Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by zookey
Please don't think I'm picking on you, (you probably already know I not that kind of member);
The private corporation has to make a profit, hence they have a motivation to rid themselves of slackers.
Well, I don't know about that.... perhaps the owner of a business would agree... but I have seen too many instances of Peter principle achievement in
private corporations, 'relatives' of owners, "people who knew the right people' to get a job (even if THEY weren't the right people for it), employees
who's success is based upon 'social' or 'aesthetic' factors, and all manner of 'excuses' which enabled slackers, do-nothings, butt-kissers, and wastes
of human flesh to rise to positions where their entire function is to 'delegate' and engage in 'meetings' (social gatherings). But you have a
You don't have to buy a product or service from any company that is inefficiently run.
Really? Like banks, telecommunications companies, insurance companies, medical centers? How about media producers, food services, energy utilities,
internet service providers.?
The truth is, when you follow the money trail, true competition is increasingly rare and usually is limited to small privately owned businesses which
are scraping along to survive. Those real businesses which so desperately want us to believe they are vital to our economy are generally owned by the
same couple of hundred people.... you can;t escape them; it's why they are so big... they are consolidated and frequently conspire to fix prices and
legislation to enforce our dependence on them. They are not too big to fail because of how 'smartly' they run their business... they are too big to
fail because they have leverage over those who make policy in government.... namely their future employees.
We have no choice with respect to government. When you drive by the road work and there are 8 gents there, two working and 6 standing about
having a smoke and shooting the breeze, you might think those jobs are vital to the society, I don't. When you go to a government office and they
have 9 customer windows, 3 lines open for business with 6 closed and a dozen folks milling about inside the office while tax payers are queued up to
the door, you might think that office is filled with vital workers, I do not. You might think that the folks who run the Peanut museum in Georgia
are vital to the nation's interest, I do not.
But we do
have a choice.... at least in theory... for now.... we don't have to tolerate the management principles that engender waste and
inefficiency... we could demand that government policy-makers take responsibility for the operations we pay them to oversee. They are quick enough
to demand 'pay for performance for teachers' why not for them? It is not a labor of rocket science to forge a proposal for the ballot box. Many
communities have done so. A well-crafted proposal could eliminate at least some of the abuses you see on the roads and in the local government
offices (those are many times 'state' level things, but the principle is the same).
As for your examples I cannot alter the facts. But I do expect that at some point in time many people have had efficient service provided to them, to
list only the abuses seems incomplete. In most cases there is a responsible person to whom the scrutiny must be applied... that it is not is telling
of the local culture, not the government as a 'blanket' singular entity (which in fact does not exist.)
Most of the functions performed by the government are harmful to society, let alone vital. What they are is vital to the government
I think that's a bit of hyperbole there. It's forgivable because I agree it has gone beyond the point of ignoring it and the abuses are apparently
accepted as 'the way it is.' But we do need a way to exist as a nation state in this world, or we will be victims to those who have a monopoly on
power. As a nation - we demand equality across all measurements of social conduct.... until such time as we can rely on people to be completely fair
and civil to each other - and not prey upon others - we need government.
You see there has to be a way to coexist while disagreeing, to debate without conflict, and to secure the ability for all to pursue life, liberty, and
prosperity without engendering theft, oppression, and tyranny.
Many government functions run astray of the mark because they were not put in place for 'everyone'; they were put in place for 'someone specific.'
edit on 12-5-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)