPS

I agree the gov should be responsible for what you said, but in my opinion we could throw health Care in there . It is something we will all need at some time of our life . Those that do pay their bills are presently subsidizing those that do not pay.It has the potential to be a great thing
[/quote]

Well if health care is taken over by the government, you will still have the same system.

Currently, those that pay subsidize those that don’t.

With government takeover, those who can afford it will subsidize those who can’t.

Pretty much the same system.

I think there should be systems in place for a homeless person that gets sick, a baby needs surgery that their parents cannot afford, etc.

But at the same time, I am tired of the government forcing people to buy things because they are too irresponsible to buy it themselves. It’s the same situation that happened with social security. People were too irresponsible to save for retirement, so the government stepped in and forced everyone to. And you can see how that worked out.

In my opinion, when in doubt, leave the government out of it.
[/quote]

IMO what Insurance companies see as profit and bonuses are us over paying
[/quote]

So then, you think insurance shouldn’t be mandated?

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

A stretch? The post office loses millions of dollars every day, ups and fedex make profits.

The only reason people don’t use ups or fedex for general letters is bc the post office has a monopoly on first class mail. Nobody is allowed to sgip first class mail except the post office. I am 100% sure that if the post office shut down there would be no problems.

I still think the government should be responsible for public roads, military, some welfare programs, etc. But they are involved in WAY more stuff then they should be.

If you don’t think businesses are more efficient than government, I’ll give a couple examples : social security and education. Social security is an absolute clusterfuck, would you trust your money to social security or to a private retirement account? Then have a look at private vs public education. Private is pretty much always better. I take the same side as Bill Gates on public education. The government should still fund it, but the money should follow the student, not the school. All the schools are privatized, and will have to compete to get students, and therfore funding.

If you read my post, I never said government wasn’t neccessary. Those countries you mentioned have/had tyrannical governments that stifiled their development as a nation. My argument is for smaller government, not larger, so you are actually proving my point.[/quote]

You can have any trucking company in America deliver a letter , UPS and Fed Ex are probably best equipped to compete with USPS

I agree the gov should be responsible for what you said, but in my opinion we could throw health Care in there . It is something we will all need at some time of our life . Those that do pay their bills are presently subsidizing those that do not pay.It has the potential to be a great thing
[/quote]

Well if health care is taken over by the government, you will still have the same system.

Currently, those that pay subsidize those that don’t.

With government takeover, those who can afford it will subsidize those who can’t.

Pretty much the same system.

I think there should be systems in place for a homeless person that gets sick, a baby needs surgery that their parents cannot afford, etc.

But at the same time, I am tired of the government forcing people to buy things because they are too irresponsible to buy it themselves. It’s the same situation that happened with social security. People were too irresponsible to save for retirement, so the government stepped in and forced everyone to. And you can see how that worked out.

In my opinion, when in doubt, leave the government out of it.
[/quote]

IMO what Insurance companies see as profit and bonuses are us over paying
[/quote]

So then, you think insurance shouldn’t be mandated?[/quote]

I would go for a public option 1rst choice or Socialized Medicine

It’s my understanding that UPS, FEDEx and the like essentially operate through a loop-hole, allowing them to deliver urgent, courier-delivered letters costing more than $3. They can not deliver letters as the U.S.P.S can.

What a waste of money spending on funding the Government Accountability Office if the Congress will not listen to them and make the necessary cuts to useless programs.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

So then, you think insurance shouldn’t be mandated?[/quote]

I would go for a public option 1rst choice or Socialized Medicine
[/quote]

But should that be mandated?

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

So then, you think insurance shouldn’t be mandated?[/quote]

I would go for a public option 1rst choice or Socialized Medicine
[/quote]

But should that be mandated?[/quote]

Sort answer (NO)

A few points Auto Ins. is mandated

And IMO opinion the elephant in the room is mandating people to give their money to private enterprise.

If it were truley a social program it would be another tax

We already have Medicaid to provide for those who can’t afford insurance. If that’s not reaching the population that it should then in my mind the answer is to revamp that not to add another layer of complexity on top of everything. It just seems like we should be busy fixing the things that really need fixing.

Govt can be very efficient if we held it to a high standard and made government service actually something to aspire to instead of a fall back.

james

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

So then, you think insurance shouldn’t be mandated?[/quote]

I would go for a public option 1rst choice or Socialized Medicine
[/quote]

But should that be mandated?[/quote]

Sort answer (NO)

A few points Auto Ins. is mandated

And IMO opinion the elephant in the room is mandating people to give their money to private enterprise.

If it were truley a social program it would be another tax
[/quote]

Auto insurance isn’t mandated everywhere. I grew up in NH; if you own your vehicle, and have a clear driving record, you don’t need auto insurance. Until I joined the military and came to stupid NC, I’d never had car insurance.

As I assume you figured already, my point is that if it’s mandated, of course companies can charge you ridiculous prices, at no risk to them…because IT’S THE LAW! Eliminates the possibility of free market, when a non-essential service is mandated by law.

If, on the other hand, nationwide you don’t have to have health/auto insurance, and those don’t inherently inhibit you from various pursuits in life…then insurance companies will be FORCED to compete for the lowest prices, to convince you that their product, “peace of mind”, is worth the cost. As we know, insurance can only make a profit if it’s statistically not necessary. So if people didn’t HAVE to buy it, the insurance companies would have no choice but to, for the most part, become more efficient, so they can have low enough prices that people will actually decide are worth it.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
We already have Medicaid to provide for those who can’t afford insurance. If that’s not reaching the population that it should then in my mind the answer is to revamp that not to add another layer of complexity on top of everything. It just seems like we should be busy fixing the things that really need fixing.

Govt can be very efficient if we held it to a high standard and made government service actually something to aspire to instead of a fall back.

james[/quote]

I think that, quite simply, if government is to EVER be some semblance of efficient, it needs to be operated on a MUCH smaller scale, on the whole.

As in, give the federal government only the VERY MINIMUM amount of power needed to keep its citizens safe; next layer is state govt of course. States should have a decent amount of power and influence, but the REAL power, as influences day to day affairs, should be on a city by city basis, for the most part. That way, if people think a city’s laws are tyrannical, just move a few miles down the road to a less oppressive one. Cities would then be competing to be the best-run system, so as to attract more citizens, therefore getting more tax money, etc. It would give each city more incentive to work hard to govern well, because if too many people don’t like the way it is run, they’ll leave, and bring their money with them. Also, that way, instead of having entire STATES like California failing, you’d potentially just have cities here and there failing, which isn’t as big a deal, nationally. Easier to fix, or abandon and just disperse their population. Which would ALSO serve to give you many working models, all throughout the country, of what does and doesn’t work, rather than finding that out on a nationwide basis. Stakes are much smaller for any one city/town. Also, large-scale corruption would be less likely, in my mind, because there’s inherently greater accountability on such a relatively small scale, so thieves and corrupt politicians will be stopped sooner, once it becomes quickly apparent that what they are doing is bad for the city.

Anyways, that’s my pet theory.

That’s not quite true H4M. I mean it is in theory but the reality is that prices aren’t driven down that much because of a lot of other reasons including high amount of regulation in health care, a desire to have the newest equipment regardless of whether it works or not, high cost of doctors, high demand for services, and the fact that you’re forced to go through a third party instead of dealing straight with the hospital.

james

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
That’s not quite true H4M. I mean it is in theory but the reality is that prices aren’t driven down that much because of a lot of other reasons including high amount of regulation in health care, a desire to have the newest equipment regardless of whether it works or not, high cost of doctors, high demand for services, and the fact that you’re forced to go through a third party instead of dealing straight with the hospital.

james[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, those are big factors; I was just speaking to the matter of insurance being mandated.

Something you touched on here, [quote] “a desire to have the newest equipment regardless of whether it works or not” [/quote] is big as well. Not just in the sense you were speaking of here(medically), but in a broader sense. Everybody wants the newest this, the most convenient that, etc. Then they complain about not being able to pay the bills, despite spending hundreds on their cell phones, internet, cable, ipad, music, etc. We assume that because most people around us have those, we NEED them to be “normal” or whatever, when often those unneeded conveniences are dragging people down.

Now, I say that as someone with all of those things; but if at any time I foresee not being able to pay for those amenities, I’d have no problem living without. Well, except maybe a pay-as-you-go cell phone, haha.