= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jackercrack comments on A discussion of heroic responsibility - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (215)
You misunderstand me. I am not saying that a large government is definitely better. I'm simply playing devils advocate. I find it worrying that you can't find any examples of good things in larger government though. Do socialised single payer healthcare, lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure, environmental protections and higher quality schools not count as benefit? These are all things that require taxes and can be improved with greater spending on them.
Edit: In retrospect maybe this is how a changed humanity looks already. That seems to fit the reality better.
Of course I can. Recall me talking about the multidimensionality of government power and how most people (including me) would prefer more in one dimension but less in another. On the whole I would prefer a weaker government, but not necessarily in every single aspect.
However I would stress once again the cost-benefit balance. More is only better is you're below the optimal point, go above it and more will be worse.
And neither of us have the evidence required to find this point (if indeed it is just one point instead of several optimal peaks). I'm tapping out. If you have any closing points I'll try to take them into account in my thinking. Regardless, it seems like we agree on more than we disagree on.
Some of these things are, some aren't. Let's go through the list:
In the countries I'm most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.
Ok, those are examples. Even if the the crime rates that make more police necessary are due to other stupid government policies.
Well these days a lot of environmental protection laws are insane, as in we must divert water from the farms because if we don't the delta smelt population might be reduced (this is California's actual water policy). Other times they're just excuses for extreme NIMBYism.
Well, in the US the rule of thumb is that the more control government exercises over schools the worse they are.
Kind of trueish but, not in a way that supports your point, Public healthcare systems tend to be run on something of a shoe string, so an Individual who can easily afford private treatment is often better off with that option, However, that does not translate to the total population or average person.. Analogously , the fact that travelling in a chauffeur limo is more pleasant than travelling on a train, for those who can afford it, is no justification for dismantling public transportation systems. And it's not either/or, anyway.
Ok stupid government bad. But what's the relationship between large government and stupid government? Large government has at least the capacity to hire expert consultants, and implement checks and balances. And there's plenty of examples of autocratic rulers who were batshit crazy.
In the US? Doesn't generalize.
Ditto.
Um. Do you mean the money allocated in the budget for the healthcare system or the money that actually trickles down to the actual doctors? Because the former tends to be larger than the latter.
I believe that private healthcare deliverers have nonzero administrative costs as well.
http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/
Yes, but they actually have incentives to keep those costs down.
Taxpayers don't like paying tax, which is the incentive to keep down costs in a public healthcare system, and it works because they are all cheaper than the US system.
To the extend this incentive exists its fulfilled by degrading quality rather than improving efficiency.
Taxpayers don't like poor quality healthcare either. And degraded from what? It's not like there was ever a golden age where the average person had top quality and affordable healthcare, and then someone came along and spoiled everything. Public healthcare is like public transport: it's not supposed to be the best in-money-is-no-object terms, it is supposed to better than nothing.
And lets remind ourselves that, factually, a number of public healthcare systems deliver equal .or better results to the US system for less money.
But they have to solve a rational ignorance and a collective action problem to do something about it.
Even the former is much smaller than what you guys pay in the US.
Such things are referred to as 'safety nets' for a reason. Falling from the tightrope still isn't advised.