|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
This goes both ways if we're talking individual consumers. If we're talking private sector, the only information it doesn't have that the government has is government secrets. And there is a ton of information that the private sector has that government doesn't..
Do consumers have that information? Do you trust the private sector to share that information with you? How do you know that the the private sector is employing standards and practices that meet your individual requirements.
Look up "Tylenol deaths 1982". You'll find articles proclaiming a silver lining to that incident in that it forced drug manufacturers to improve their processes and implement more consumer protections.
But none of that happened until some kids died. Don't you think it would be better if the government insisted on those improved procedures in the first place?
The private sector already quality controls like this and other ways.
Only when they really have to. The 1982 incident wasnt' just tylenol. It inspired MANY copycat incidents across the entire industry. Are you confident that every single firm in the industry implemented the proper procedures to protect consumers from harm?
This gets to the original question of the OP. Why do you think the government is more efficient at this than the private sector?
Centralization.
Skin in the game is when somebody receives the benefit or the consequences of his actions. Being given a mandate doesn't mean you have skin in the game unless you bear the cost of success or failure of achieving that mandate. As we see regularly, government and bureaucrats have skin in the game in a very weak form at best.
Ummmm, what about democracy. If the gov't fails it's mandate....usually re-elections are tough.
|
Reply With Quote