I don't think anyone considers our system of governance to be particularly efficient, and we all understand that it is not perfect. But then many of us recognize that the alternative of a decentralized system without extensive regulation is also problematic, as it entails all kinds of market inefficiencies and failures that no one wants. We should all recognize that a centralized government does some things extremely well - e.g. how often do we think about the fact that the elderly used to be the most vulnerable segment of the population with the highest rates of extreme poverty, and now the elderly are probably the most secure segment of the population with the lowest rates? That's government policy at work. And we should all understand that the current system is wildly inefficient in many ways, and is often distorted by our unique system of interest-group politics and our imperfect system of federalism.
That said, even if no one loves our system I think most agree that it's dramatically better than virtually any other system that's ever been invented in human history.
With that as a backdrop, instead of just railing against what's in place let's think for a minute about some alternatives to our system of governance.
For progressives, social democracies like those in Scandinavia are often seen as closer to the ideal form of government. They have less extreme poverty, better health, better education systems, more mobility than the US. As a tradeoff, they are not particularly efficient in many cases, they have heavy tax burdens and more of a communitarian style of life. For those who believe that government should be primarily focused on promoting society-wide goals like reducing extreme poverty, opening up opportunity, enhancing education and improving health, these countries are a model b/c they do a better job than the US of achieving all of these goals. But they are not ideal and have tremendous faults and problems, which is why many progressives might not actually choose to push our country in that direction.
What are the best models for conservatives or libertarians that actually exist in the world? What are the advantages of moving toward these models and what are the disadvantages?
Sorry Autry...very busy day...I know I suck...and I'm sure you moved way past this, but I thought I at least needed to acknowledge what you said...
To sum up...The benefits are certainly there...don't get me wrong. There are some visionary people in policy within the government...but what % of the workforce are they? Where the government falls down as compared to non-government businesses is execution, not vision. There are functions inherently government..policy, enforcement/oversight...great...realization of a goal...NOPE! So forgive me, but my takeaway from what you said is cost is just the cost of our government getting the desired result...aaaand thats precisely my point...that thought process is repugnant to those who carry the brunt of "additional revenue" to support our "not a spending problem", so I'll stand up and tell you I'm glad we have moved folks out of harm's way, then I want to know what it cost, and what did we do to drive costs down...sorry man. thats who I am.
One other point...people hate this but I gotta repeat it...its not the federalist system, or even crooked lobbyists that I see as driving "inefficiencies" ... its the fiber of the guy/gal we seem to send to represent us.
In order to continue the game I guess I am compelled to pick a country...well, I'm all about government doing leadership things and someone else doing execution...yup...government policy, outsourced execution....so Malta.
Honestly, I think we could stand to be who we are...just less corrupt, and more frugal.
A challenge for you...of sorts...well not a challenge likely...an exercise.
The "Model" I could hope for is simple...its your model, EXCEPT all spending is "chained" (you go Mr. President). You can have your social justice, or your social democracy, but you can't do it on daddy's credit card. You have a hard ceiling tied to the previous three year average of revenue. You decide allocation, and even raise taxes modestly(Clinton, but no death tax ...can't quit who I am totally now)...I'm good with it. Whatever you do, I'll adapt. More than anything I want a federal government chained to something...No deficit spending (per the 3 year revenue average), and 5% of the revenue must service debt principal. And I want a real budget process where you don't start with the goal of spending what you spent last year plus 3%. ...I know loony huh? To be clear...NO Deficit Spending....NONE. (And yes, you can assume no war) So go for it, divvy the revenue based on your social conscience, but no more drunken bender spending and printing money. Would you take the deal?
