Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. — mentos987
Therefore, you can't force governmental positions to follow concrete financial results like you do in the private sector. — mentos987
Any work that will have its full ramifications shown within a decade can be entirely profit driven. — mentos987
This is one of the bad things that needs counteracting, but that is a separate question.not the case when an administration lives and plans from election to election, — Vera Mont
No..Like nursing homes? and youth rehabilitation? — Vera Mont
since both of these handle people that are vulnerable.work that is morally difficult to handle — mentos987
First off, one thing that no one wrote out but that I assume many of you know is this: Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. Governmental positions are "comfy". This is because that their efficiency isn't directly tied to their continued "survival" as it is in a more profit driven workplace. — mentos987
Youth rehabilitation + full ramifications shown within a decade => does not add up. — mentos987
Nursing homes need governmental oversight and youth rehabilitation need it even more. — mentos987
Well, this isn't about the size of the government.Does to the government officials taking the kickbacks and campaign contributions. — Vera Mont
I believe this is often the case but efficiency matter too, more than you would think. Public sector work is not as efficient (in general).Profit for outsourced services comes out of the budget which comes out of the tax revenue. Profit, therefore, can only be had at the expense of service. — Vera Mont
I believe this is often the case but efficiency matter too, more than you would think. — mentos987
Public sector work is not as efficient (in general). — mentos987
The problem I see with that is how differently states have been doing so in various government responsibilities. Some have been less democratic and less concerned with citizen's rights than others. Should they really have more power? How do you organize revenue collection and the funding of services? How do you finance the many, many wars? Can you even keep the union going? (States rights have nearly wrecked it once, and there is a very strong movement to change the constitution.... and of course T***p wants to tear it up and declare himself Chancellor or something.) — Vera Mont
Experimentation rather than over-arching uniformity. — Elysium House
This, of course, opens the pandora’s box as to different ideas about what “citizen’s rights” means, since your take (or a “New York” take) may very well be different than mine (or a “Idaho” or "Arkansas" take). — Elysium House
Should we be allowed to explore these differences, or is it winner takes all on concepts like justice, freedom, etc. brought down from on high? — Elysium House
It seems this may be a bigger topic than we can get to here, so I’m planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit. — Elysium House
I can sum it up like this.
Private work is driven by profit.
Public work lack drive. — mentos987
These both sounds like bad workplaces, I don’t have experience of such. For me, both private and public has been fine, but public is more relaxed and private has higher tempo and efficiency.Public work is often driven by immense scrutiny and rigorous KPI's that make the private sector look tame. Private work is often about friendships and alliances that support sloth and complacency. — Tom Storm
This may be the truth to my experience too, hard to tell.Overall I think both sectors will suck unless they are overseen by leadership dedicated to transparency and continual improvement. — Tom Storm
So far, nobody wanted to make government smaller - at least in the US.
I would emphasis the importance of history of a society here, which defines also government culture. Past history is something that has made us what we are now and the political situation in the present.Is there a correct size for government to be?
How would you determine the right size? By population? By complexity? By economy? — Vera Mont
This one is simple: to have recognition from it's peers, other sovereign states.More specifically:
What is the minimum function and authority that a national government must have? — Vera Mont
More difficult. Perhaps I'd resort to something like Max Weber and say if the citizens are happy with the control, then it's OK.What is the maximum it should be allowed to have? — Vera Mont
That optimality depends quite a lot of the history of the country, the governance culture, the geostrategic situation of the country. Things like that. Not an easy issue to optimize.What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont
I definitely wouldn't mind just completely getting rid of the US Senate. — Count Timothy von Icarus
People can be smart, mobs are dumb. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'd say 18 is about as big as you'd want to go on a deliberative body. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I might also just clear house and get rid of local law enforcement and make it a state/national affair. It'd be worth it if only to abolish police unions. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I would emphasis the importance of history of a society here, which defines also government culture. — ssu
Yet if "Vera Mont's land" would be recognized by the majority of other sovereign countries, your existence might be a pain in the ass for your former country. — ssu
Perhaps I'd resort to something like Max Weber and say if the citizens are happy with the control, then it's OK. — ssu
I can imagine a senate made up of retired government officials, civil servants and jurists who have experience in dealing with the practical fallout from legislation, who could maybe prevent future mistakes.
But 18 for 332 million is asking rather a lot of each representative. If you have small numbers in legislature, you have hopelessly huge numbers in each constituency.
Such reps wouldn't be popularly elected, but the labor and MM reps would be elected by millions of workers across a huge swath of the population, so close enough. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Then what should they represents, and why bother having elections at all?To be honest, I don't think there is much value in representatives "representing" their constituents. — Count Timothy von Icarus
and it's unclear if it would even be a good thing to have a state run "according to popular opinion." Direct democracy isn't just a bad idea because it would require too many elections. — Count Timothy von Icarus
To whom? By what means? Public opinion often turns against an incumbent, not because he's screwed up, but because he hasn't, and they're bored with uneventful governance and can be riled up to demand a change. Meanwhile, some slogans find so much approval among a noisy segment of the population, or an influential media platform, that whoever spouts them keeps getting support, even if he tells transparent lies, obtains large loans by false pretenses, cheats on his taxes, reneges on contracts, throws his friends under buses, stiffs his lawyers, gropes beauty contestants, threatens journalist and jurists, badmouths foreign leaders, betrays allies, intimidates election officials, pardons felons and incites a mob to storm the Capitol.The big benefit of elections are that they keep leaders accountable. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'd prefer a UN of small, tribal/regional units run by AI. But I doubt we can have either.f my hypothetical fantasy nation could look like Denmark, but have its leaders picked by some technocratic processes — Count Timothy von Icarus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.