Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <28200025@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 04:03:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200025 Posted: Sat Jul 6 04:03:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 03:42:09 EDT References: <671@whuxl.UUCP> Lines: 61 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-67100:inmet:28200025:177600:2824 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jul 5 02:03:00 1985 >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 11:55 am Jul 1, 1985 ****/ >> From Clayton Cramer: >> Government, because it is a monopoly, doesn't have the competitive >> pressures to improve service if it screws up; a private company that >> screws up loses its market share, and the stockholders or the proprietor >> will take steps to solve the problem by removing managers that don't >> do their jobs. The government doesn't have bad intentions in this area --- >> it just can't figure out that it has problems because it can't lose >> market share. > >As I have pointed out before, I will point out again that in a >multiparty democratic system there certainly *are* checks on the >governmental monopoly: namely elections. >Moreover there are officials who will help provide government services: >namely Congresspersons. Congresspersons are particularly anxious >to help cut bureaucratic red tape to help their constituents because >they know this wins votes. Some Congresspeople maintain their office >almost solely on the basis of constituent service for good and ill. Remarkable. This paragraph seems to coexist with a later paragraph arguing that the *political* reaction to overspending was inappropriate. > >When people feel that the goverment's inefficiency is simply costing too >much then they will vote for politicians who promise to cut out the >inefficiencies. This is partly what happened with the Proposition 13 >Movement and the later election of Ronald Reagan. > >In fact, I personally agree that there is enormous inefficiency in >social spending and the welfare system. I believe many of the functions >of the welfare system could be better served by replacing it with >a negative income tax. Unfortunately I do not see Reagan's meatax >approach to social spending as truly promoting efficiency in social >spending. Why not? It was about as "democratic" an election as has ever been held. >Nor do I think that solely private efforts would reduce poverty and >hunger. The fact is that before the Great Society programs millions >of Americans went hungry. Now very few people go hungry. Support please, for the idea that the Great Society was responsible for the ending of all this hunger. > >On the other hand what check is there on a Standard oil which controls >%100 of the oil market? It would seem that there is no check on you bringing this up no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that S.O. was NOT a monopoly, that Cornplanter Refineries was steadily gaining ground on them, and that plenty of anti-monopoly, anti-cartel, forces exist in the free market (or do you think OPEC is having a meeting soon to congratulate themselves on how well they've managed to control 100% of their market?) > > tim sevener whuxl!orb >/* ---------- */ > - Nat Howard