There have been lots of interesting government-related debates on WF lately but I didn't find a thread which deals with one of the most important questions we should be asking ourselves:
Are governments ALWAYS useless?
In other words, do you think that society would be better off without governments (a system similar to the one market capitalists recommend) or would things work better if we keep them around but limit their power/involvement?
My 2 cents: governments suck at almost everything but eliminating them from the equation altogether would be a mistake.
Why?
If I run a company that has let's say 40 employees, that company can be extremely dynamic/flexible. As soon as a market trend emerges, we can react faster than a huge-ass corporation because there's no corporate ladder involved. No board meetings, nothing.
That's an important advantage and as a small company, we can make size work in our favor.
On the other hand, huge-ass corporations can make size work in their favor as well under certain circumstances. For example, when negotiating with suppliers, they can receive better offers due to the fact that they have more money at their disposal.
I'm pretty sure all of us can agree that small companies as well as huge companies have a well-deserved role in the financial ecosystem.
"Ok, whatever. But what does this have to do with governments?!?"
In my opinion, a government is similar to the previously mentioned huge-ass corporation when it comes to one important aspect: in some cases, size can work in its favor.
Can the private sector find better solutions to most problems? Yep.
Can the private sector react faster in most cases? Yep.
But what about military-related stuff, for example?
Here's a question I hope you guys can help me with:
Aren't there a few exceptions which make keeping the government around worth it?
Are governments ALWAYS useless?
In other words, do you think that society would be better off without governments (a system similar to the one market capitalists recommend) or would things work better if we keep them around but limit their power/involvement?
My 2 cents: governments suck at almost everything but eliminating them from the equation altogether would be a mistake.
Why?
If I run a company that has let's say 40 employees, that company can be extremely dynamic/flexible. As soon as a market trend emerges, we can react faster than a huge-ass corporation because there's no corporate ladder involved. No board meetings, nothing.
That's an important advantage and as a small company, we can make size work in our favor.
On the other hand, huge-ass corporations can make size work in their favor as well under certain circumstances. For example, when negotiating with suppliers, they can receive better offers due to the fact that they have more money at their disposal.
I'm pretty sure all of us can agree that small companies as well as huge companies have a well-deserved role in the financial ecosystem.
"Ok, whatever. But what does this have to do with governments?!?"
In my opinion, a government is similar to the previously mentioned huge-ass corporation when it comes to one important aspect: in some cases, size can work in its favor.
Can the private sector find better solutions to most problems? Yep.
Can the private sector react faster in most cases? Yep.
But what about military-related stuff, for example?
Here's a question I hope you guys can help me with:
Aren't there a few exceptions which make keeping the government around worth it?