> d) People trust their government every day. Who do you think builds the roads, operates the hospitals and other essential services, sets out safety regulations etc.
If they are going to take my money , I expect at least _something_ of benefit to me in return. That doesn’t mean I trust them.
> If it was completely voluntary how many people would actually pitch in to pay for all of these services?
Government is the system where everyone expects to live at everyone elses expense. I ask you, if you believe nobody wants to pay for it, why do you think people want it at all?
> What about the communities that are unable to afford these services?
Government does not make it affordable. Government does not pay for it: someone pays for it, the government takes a cut, and gives it to someone else.
>As indeed is provision of roads, fire trucks, police, military and so on. For some reason, people rarely call those out
Personally I would call out. But hey, so what if I did? As you rightly pointed out most people are convinced that they need the govt in their _many_ aspects of their lives. I'm outnumbered by people who think, that they can decide what is good for me as an individual.
> In the absence of government officials doing their job properly, it is up to individuals to do it for themselves.
I agree, I just wish the government would also not take my money to not do the job. Worse still is the false sense of safety instilled in the populace.
> I wouldn't trust a governmental agency to aggressively fulfill it's mission. My impression is that in general they're too much at the mercy of politicians.
It is good when a governmental agency is at the mercy of politicians. As the electorate, we are responsible for the politicians we elect.
I think this is your perspective on what the government should be, and it is not "by nature".
I myself have the view that the government serves the people. For example, one of the responsibilities of the government is to make sure road/transportation works good. When they repair the road, to me that's kind of like when the plumber comes to fix my sink. And I don't think of the plumber as a parent.
What have they done to earn my trust? Why would I choose to outsource critical decisions pertaining to my own life and affairs to strangers who are not meaningfully accountable to me and have no direct understanding of my values or interests, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be?
What possible reason could there be to give civil servants authority to make decisions that materially impact us without any oversight or accountability?
> At the end of the day, I would love for our governments to provide taxpayer funded facilities around the city and even on several of our major highways. We used to have a lot here but they closed almost all of them.
You are almost there. Now we should ask why this happened:
> but they closed almost all of them
There is no civic sense in large swathes of the population. Strict enforcement of basic rules will help us a lot here.
> They most likely wasted it with 0 accountability.
This isn't true in the US; if the people are unhappy with the government they vote the leaders out of office.
> What would the government do with your money?
Fund things like education, pure research, the police, the fire department, and parks perhaps?
I work for Google and am happy we have a lot of money, but I don't understand the negativity towards what the government does.
> When government failed, they get rewarded with more money and resources.
This seems to happen at companies too? I have heard of people doing things not because they're the right thing to do but because it helps with promotion.
> Democratic governments are "liable" in the sense that they can loose their jobs for screwing up.
Can, but don't. At best, a random staffer loses her job.
Moreover, you wouldn't say that McDonald's is "liable" for serving a hamburger that I don't like because I can refuse to buy their hamburgers and that's a greater consequence, so why would you say that govts are liable because they're subject to even less consequence?
Governments aren't liable. That's a problem. They're both socialized and systemic risk. That's a bigger problem. And, they're usually much larger than any "too big to fail" private company.
>Having the government do everything has been tried in history and its leads to failure (communism).
Having the government do some things has been tried in history and in many cases has worked out quite well. The roads, schools and fire department are quite good where I live for example. Though not perfect of course.
I'm not suggesting that this particular service is a good thing for the government to take on. Just want to mention that it's not "all-or-nothing" choice.
> Your parent just claimed the public has more control over government, than a company operating as a pseudo-government serving similar functions.
And I think the claim that public has more control over government needs to be backed up by some sort of data. Of course, you'd need to define the term "pseudo-government" as well.
> Well, if that isn't a convincing argument...
It's not meant to be a convincing argument. That's why I explicitly said that I don't have any data, and that I simply suspect something. Do you have any data? There are plenty of studies on whether the public approves of the general behavior of its government, and at least in the USA the numbers aren't great. My suspicion is that the numbers wouldn't be better when it comes to roads, based on the frequent mismanagement of roads and the number of complaints I here about roads. Again, not data, just suspicion.
> hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy
If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being and a government which is at least partially motivated by that (unfornately only partially due to issues[1]) I know what to choose.
[1] Mainly lobbyism and greed. Where people are there is greed, where there's greed there's potential for misbehaviour.
If they are going to take my money , I expect at least _something_ of benefit to me in return. That doesn’t mean I trust them.
reply