Re: ECON: Gov't performance
Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:48:39 EST

In a message dated 1/27/99 7:38:16 PM Central Standard Time, it was said.

> >>"In program

> >> area after program area, we have found that unfocused and
> >> uncoordinated [overlapping] programs waste scarce funds,
> >> confuse and frustrate taxpayers and other program
> >> customers, and limit overall program effectiveness,"
> >> the report states.
> Isn't it strange, when the stated role of the government
> is general coordination of social activities, meaningful
> allocation of funds, and overall social order and effectiveness.
> Coercive funding and coercive implementation of programs
> remove incentives to improve coordination and effectiveness,
> so whether the centralized system could actually deliver them,
> is a moot point - it won't bother [too much, anyway].
> Wasn't Communism a good enough lesson here?
I'd like to address that in my usual uncoordinated way.

I see and I've been led to beleive that the original purpose and allowable function of <federal> government in the United States was severely limited. That is. 1. To Protect the borders <military> 2. Legislative 3. Judiciary.

Anything else is unlawful. Historicaly I beleive it is seen tht government does anything else very poorly. It doesnt do very well even at those three.


The other day I heard a broadcast of the proceedings of "The commonwealth club of California". From the San Francisco Area (the No spanking zone). The topic was Russia.

The concensus of opinion was that Russia was going to melt-down. More so than already. And that there wasn't a thing that would stop it.

One of the speakers brought up the point that the singular difference between Russia and the West was Statism vs Individualism. Statism self destructed.

Yet our government continually limits the rights and powers of individuals.