Why Government Is a Deeply Flawed Institution: A Clear and Concise Explanation

Ask yourself this: what percentage of your time and money is spent on people you don’t know? The answer is close to zero. Nearly 100% of your time and money goes to yourself and your family. Then come your close friends. After that, your casual friends and acquaintances. Strangers don’t even make the list.

In reality - not in the fantasy world of rhetoric - you don’t give a shit about strangers. Even if you volunteered at a soup kitchen for an hour and a half every week for your entire life, that’s still less than one percent of your time. Don't feel bad; we're all pretty much the same in this respect. Selfless actions are extremely rare compared to self-interested ones. It's just human nature, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

Now, suppose we hand you political power. How will you use it? The answer is obvious: to benefit yourself and your family. Then your close friends. Then your casual friends and acquaintances. Strangers don’t even make the list.

Even if a government were filled with decent, “normal” people, they would never act in the best interests of the country at large. They would do what people always do - look out for themselves, their families, and their friends. And that’s exactly what we see in the real world. It’s why Washington, D.C., has 10,000 registered lobbyists (and probably twice as many unregistered ones). Politicians will always put their own interests ahead of yours. Your so-called “representative” doesn’t even know your name - and doesn’t care to.

Government agents operate on self-interest, not for the common good. That's why government screws up everything it touches. Why it can’t even get the simple things right. It’s why defense contractors get filthy rich. Why healthcare costs a fortune. Why government drastically restricts the housing supply, thus condemning millions of young people to being lifelong renters. It’s why the money you have in the bank loses value with each passing year. This is why government sucks and why there is no fixing it - it doesn't matter who's in charge.

As uncle Milty put it, "The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests."




Do: Attack the argument.

Don't: Attack the messenger.

@Phys251

 

[aociswundumho]

Why, because you like the idea of government that serves the wishes of billionaires over the rest of society?

No, I don't like it. If I'm wrong about any of it, then quote the relevant text from the OP and explain why.

If you can't dispute any of it, then it follows that government power should be minimized.

 

[Airyaman]

No, I don't like it. If I'm wrong about any of it, then quote the relevant text from the OP and explain why.

If you can't dispute any of it, then it follows that government power should be minimized.

I've always been on the side of smaller government. I wish that governments only supplied the barest of services that help to make a more functional society. Less government means less money they need from us, and less debt when they can't get the money they need. But that ship sailed decades if not centuries ago, and it's going to take alot more than forum posts to turn the leviathan around.

Question: are you a member of any government, either as an elected official or even worker who can affect change?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree with the following:

Even if a government were filled with decent, “normal” people, they would never act in the best interests of the country at large. They would do what people always do - look out for themselves, their families, and their friends. And that’s exactly what we see in the real world. It’s why Washington, D.C., has 10,000 registered lobbyists (and probably twice as many unregistered ones). Politicians will always put their own interests ahead of yours. Your so-called “representative” doesn’t even know your name - and doesn’t care to.

When you say “government” it seems to address only the federal government, which I agree has given (taken for?) itself more powers than our constitution ever intended. The concept of a federal government with a few limited (specific enumerated?) powers with all else being left to the several states or to the people seems to have disappeared.

We the sheeple can occasionally vote for (or against) only 3 (.05%) of ‘our’ 535 congress critters, while the donor class can (and does) influence any (or all) of them 24/7/365.

The states (and their governments) have gradually become hopelessly dependent on federal funding (bribes?) to such an extent that they accept this (seemingly unconstitutional) transfer of power (control?) and expense to the federal government.

 

[aociswundumho]

I've always been on the side of smaller government. I wish that governments only supplied the barest of services that help to make a more functional society. Less government means less money they need from us, and less debt when they can't get the money they need.

Good for you. Nice to see that you are not a brain dead state worshiper.

But that ship sailed decades if not centuries ago, and it's going to take alot more than forum posts to turn the leviathan around.

No, that's not the purpose of my post. I argue politics because it's fun, not to bring about any sort of radical change.

Question: are you a member of any government, either as an elected official or even worker who can effect change?

No, I would never be a part of such an immoral institution.

 

[aociswundumho]

When you say “government” it seems to address only the federal government, which I agree has given (taken for?) itself more powers than our constitution intended. The concept of a federal government with a few limited (specific enumerated?) powers with all else being left to the several states or to the people seems to have disappeared.

The constitution has no enforcement mechanism. Since governments are filled with self-interested politicians, they will use any pretext to increase the size or scope of the state.

We the sheeple can occasionally vote for (or against) only 3 (.05%) of ‘our’ 535 congress critters, while the donor class can (and does) influence any (or all) of them 24/7/365.

Yes, and remember congress wants to be influenced. Lobbyists are highly beneficial to congress.

The states (and their governments) have gradually become hopelessly dependent on federal funding (bribes?) to such an extent that they accept this (seemingly unconstitutional) transfer of power (control?) and expense to the federal government.

I like your style of writing with all of the parentheses. It's perfect for political discussions where nothing is what it appears to be.

 

[Helix]

Unfortunately, fascists took over one party and the other party is about as useless as a concrete Lazy Boy with a built in sprinkler.

 

[Dans La Lune]

That's exactly what Jeff Bezos did.

'Jeff Bezos, the founder and former CEO of Amazon, has faced significant criticism for the alleged exploitation of workers within the company. Amazon's global infrastructure is held together by the labor of workers around the world, many of whom are subjected to exploitative conditions, including low wages and poor working conditions.

One of the main criticisms is that Amazon systematically shortchanges workers on their paychecks, as reported by The New York Times. Additionally, the company has been accused of encouraging workers to leave after three years to maintain high efficiency and low wages. Amazon warehouse employees make approximately $31,200 a year, while Jeff Bezos makes that amount every 12 seconds.'

Yes, socialists are always hostile to charity. Bernie especially despises the very idea of charity.

Rightly so. Look at what Bill Gates did to the education system.

Capitalism has eliminated mass poverty across the globe, and nobody denies it. Even Marx was in awe of capitalism way back in 1850.

If you equate all trade with capitalism, then you both don't understand capitalism and you don't understand how socialism mitigates the excesses of capitalism. The greatest expansion of the Middle Class came through the reforms of FDR, after capitalism had largely collapsed.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Addressed this in the op:

You address everything very poorly though, through caricatures and backward solutions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The constitution has no enforcement mechanism. Since governments are filled with self-interested politicians, they will use any pretext to increase the size or scope of the state.



Yes, and remember congress wants to be influenced. Lobbyists are highly beneficial to congress.



I like your style of writing with all of the parentheses. It's perfect for political discussions where nothing is what it appears to be.

The federal government is (gradually?) moving to take control of major portions of the US economy with ‘healthcare’ (medical care insurance) being the current target. Rather than (accurately) call this socialism, it’s cleverly called “single-payer” or “universal coverage”. As a percentage of annual federal spending, ‘healthcare’ (Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA and veterans benefits) already exceeds the amounts spent on defense and interest on the (huge and growing) national debt.

Our National Debt

America’s fiscal health and economic strength are closely linked. Learn more about the drivers of our national debt and its economic impact.

www.pgpf.org

 

[Dans La Lune]

Why, because you like the idea of government that serves the wishes of billionaires over the rest of society?

His views parallel those of Curtis Yarvin and Marc Andressen.

'Curtis Yarvin, also known by his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, has proposed a plan to overhaul the current democratic system in the United States. His plan, often referred to as the "RAGE" (Retire All Government Employees) proposal, involves taking over the federal government and gutting the federal bureaucracy. Yarvin envisions replacing civil servants with political loyalists who would answer to a CEO-type leader, similar to a dictator, who would have absolute control over the government, akin to a monarch or a CEO in a private company.

Yarvin's blueprint includes several steps to achieve this transformation:

• Stripping power from federal agencies, courts, and Congress, centralizing authority under the executive branch.
• Recruiting an "ideologically trained" army to replace experts and enforce the new regime.
• Seizing control of media and information to maintain power.'

Curtis Yarvin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He’s anti-democracy and pro-Trump: the obscure ‘dark enlightenment’ blogger influencing the next US administration

Key figures in the incoming administration follow Curtis Yarvin, who’s pushing for an autocratic takeover of the US

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dans La Lune]

The federal government is (gradually?) moving to take control of major portions of the US economy with ‘healthcare’ (medical care insurance) being the current target. Rather than (accurately) call this socialism, it’s cleverly called “single-payer” or “universal coverage”. As a percentage of annual federal spending, ‘healthcare’ (Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA and veterans benefits) already exceeds the amounts spent on defense and interest on the (huge and growing) national debt.

Medicare For All saves money. It just does. It also saves thousands, tens of thousands of lives, and prevents mass medical bankruptcy. The downstream positive impact of socialize healthcare is enormous on society.

22 studies agree: ‘Medicare for All’ saves money

Whether you call it single-payer or “Medicare for All,” it isn’t some socialist pipe dream. It’s a sensible, efficient and effective way to guarantee excellent health insurance to every…

thehill.com

FACT CHECK: Medicare for All Would Save the U.S. Trillions; Public Option Would Leave Millions Uninsured, Not Garner Savings - Public Citizen

Medicare for All opponents repeatedly claim that Medicare for All is “too expensive” by presenting misleading numbers without the proper…

www.citizen.org

 

[aociswundumho]

The federal government is (gradually?) moving to take control of major portions of the US economy with ‘healthcare’ (medical care insurance) being the current target.

That's the typical playbook. They pass endless regulations which drastically reduces competition and supply, then when prices shoot up they subsidize demand which makes a bad situation even worse.

Rather than (accurately) call this socialism, it’s cleverly called “single-payer” or “universal coverage”. As a percentage of annual federal spending, ‘healthcare’ (Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA and veterans benefits) already exceeds the amounts spent on defense and interest on the (huge and growing) national debt.

We are already half way there to single payer:

Government Now Pays For Nearly 50 Percent Of Health Care Spending, An Increase Driven By Baby Boomers Shifting Into Medicare - KFF Health News

A new CMS report projects that U.S. health care spending will surpass $5.9 trillion in 2027, growing to represent more than 19 percent of the economy. Rising prices for health care goods and services are expected to account for nearly half the spending growth, with the rest driven by a mix of...

kffhealthnews.org

Our National Debt

America’s fiscal health and economic strength are closely linked. Learn more about the drivers of our national debt and its economic impact.

www.pgpf.org

Tax increases and spending cuts are extremely unpopular. There's only one way out, and that's to inflate the debt away.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Tax increases and spending cuts are extremely unpopular. There's only one way out, and that's to inflate the debt away.

Time for more billionaire tax cuts.

 

[aociswundumho]

Medicare For All saves money.

No, it will bankrupt the country:

How Medicare for All will play out

The purpose of this post is to completely and utterly destroy this insane idea that Medicare for All will benefit the American people. I will use Bernie's plan for this post. https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/ Bernie's plan would: 1. Create a Medicare for All, single-payer...

debatepolitics.com

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's the typical playbook. They pass endless regulations which drastically reduces competition and supply, then when prices shoot up they subsidize demand which makes a bad situation even worse.



We are already half way there to single payer:

Government Now Pays For Nearly 50 Percent Of Health Care Spending, An Increase Driven By Baby Boomers Shifting Into Medicare - KFF Health News

A new CMS report projects that U.S. health care spending will surpass $5.9 trillion in 2027, growing to represent more than 19 percent of the economy. Rising prices for health care goods and services are expected to account for nearly half the spending growth, with the rest driven by a mix of...

kffhealthnews.org

Tax increases and spending cuts are extremely unpopular. There's only one way out, and that's to inflate the debt away.

The problem is you can’t grow GDP by simply changing who pays for medical care expenses (or anything else). Many M4A proposals (e.g. HR767) outlaw ‘for-profit’ medical care providers, which largely removes them (and their portion of GDP) from the federal (and to some extent the states’) tax base. Conversion of for-profit into nonprofit corporate entities means that private investors (shareholders) can’t be paid dividends, thus it discourages (if not eliminates) private investment.

 

[aociswundumho]

Many M4A proposals (e.g. HR767) outlaw ‘for-profit’ medical care providers,

That's one reason why none of them will pass. The healthcare industry has enormous lobbying power, and its not going to just roll over if their gravy train is threatened. Healthcare providers have no interest in a system that pays medicare rates.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No, it will bankrupt the country:

How Medicare for All will play out

The purpose of this post is to completely and utterly destroy this insane idea that Medicare for All will benefit the American people. I will use Bernie's plan for this post. https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/ Bernie's plan would: 1. Create a Medicare for All, single-payer...

debatepolitics.com

Linking to your own article as the source for your argument seems... odd.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The federal government is (gradually?) moving to take control of major portions of the US economy with ‘healthcare’ (medical care insurance) being the current target. Rather than (accurately) call this socialism, it’s cleverly called “single-payer” or “universal coverage”. As a percentage of annual federal spending, ‘healthcare’ (Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA and veterans benefits) already exceeds the amounts spent on defense and interest on the (huge and growing) national debt.

Our National Debt

America’s fiscal health and economic strength are closely linked. Learn more about the drivers of our national debt and its economic impact.

www.pgpf.org

Sounds good.

 

[Allan]

Now, suppose we hand you political power. How will you use it? The answer is obvious: to benefit yourself and your family. Then your close friends. Then your casual friends and acquaintances. Strangers don’t even make the list.

Man is this a flawed assumption. Wow.

I like many people outside the government had a job with some power - very large budget, fairly loose oversight. Lots of people I know were in a similar position.

What did I do with that power? My job.

Did I use it to benefit myself, family, acquaintances and friends? Of course not.

Most people wouldn't.

So why would we assume that government employees would be so much different than say the average mid to high level executive?

There is no reason to believe they'd be less ethical than the majority of private sector workers.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Man is this a flawed assumption. Wow.

I like many people outside the government had a job with some power - very large budget, fairly loose oversight. Lots of people I know were in a similar position.

What did I do with that power? My job.

Did I use it to benefit myself, family, acquaintances and friends? Of course not.

Most people wouldn't.

So why would we assume that government employees would be so much different than say the average mid to high level executive?

There is no reason to believe they'd be less ethical than the majority of private sector workers.

They're so corrupted and maligned that they just naturally assume everyone else is too.

 

[aociswundumho]

What did I do with that power? My job.

I said political power. The key is difference is political power is the ability to control the behavior of people, institutions, and policies within a society. It involves the authority to make decisions, enforce laws, and allocate resources. Political power brings enormous opportunities for graft, nepotism, and cronyism.

 

[Allan]

I said political power. The key is difference is political power is the ability to control the behavior of people, institutions, and policies within a society. It involves the authority to make decisions, enforce laws, and allocate resources. Political power brings enormous opportunities for graft, nepotism, and cronyism.

Political power doesn't automatically cause corruption any more than any other type of power does.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Do you think private companies always respect people's rights and never harm people? Do you want to live in some Blade Runner world, where corporations become defacto governments?
Do you think people were more free in the Glided Age?

Is all of this okay?

Hinkley groundwater contamination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IG Farben Trial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Radium Girls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

East India Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

5 Companies That Still Use Slave Labor

Let's talk about the modern slave trade.

www.theodysseyonline.com

Hawks Nest Tunnel disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Were these companies ''overregulated''? Did the government force them to do these things or did they decide to do it themselves? Isn't the idea that a company is more virtuous than a government completely ahistorical?

 

[Dans La Lune]

I said political power. The key is difference is political power is the ability to control the behavior of people, institutions, and policies within a society. It involves the authority to make decisions, enforce laws, and allocate resources. Political power brings enormous opportunities for graft, nepotism, and cronyism.

In a corrupt capitalist system, private ownership and political power are almost indistinguishable. See America for details.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Political power doesn't automatically cause corruption any more than any other type of power does.

The person you're conversing with seems to understand that private ownership power (like ~$400 billion USD) translates into political (government) power. While we get One Vote Per Person, someone like Elon can single handedly upend civilization through his (government-derived) wealth.