Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Democratic checks on monopoly of Govt. Message-ID: <671@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 11:55:55 EDT Article-I.D.: whuxl.671 Posted: Mon Jul 1 11:55:55 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 05:31:00 EDT References: <2876@sdcc3.UUCP> <2380026@acf4.UUCP> <197@ubvax.UUCP> <72@denelvx.UUCP> <356@spar.UUCP> <298@kontron.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 38 > 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. 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. 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. On the other hand what check is there on a Standard oil which controls %100 of the oil market? tim sevener whuxl!orb