Or, at the county level, judges and court officials, district attorneys, public defenders, the county sheriff’s office, county fire department, animal control, emergency rooms, county parks, public health officials, etc.
Strangely enough, bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money.
That's one, ideological view. Another view is that the so-called free market is very focused on the short term, which isn't conducive to providing public goods [1].
Moreover, the "free" market seldom actually is, because more than a few of the players work at least as hard on amassing market power and excluding competition as they do on competing.
>> bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money
> Another view is that the so-called free market is very focused on the short term, which isn't conducive to providing public goods
I can't decipher what potential problem you're pointing to. Apparently even "knowledge" is a "public good".
But whatever your complaint there is, it's based on the flawed premise that there is some One True Way <X> should be, and that central planning intervention is necessary to make it so.
That fallacy is called ipse dixit, roughly translated as I say so, therefore it is.
> bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money
And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because (some) bureaucrats aren't particularly prudent when using our money, it doesn't follow that (as you alleged before) the free market is always better.
> But whatever your complaint there is, it's based on the flawed premise that there is some One True Way <X> should be, and that central planning intervention is necessary to make it so.
I actually happen to think the opposite of the two assertions that you claim constitute my premise.
That's not what happened though. I pointed out that bureaucrats aren't prudent when spending other people's money, and that's self-evidently true.
For example, you know would not be prudent with other people's money either, or with $1000 you found on the street.
> And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because (some) bureaucrats aren't particularly prudent when using our money, it doesn't follow that (as you alleged before) the free market is always better.
I was hinting at the fact that since everyone uses someone else's money less prudently than his own, using someone else's money results in 'waste' compared to using one's own, and therefore, all public spending results in 'waste'.
So it's clear that the free market actually is 'always better' in that sense. It's better in all other senses too.
For example, you'd be hard pressed to argue that a state-maintained monopoly or cartel is better for us than no such thing.
> I actually happen to think the opposite of the two assertions that you claim constitute my premise.
Quote the two assertions I claimed constitute your premise.
It's also a sweeping generalization, both:
-- as to what counts as a "bureaucrat" (of whom I know more than a few); and
-- as to what counts as "prudent" --- a public servant must take into account more than your, or my, personal preferences.
> you know would not be prudent with other people's money either, or with $1000 you found on the street.
Evidence, please. (I happen to think I'd be prudent in each case.)
> since everyone uses someone else's money less prudently than his own, using someone else's money results in 'waste' compared to using one's own, and therefore, all public spending results in 'waste'.
Another sweeping generalization. It also depends on your definition of waste. Is it waste for "bureaucrats" to spend money on, say, enforcing traffic laws that prevent you from going as fast as you want through a school zone? (Feel free to pick another example; I really don't like the "but think of the children!" argument, or rather, so-called argument.)
> So it's clear that the free market actually is 'always better' in that sense. It's better in all other senses too.
I used to think that way. I assume you know about "negative externalities" [1]. If you remember the days before the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, then recall what the air and water were like in the U.S. when "the free market" allowed businesses to dump their wastes in the air that the rest of us breathe and the water that the rest of us drink.
Some key limiting factors of "the free market":
1. People tend to have tunnel vision --- they want what they want, and they want it now. (This, I suspect, is a trait developed by natural selection [2].)
2. In a so-called free market, we assume that buyers of goods and services will individually make rational choices that, in the long term, will promote the common good. But that assumes two facts not in evidence:
First, it assumes that people will take the time to investigate the choices available to them. That doesn't always happen. For example, I don't know a lot of people who study the terms of click-wrap agreements and decide whether they want to proceed. Most people simply click on "I agree" and hope that they aren't giving away their first-born; they also unconsciously count on the legal system not to enforce terms that are too onerous.
Second, it assumes that people are rational in their choices. That assumption is increasingly being challenged in behavioral economics [3].
> Quote the two assertions I claimed constitute your premise.
Okay --- what you said was this: "But whatever your complaint there is, it's based on the flawed premise [A] that there is some One True Way <X> should be, and [B] that central planning intervention is necessary to make it so." I don't believe either of these things a priori, but neither do I rule out the possibility that in a particular case one or both of them might be true.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
[2] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/03/good_news_bad_n.... (a self-cite)
FTFY.
You clearly aren’t interested in a respectful or intellectually honest discussion. Why are you here?
As it relates to your earlier comment "This scenario of yours is used to justify policies such as California’s Prop 13," you should consider that Prop 13, which amended the California constitution, was adopted overwhelmingly by voters in California in 1978. If Californians don't like it today, they can repeal or change it. That's how our system works.
Why haven't Californians done away with or amended Prop 13? Polls consistently show that the majority of Californians continue to support Prop 13's limits and interestingly, even proposals that would eliminate Prop 13's tax treatment for non-residential properties are losing steam[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal
[1] http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-support-prop...
It’s a big mess: because they can’t reliably raise money through property taxes, local governments have turned instead to sales tax, fees for various public services, long-term debt, sale of public assets, money handed out by the state government, and various budget shenanigans. School bonds in particular require only a 55% majority to pass, and then can be paid back via property taxes, so those have been popular in most CA cities, even when they probably aren’t the most sustainable way to raise money to fund school facilities.
The politics are complex, because Prop 13 bundles together several loosely related provisions. “Low taxes” and especially “make sure the legislature can’t raise taxes whenever they want” is a generally popular message, but there are demographic/political reasons that it has stronger support than just that. For instance:
(1) Freezing tax rates at purchase time is a net transfer away from renters, new people moving to the state, young people, new home buyers, etc. and to older, richer homeowners (as well as corporations and very large land owners). For obvious reasons, the latter more often have the right to vote, more often vote in practice in elections at all levels, have more money to spend on lobbying and campaigning, etc.
(2) The current demographics of statewide popular elections are different than the demographics of the whole population of citizens or residents, as represented by the state legislature. Seats in the legislature are apportioned by population, which means that urban areas which make up most of the population of the state and tend to vote for Democrats are favored. By contrast, conservative voters tend to vote more often in statewide elections. By forcing supermajority legislative support for tax increases, Prop 13 gives folks in the conservative minority a sort of veto power, which they are loath to give up.
This "corporations" thing that you have come up with is a completed red herring. A government exists to serve its people, not some abstract notion of "productivity". If it's your home and your property, why should you be forced to give it up so that someone else - be they a property developer, or a local government - can profit? Every transaction requires a seller as well as a buyer and if the seller doesn't want to sell for any reason then the deal is off.
But your position is that people can be compelled to sell for what reason exactly?
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never advanced this position.
This is the only way to ensure your goals or objectives are realized; constant vigilance.
"You see, the government owns your car too, because you're driving on roads built by the government"
"Oh but you see, clearly, based on the government deciding under what conditions you're allowed to leave the country, the government owns your body too, and is therefore within its rights to torture and kill you on a whim."
Do you really see no problem at all with the idea that governments own everything and are just graciously "renting" things to us?
Do you sincerely see nothing as your own legitimate property? When you buy a new phone, is that actually the government's property instead of yours?