Last week I let slip that this week I would be unveiling a new blog and without further ado, here it is: Government Fiasco.
The blog, in short, is meant to serve as a compendium of government mistakes, errors and malfeasance. It will be an ongoing tribute to the waste and mismanagement one inevitably discovers within such organizations.
While debates over government and its proper role often invoke morality and quotes from dead philosophers and famous thinkers such as Mill or Madison, this blog is based on a much more utilitarian argument: government doesn't work very well. Given that it tends to perform its assigned functions rather poorly, why should it be given any more power than is absolutely necessary? And why should it ever be used if a viable private sector alternative exists?
It seems that too often, when confronted with the big issues of the day, there is a rush by both Republicans and Democrats to push for a larger role for government. In the days after September 11, 2001 there was a rush for airport security to be federalized, despite no apparent failings with private sector companies previously assigned such tasks. The Owellian-sounding Department of Homeland Security was established (which begs the question of what the Department of Defense is for). Are we more secure due to either? There is currently a push for greater expansion of government authority in health care, despite a long record failed interventions in this industry by the public sector.
In contrast, in the instances where liberty has been expanded and government has given way the results are typically positive. Airline deregulation led to a sharp drop in prices and expanded choice for consumers. The end of prohibition, a classic example of the nanny state, resulted in less crime and violence. Welfare reform in the 1990s was universally declared a success, both fiscally and in terms of social indicators.
Government's problems do not exist because those employed there are stupid, venal or evil. Rather they stem from a set of incentives which tend to result in inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Government needs accountability, accountability means rules, rules mean reduced flexibility, increased paperwork and suboptimal outcomes.
This is not to say the private sector represents everything that is pure and good. Plenty of businesses suffer from fraud, graft and all types of mismanagement. Such organizations, however, tend not to last for long and dealing with them -- unlike government -- is not mandatory. Rare, however, is the government function which is abolished long after it has outlived its usefulness. As often as not, those who waste our money are rewarded with expanded budgets.
In short, it's all one big government fiasco.
The blog, in short, is meant to serve as a compendium of government mistakes, errors and malfeasance. It will be an ongoing tribute to the waste and mismanagement one inevitably discovers within such organizations.
While debates over government and its proper role often invoke morality and quotes from dead philosophers and famous thinkers such as Mill or Madison, this blog is based on a much more utilitarian argument: government doesn't work very well. Given that it tends to perform its assigned functions rather poorly, why should it be given any more power than is absolutely necessary? And why should it ever be used if a viable private sector alternative exists?
It seems that too often, when confronted with the big issues of the day, there is a rush by both Republicans and Democrats to push for a larger role for government. In the days after September 11, 2001 there was a rush for airport security to be federalized, despite no apparent failings with private sector companies previously assigned such tasks. The Owellian-sounding Department of Homeland Security was established (which begs the question of what the Department of Defense is for). Are we more secure due to either? There is currently a push for greater expansion of government authority in health care, despite a long record failed interventions in this industry by the public sector.
In contrast, in the instances where liberty has been expanded and government has given way the results are typically positive. Airline deregulation led to a sharp drop in prices and expanded choice for consumers. The end of prohibition, a classic example of the nanny state, resulted in less crime and violence. Welfare reform in the 1990s was universally declared a success, both fiscally and in terms of social indicators.
Government's problems do not exist because those employed there are stupid, venal or evil. Rather they stem from a set of incentives which tend to result in inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Government needs accountability, accountability means rules, rules mean reduced flexibility, increased paperwork and suboptimal outcomes.
This is not to say the private sector represents everything that is pure and good. Plenty of businesses suffer from fraud, graft and all types of mismanagement. Such organizations, however, tend not to last for long and dealing with them -- unlike government -- is not mandatory. Rare, however, is the government function which is abolished long after it has outlived its usefulness. As often as not, those who waste our money are rewarded with expanded budgets.
In short, it's all one big government fiasco.
No comments:
Post a Comment