Maybe the Third Most Dangerous Political Myth of All

[Sunstone]

I'm naturally suspicious about any idea that "everyone" believes is true.

"Everyone" believes McDonald's hamburgers are the best in the world, if you base that conclusion on how many of them are sold compared to how many are sold by competitors. Yet, everyone is wrong. You don't need to be a gourmet to know they're relatively unhealthy for you compared to what's available at some other restaurants.

Another thing everyone believes today is "Governments are in every key way inferior to private businesses in benefiting people."

If you are now bristling in utter disbelief at the very thought alone that sacred notion can be challenged, then you're in good company. Very good company. It was not long after Reagan first popularized that idea that even people on the other side of the isle "came to Jesus" and adopted it as Gospel. Everyone believes it now.

You can relax, though, because, dumb as I am, I'm not dumb enough to think I can convince anyone to change a firmly ingrained belief. Fully half the purpose of this post is to amuse and entertain you.

The other half is to amuse and entertain me. I love to write!

As an aside here, all the years (and more) that I was growing up, a nearby branch of my family were earning their livings mostly by professionally bribing politicians, senior government bureaucrats, and any other political types they got paid to bribe. I was now and then privy to some quite detailed stories of, say, how a certain nationally famous Democratic senator was persuaded to change his vote in favor of voting for Reagan's bill to deregulate the savings and loan industry.

Of course, he publicly announced he was "voting on principle". But who on earth mistakes most politicians for being a Bernie Sanders?

So kindly spare me the news that "governments are corrupt" , as if that could ever convince me governments are necessarily bad. I'm as stubbornly convinced as you yourself can be about anything that bribes are necessary to make governments work -- for anyone.

I'm also far from naive enough to believe many corporate executives have ever changed their minds about something they were committed to believing in without being "bribed" to do so. The difference is their bribes are perfectly legal. Outrageously huge performance bonuses, for example, often just to get them to achieve marginal results.

If you want to blame someone or something for that, blame human nature -- which means me and you both: When was the last time even a weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence fundamentally changed your thinking? If that question is too personal, then simply ask how often you notice someone on RF fundamentally changing their thinking -- say, about evolution or abortion -- based on those things alone?

As they say, "Money talks, BS walks". And not just BS! So too often, do reason and evidence.

That said, here's an idea I'm fully sure gives you a solid opportunity to take pleasure from defeating it: If you really do believe governments are in every key way inferior to private business in benefiting people", then how can you be sure of that? By what fair means are you able to measure it? Have you ever made or seen a scientifically rigorous study comparing governments and non-government organizations in those terms?

I've never heard of even a single such study, and for the truth of the matter to be decisively found out, the standards of the sciences would dictate that many such studies, each supporting the other, be completed before anything more than tentative conclusions could be soundly reached.

To me, the myth in question is sadly dangerous. It's as dangerous as any myth that there's no use to ever build a fire would be to the ancient Inuit peoples, should any of them actually believe the myth.

Governments are just like fire, in that way. They can both save your life and end it. To advocate too little or too much government is, in my view, an irresponsible betrayal of anyone who takes your ideas to heart.

I sincerely hope this has been as fun for you as practicing a snarky writing style has been for me. I also hope no one has been genuinely insulted here.

Equally snarky questions or comments?

Purely for fun: What would you guess are to me the first and second most dangerous political myths?

 

[sun rise]

If you want to blame someone or something for that, blame human nature

That's why I've been a big believer in a balance of power - between three branches of government, between state and federal government and most particularly between what used to be the case - government, labor and business.

Of course there are always those who define "honorable corruption" as those who would stay bought (thank you Isaac Asimov for that one). But there are also people of principle, even elevated principle.

The hard 'trick' is to structure systems to attract the honorable and repel others. We've done a relatively good job of that recently as the corruption index shows Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 With the current regime in power in Washington, I believe we're "catching up" with those countries further down on the scale.

When was the last time even a weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence fundamentally changed your thinking?

I try to be an empiricist of course recognizing that I'm human and thus prey to confirmation bias. I'm not claiming to have changed my mind about certain fundamental things, but in lesser things I have changed my thinking. One small example is the value of drinking 8 glasses of water a day on a diet based on reading a paper that shows how being well hydrated directly impacts metabolism.

Of course when it comes to fundamental things such as golden retriever dogs being the best breed and my dog being the best of the best, no evidence can shake my knowledge the truth of my beliefs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've never heard of even a single such study, and for the truth of the matter to be decisively found out, the standards of the sciences would dictate that many such studies, each supporting the other, be completed before anything more than tentative conclusions could be soundly reached.

Of course they won't bring it, because they already have a history and record; fire departments - disaster; health care - disaster; emergency preparedness - disaster; prisons - disaster; post office booted out into its own pseudo private company - disaster. There are many areas where the state isn't doing, but many of those, such as health care and education, are so woefully underfunded and have a startling lack of accountability because ultimately no cares as long as you're making money.

 

[Sunstone]

The hard 'trick' is to structure systems to attract the honorable and repel others. We've done a relatively good job of that recently as the corruption index shows Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 With the current regime in power in Washington, I believe we're "catching up" with those countries further down on the scale.

I'll be the first to admit that too much corruption is terribly destructive. You can have too much in the sense that so much money is being poured into the system the price of buying people soars, and most of the folks who once could do it, are priced out of the market. Another of looking at it, you can have too much in the sense that you have to bribe people even for ordinary but necessary services you shouldn't have to bribe for.

Were we might disagree is in how realistic we think it is that corruption can ever be dramatically reduced. I'd say that mainly depended on the culture of the country -- especially the extent to which the culture encourages people to be reasonable. To reduce corruption, I think you need to remove the need for it by creating great respect for reasoned conclusions.

The US could probably safely reduce it somewhat, but I don't think the government would work well if you cut it out entirely.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Were we might disagree is in how realistic we think it is that corruption can ever be dramatically reduced. I'd say that mainly depended on the culture of the country. The US could probably safely reduce it somewhat, but I don't think the government would work well if you cut it out entirely.

And the first party to reduce it too much is going to lose. Big time. Any system of significant size has to be gradually changed or the whole thing will collapse. Corrruption is so deeply ingrained into America's, that to end it abruptly, bringing it to a screeching halt because there suddenly wouldn't be enough money to keep the show going.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Everyone" believes McDonald's hamburgers are the best in the world,

Those who believe that, they are poor, damned souls. We must pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that they be freed from a world of greasy slathers of cardboard, plastic-like cheese, and bread of "bleh" and deliver them into the promised flavors of redemption. Let their ground cow patties of these lost souls know flavor that bursts into their mouths with every bite.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you really do believe governments are in every key way inferior to private business in benefiting people", then how can you be sure of that?

America has been running the perfect experiment to test that idea. With ongoing governmental deregulation, you get corporate America more and more determining such things as environmental standards and banking regulations. Let's see how that works out.

 

[icehorse]

Ok, back to the OP and the quest for unquestioned political "truths". How about:

The wealthy are "job creators" and therefore deserve tax breaks.

(Which forgets the points that financially healthy consumers are essential to the system, and that hiring more people is the last resort option for companies.)

 

[Stevicus]

That said, here's an idea I'm fully sure gives you a solid opportunity to take pleasure from defeating it: If you really do believe governments are in every key way inferior to private business in benefiting people", then how can you be sure of that? By what fair means are you able to measure it? Have you ever made or seen a scientifically rigorous study comparing governments and non-government organizations in those terms?

I've never heard of even a single such study, and for the truth of the matter to be decisively found out, the standards of the sciences would dictate that many such studies, each supporting the other, be completed before anything more than tentative conclusions could be soundly reached.

I've never heard of any such study either. However, I might take a lesser of two evils approach.

In my view, government's stated purpose is founded in the Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution (aka "government") for the United States of America.

Private business does not have any such set of principles. The only principle of business is "make money, make more money." Profit is the bottom line, regardless of justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, or the blessings of liberty. Business, by definition, doesn't care about any of that.

On the other hand, it can be argued that when government goes bad, it can get very bad, whereas if business goes bad, the overall damage is far less. The Mafia may have been bad, but not as bad as the KGB or Gestapo - at least in terms of body count.

That said, some might tend to exaggerate government incompetence, implying that government employees are nothing more than incompetent boobs who do everything wrong. This is why many push for privatization of government services, whether it's schools, prisons, or what have you. Even the military employs private contractors.

My father worked for a company that did business with the NSA at one time, and back when I once applied to work for the NSA (back in another life), my father kind of scoffed and said that the NSA were a bunch of idiots. For security reasons, he couldn't go into detail, but apparently there was some project he was working on, in which he and the other engineers at his company told the NSA that it wouldn't work. The NSA insisted that they build it anyway, so they did, and it didn't work. The NSA blamed the company my dad worked for, but they told them it wouldn't work at the very beginning.