Dat inequality

[CoccoBill]

I think you may be missing my point. The value isn't an unknown constant that someone or some committee can ascertain with adequate knowledge. It is a variable in constant flux that can only be known for a given individual based on that individual's preferences, needs, and/or priorities. The same item is often worth more to one person than to another, or worth a lot at one point in time but nearly worthless an hour later. You say that individuals cannot value things correctly. I say that individuals are the ONLY ones who can value ANYTHING correctly. States exist primarily to separate people from the true costs of their lifestyles and to keep the deception up that you can get something out of nothing.

I get your point, you mean value in exchange and I mean value in use. What I mean by value is the "objective" consensus value that the market would assign to something when all relevant information was known to everyone, not just the value for the highest bidding fool.

While it is OK to compare a government to a corporation, its important to recognize a dis-economy of scale that is inherent in governments. Governments are very large, the major governments of the world dwarf the largest corporations in size, and to a degree this results in less accountability for mistakes and unethical behavior. Simply put, a government is able to withstand a lot more heat and public shame than a corporation is. And a government doesn't stand to lose as much from a damaged reputation. Governments are predicated on coercion; you can vote the president or prime minister out of office but the core of government is eternal. Governments require coups to topple. Corporations simply topple when they become un-competitive with other corporations, before the first salvo ever needed to be fired.

Again, these may be valid arguments against the current US government and even many other implementations, but I don't believe any of this is something inherent to governments. Besides, at least in theory, democratic governments and toppled by voting.

So back briefly to the worker, the public service worker stands to lose his job if he's corrupt, and perhaps punishment will spread to his immediate superiors, but all in all the government will emerge unscathed. Conversely, the private sector worker is in much greater ways a proxy for the owner of that corporation. Private enterprise walks a razor thin edge to remain in a competitive market so the incentives against incompetent, unethical, or corrupt behavior are abundantly in evidence. I have more to say about this if you want to hear it but I'm trying to keep my posts short.

Please do.