The DESTRUCTIVE Impact of Government Institutions & The Public Sector
Often, Government is seen as a solution to our problems. The fact that they're not for profit is often what leads people to believe they will operate in a humane, logical and reasonable way. This is false.
Institutions are results-driven with "unlimited" funding.
Government institutions, of course, are funded by the Government, and the Government will borrow in order to keep these institutions running. As these institutions are not profit-driven, they will simply ask for more money in order to achieve their goals.
Businesses would cut the fat, look for what they're doing wrong, fire incompetent staff, and offer redundancies. Government just does not do this.
The tyranny of institutions
Take a moment to think of a Government institution AS a business. Just a different type of business.
Government institutions are essentially monopolies, and they suffer from the same negatives that monopolies do, but even worse.
Guaranteeing money to a business removes the incentives to improve operational efficiency and would make the business operate without consideration for its workers (except those at the top of the chain) AND without consideration for its customers.
An easy example is Gas, Electric, and Water companies. They are always looked at as exploitive. Because of the unique operation of these companies, they don't get compete very much. This is bad for consumers, but if you think Government is the solution, think again.
Businesses that don't compete can:
- grow stale, stop innovating and get stuck in their ways
- becoming corrupt and/or inefficient
What stops businesses from this negativity is consumer choice, and pressure from shareholders who have invested their limited funding and want a good return. If a business didn't fix itself, it would fall apart
If Government took over these sectors, they would suffer from the same inefficiencies, but would never concern themselves. And once this becomes public sector, criticism will be met with fierce opposition. Because if you want a non-government solution then you just want people to suffer! - What a dangerous point of view.
So... We'll just end up with corrupt and inefficient institutions instead of corrupt and inefficient businesses?
Yes. And this is worse.
Governments put pressure on businesses and threaten exploitive ones.
Governments don't put this kind of pressure on their own institutions.
The real solution to these sectors would actually be MORE business. MORE competition and MORE innovation, not Government takeover
Moving on... what did I mean exactly by results-driven?
Well, now I've explained the negative impact of Government institutions, we can move on to this, very important point.
Each institution will focus on a specific set of statistics as a measurement of their performance, and the answer to "poor" performance? More Government! Give the institutions more power and more (unlimited) money!
Now I've covered the business vs government, let's look at two existing institutions, one of which you would not want to be replaced by private business.
National Health Service
The NHS in the UK is our "free" healthcare system. Except it costs more than it should, it's terribly inefficient and makes Private Healthcare more expensive because everyone has to pay to the NHS through their taxes if they work.
The NHS is often measured on its ability to treat patients in A&E, and the solution to fixing their inability is always more money. The mere suggestion that the system should change causes uproar, and you'll be painted as someone who wants people to die.
If you measured the NHS on its ability to innovate - something businesses do to themselves - it would be pretty poor. But we don't. They don't. The NHS is arguably staler than any privately owned business in the UK.
Police and "Justice" Systems
Before I start on this, I'd like to say. I don't believe Police should be owned by the private sector, but I'm pointing out how dangerous this government institution can get. They are a necessary evil.
So now here is where it gets dangerous. The Police measure themselves on the ability to catch the worst criminals in our society. Individuals within the police force will pride themselves on the number of criminals they catch and will be rewarded with promotions if they do so.
This encourages:
- Corruption
- Planted or fabricated evidence
- False defendant statements/stories
- Missing evidence
- Poor investigations
- Ignoring evidence that favors the defendant
- Scared and silenced individuals on trial
- Innocent victims of the system pleading guilty to avoid jail-time
- Pleading guilty means no minimum jail sentence for many crimes.
- More spying powers
- Loss of privacy for the public
- Makes it easier for corruption to take place
What are the "worst criminals" then?
The worst criminals are the ones that commit what society consider to be the worst crimes.
i.e. Murder, Rape, etc
This is all terrifying, but how much is this really happening?
Well, a friend is currently dealing with almost all of the above. And they haven't told anyone other a few very close friends. Why? Because the crime they're accused of is too awful for them to go public, in fear they would be outed, attacked, and would not be believed.
How the fuck do we solve any of this?
The answer is less government.
- Less police power.
- Fewer regulations.
- Fewer and smaller institutions.
- An educated society on what Government really is: A beast and a necessary evil that must be tamed at all times.
- Elected representatives that understand the impact of elected officials.
- NO MORE PRIVATE PRISONS that can PAY officials in these institutions to fill their prisons.
- Stop publicly ousting people until they're found guilty
- Change laws regarding minimum sentences that encourage and scare the innocent into pleading guilty.
We need a massive reduction in state-power and new laws that instill freedom and liberty at their core.
The impact of government institutions is truly terrifying, and silently around us innocent people are being arrested and pushed through the system like a slaughterhouse, ignoring the cries of the victims inside. Alas, if only those walking past could hear them. If only they had a voice.
Wait a minute, this is socialism I'm talking about
Yes, I am. It's bad.
Socialism is attractive. The idea that a Government can create a fairer society for people by controlling the majority of the economy is one of false promises. It only separates the ruling class from the rest of us, creates tyranny.
Still not convinced? Think of a political leader you like the LEAST in your country and imagine them as the CEO of your healthcare provider, your boss, the owner of all of the shops you buy from.
And if you really want to see the full picture, try reading
The Gulag Archipelago
There's a lot of nonsense written here. I agree with you that governments have major issues. Police forces can be corrupted and used violently against the population (see Iran this week or US treatment of ethnic minorities for example). Government institutions take time to be reformed and become inefficient, yes. But to suggest that corporate entities somehow consistently morally benefit people is absurd. Historically it has been corporations just as much as states which cause great problems - corporations controlled the Atlantic Slave Trade for example. Corporations are more prone to benefit those at the top than well-run public institutions. They aren't evil per se, more indifferent to morality due to their focussed drive for profit above all else. The argument that corporations should run naturally monopolies commodities such as water or rail infrastructure is equally self defeating, and state run versions of each of these are consistently more effective. Governments can cause as many issues, but generalising government-run entities in the way this article has is frankly ridiculous.
Government is here to ensure a social contract between everyone. A free and open society is what I'm advocating for. Businesses are individuals. Individuals cannot lawfully trade human beings today. This is because of the free society we've worked so hard to achieve. Laws that empower individuals and ensure their liberties are upheld are good. i.e. Freedom of Speech, human rights laws
I actually said:
" The real solution to these sectors would actually be MORE business. MORE competition and MORE innovation "
i.e. not monopolies, but actual business. You know, what everyone benefits from.
State-run versions of each of these actually destroyed Britain.
There's also no such thing as a well-run public institution. This is because as I stated, Government does not apply anywhere near as much scrutiny to themselves as they do to other businesses. Competence is a limited resource. Eventually, a well-run institute will replace its head, and an incompetent person or even malicious person WILL come along and destroy it all. and because institutions are usually monopolies, they destroy the entire market.
Government is equally as indifferent to morality.
It's not generalising government-run entities. It is understanding how they do and always will operate
Equality of opportunity creates wealth. Equality of outcome creates poverty, starvation, death, labour camps. (What you obviously wish for)
Corporations are people. So what you're saying is, if it were down to an individual. So please tell me which individual. Your family? Would your parents trade humans? Your children? Would they do that too?
Human rights laws can be. We don't need massive surveillance and stop-and-search.
Nobody advocates for trickle-down economics. It doesn't even exist. Also, UK wage growth is due to UK productivity. Watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=U3BOg4U1R_I
Economic mismanagement by governments will always happen because people aren't good at managing money that isn't theirs. It will always happen. A fool with their money soon parts. And you'd want to trust and hope that a politician wouldn't waste everyone's money.
This is false, and at this point, you've made things up to fit your agenda. This is a laughable statement that you've made and is not worth arguing against.
It's not about generalising. It's about understanding that humans will always behave in the same way. We're not magical and we're really just as predictable as Apes. Our behaviour is predictable, and outcomes too. Government is not different from business because they're both run by individuals, HUMANS. It's not corporations that are greedy. It's humans. If government controlled everything, it would be the SAME a 1 giant corporation controlling everything. The fault does not lie with business. The fault lies with human beings. And saying "generalising" is just a way for you to avoid understanding the behaviour of a group of individuals.
To cover generalising a little more, although not to dwell on the examples
Here are two facts:
Women tend to prefer working lower paying roles.
Men tend to be less emotional
Tend = tendancy = inclination. i.e. not all, but most.
Now, this is generalisng. But it's also a fact because it's the majority outcome. The majority (and inevitable) outcome of having government control is bad. Put Hitler in control of your entire government and see what happens. Because bad people exist, they will always exist, and no individual should have that power. It will go bad fast.
I had planned on not replying to this comment and yet here I am. Your misogyny at the end of that section is laughable.
The point about corporations being people is by definition incorrect. Corporations are entities, imagined by people. They themselves are not people. They outlive the people that run them, e.g. Apple did not die when Steve Jobs died, someone else simply took his job and therefore Apple itself is not a person.
I don't agree with mass surveillance or stop and search either, but completely dismantling a state to create a society with no security infrastructure would obviously be ridiculous. We live in a world which is not perfect, and states cause nearly as many issues as they solve, but in terms of security we are more secure as a planet now than we have been at any point in human history (not including environmental security, an issue perpetuated in part by corporate interest), so that must count for something.
If we don't have trickle down economics then what do we have? That was the structure advocated by Thatcher and Reagan our current society is based on it. Trickle down is simply a term do describe exactly what Hannan discusses there i.e. taxes being cut from the top and their spending benefitting the rest of society. There have been shifts in how it works but ultimately trickle down is the best term we have for what they advocated. In that video his point about the convenience service providing for consumers misses out entirely how this benefits the workforce. (Also Daniel Hannan is perhaps the most pro-state nationalist establishment figure you could have chosen, not the libertarian I imagine you wish him to be).
Individual politicians spending money is not the system I am advocating. Perhaps this is how government currently works, but in a properly run democracy (Scandanavia has seen some successes in this dept) spending is done to the benefit of the public. I agree that finances are mismanaged, especially by those who don't want to see that money spend (current conservative government), but when run by an efficient government it can be highly effective.
Are you saying that the diplomatic corps is not an excellent example of a well run state institution?
You seem to have a faulty philosophy there. Humans do not all act in the same way all the time. People are fundamentally different due to a vast, incomprehensible number of genetic and environmental factors and suggesting that they all act the same out of greed is an idea stuck in the 17th century.
I have never suggested putting one person in control, you are answering points which you've made up yourself.
Misogyny? Go look at some statistics for once in your life.
Here's a quick observation: I'm sitting at work right now.
There are
All 8 female project managers (and the others that aren't in today) are highly capable and intelligent people, but they've chosen lower paying jobs. I've asked a couple of them why. They've essentially told me the stress and time of a job role in their area of interest isn't worth it, and this enables them to use their free time to do other things they'd like to do. Essentially, their happiness matters. And a high-paying job doesn't bring happiness.
Additionally, we're in the process of hiring another developer. Most applicants are male.
The two female developers are both high ambitious people that have high career goals. But as you can see, from this real-world example AND actual measured statistics that the ratios differ between genders. Fucking misogyny. Yeah. Statistics are sexist. I knew my example would trigger you.
EDIT:
Oh, and my last job. A team of 6 developers. 2 female. One is married with a family, and therefore works 10am to 4pm. One is a junior who was working in fashion (low paid too) until recently.
Finance, Dev, and Print/Web Design were dominated by majority males (due to the ratio of applicants).
Evidently there are fewer women in significant positions (e.g. CEO, Editorial roles etc) than there are men, this is true. The difference of opinion here is explaining why.
What you have essentially said is that women are somehow hard wired to not take on hard jobs. Is this true?
Or do you believe that a society in which women are told not to have ambition, strive for equal pay or take similar roles to men is the fundamental problem?
The fact that I cannot distinguish between these two in what you have written there explains what I mean when I say you 'generalise'. You have made sweeping statements e.g. 'women prefer lower paying roles', 'there is no such thing as a well run state institution' or 'its humans who are greedy' whilst barely explaining any evidence or reason for coming to these conclusions.
I have, admittedly, made similar generalisations e.g. corporations don't care for individuals. My point there is that profit is nearly always the driving factor. If major corporations cared for individuals, BP would stop drilling for oil, BAE would stop exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia and Ford would stop selling diesel cars. But the hit to profit would be so disastrous that the resulting death of a few thousand (perhaps hundreds of thousand in BP's case) is seen as acceptable.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
-Ronald Reagan
So true Socialism is attractive, it is easy. Freedom is lost with the promise of security.
If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists
Wao so nice
This post has been upvoted and resteemed by the Free Speech curator account steemitOpinions. We curate opinion posts on steemit about current political issues.
We are just starting out, so any donation would help promote free speech on steemit. Please send your donations to @politicscurator .
Wow. I've actually never thought this far