- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 163
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Does anybody have any interesting arguments against subjecting government organizations (GOs) to survival of the fittest? The process would simply involve allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes among the various GOs at anytime throughout the year.
Centinel, oh, yeah...you put it so well.
The only difference between public and private organizations would be that people would have to allocate a certain percentage of their income to organizations in the public sector. Nobody forces you to spend any money on non-profit or for-profit organizations...but the IRS would just ensure that you "donated" enough of your money to the GOs of your choosing.
Deuce...so the survival of the fittest concept only applies to businesses?
Off the top of your head...how many data centers does Google maintain?
If the FDA wasn't receiving enough funds...but nobody noticed...does it really matter?
Does anybody have any interesting arguments against subjecting government organizations (GOs) to survival of the fittest? The process would simply involve allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes among the various GOs at anytime throughout the year.
Well, for one, saying something after people die isn't as helpful as doing something before that happens.Deuce, so the people over at the FDA aren't going to say or do anything about losing substantial funding...and the families of people who are sick aren't going to say or do anything either?
Perhaps it might help if you read this relatively short and simple article on how markets work...A Marvel of Cooperation: How Order Emerges without a Conscious Planner.
You mean people who don't pay taxes don't vote?
I'd like to see that in action!
Roughly one out of every six Americans currently works for a private firm that receives federal contracts. Roughly two-thirds of those contracts came from the Department of Defense, which accounted for over $120 billion in 1997, and roughly two-thirds of those defense dollars went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin (airplanes), McDonnel Douglas (airplanes), Northrup Grumann (airplanes), General Motors (tanks and trucks), and Ratheon (weapons systems).
Does anybody have any interesting arguments against subjecting government organizations (GOs) to survival of the fittest? The process would simply involve allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes among the various GOs at anytime throughout the year.
Swit, the challenge of this concept is considering the aggregate. That's why I created this survey...Tax Allocation Survey. You can copy and paste your pie chart into this thread.
The one sure way I can tell for certain that somebody does not understand how the invisible hand works is if they predict that some essential public good would be underfunded. Check out this short and simple article on how markets work...A Marvel of Cooperation: How Order Emerges without a Conscious Planner.
Deuce, too much fun. I was just looking through my very first poli-sci textbook (A Delicate Balance by Paul Light) and found this interesting passage...
For some reason you think that public goods occur in some type of vacuum...yet one in six Americans' livelihood depends to some extent on federal funding.
Plus, as I explained to you before...with good fundraising practices...non-profit organizations receive $5 for every $1 they spend on fundraising. If an organization spent $100 million on fundraising they would get $500 million in return. If you think this is a bad deal send me $500 and I'll send you $100 in return...or we can make it easy and you can just send me $400.
Information...check!
The concept that you...and nearly all other voters...fail to consider is that of opportunity cost. Nearly 75% of Americans support Obama's Jobs bill to provide funding for more teachers and first responders. Should we go further into debt to pay for the funding...or perhaps we should increase the amount of taxes that rich people pay? Yeah, most Americans would vote for having the rich pay their "fair share" and the rich will continue to try and protect their interests.
Competition...check!
Choice......it's the only thing missing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?