mrswdk wrote:Phatscotty's argument appeared to hinge on the idea that a larger government undermines 'democracy' by increasing the number of areas in which government agents have the power to rent seek. His answer is to reduce the number of things that the government has control over.
My question is: does reducing government authority and responsibility in various areas of society decrease the scale of corruption and rent-seeking overall, or would it just shift it from within the government to non-government hands?
With regards to your point, tgd, do you have any particular examples of areas where you feel the private sector could do what the government does but without using as many resources?
Reducing government authority and responsibility shifts rent-seeking and corruption from government to non-government. I think that's a safe assumption to make (although, inb4 BigBallinStalin rage).
I'll use a simple example for government vs. private sector. The US Postal Service vs. Federal Express, etc. I personally think the US Postal Service does a fine job, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the US Postal Service is an arm of the government and is thus subject to the various bureaucracies of the government. Further, the purpose of the US Postal Service is not to reduce costs. In fact, there is a disincentive for the US Postal Service to decrease costs. There is an incentive for Federal Express to reduce costs, else it will go out of business.
A less simple example is the inefficacy of the SEC. I'll let others, who understand better, to explain that. How has the SEC helped US citizens when the people that work there (and are paid by taxpayers) favor rent-seekers (or are rent-seekers themselves)? Okay, let's assume the Dodd-Frank Act was awesome... it's "enforced" by executive branch regulatory bodies and is thus subject to rent-seeking. But let's say we have a moderately effective SEC. Is what we're getting from the SEC (moderate effectiveness at best with bureaucratic costs) better than what we would get without the SEC (no effectiveness, no bureaucratic costs)?
Ultimately, one would assume the purpose of any government-created/organized/run entity is to service the citizens in ways that the private sector can't or won't. So when we talk about an exchange of tax dollars for a service, that makes sense (logically... again inb4 BigBallinStalin rage). The reality, however, is that there is rent-seeking (so private companies can exert control over a system or organization over which they should not have control) and there is a cost associated with government bodies. The cost is never examined and compared to the efficacy of the system. If something is broken at Fed Ex, the company fails and is replaced. If something is broken at the US Postal Service or SEC, we throw more money at it or do nothing and say "Oh well, that $100 million didn't work..."
I don't limit blame to "teh guvmint." I blame US citizens for simply not caring enough to do anything about it. Although, again, what choices are there? No one is going to violently overthrow the government because most people here, even the impoverished, live pretty comfortably and don't want to risk their lives when life is good and The Bachelor is on TV. I just wish we had more realistic choices from a governance perspective. I'm probably wrong about this, but don't all other erstwhile republics have more than two political parties? Isn't there actually a real choice in other countries instead of choosing between two sides of the same coin?
