Isn't it ironic that

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure I buy that. From your link, "The economist Gary Shilling totaled up federal, state, and local government workers, plus private-sector workers who owe their jobs to government, plus recipients of Social Security, other transfer payments, and benefits such as food stamps. He also tacked on the dependents of these direct beneficiaries." So, the construction worker building the highway is counted even though he's working for a private company that has a government contract. The truck driver and his two kids are counted because his wife is a teacher. Etc.. Reminds me of the old saw, "figures lie and liars figure."

I agree that it is a tad high, but it shows the level at which the government has become more entrenched bureaucracy than necessary. The largest employer in this state is the State, with over 50,000 full time positions (in 2 million households, which is 1/40). The 2nd largest employer in this state is the Federal government, and then you can add in all the State College, University, county and local government jobs.

However, overall I do agree with you. Government should supply the minimum it can in terms of services and in regulations of the services that it does not supply. But what that minimum is is hard to determine.

Yes, there are sad stories for all kinds of uses of government. One big one here is "Invasive Species" where a DNR officer has to inspect every boat going into and out of the water to check for milfoil. Some idiot dumped their fish tank into the lake, and now taxpayers get stuck with trying to stop it's spread.

Consider the history of firefighting. What started as a community effort (often ineffective) became a function of private companies. However, an uninsured property then became a liability to all surrounding properties since it would be permitted to burn uncontrolled. In some places, laws were passed requiring everyone to have insurance, but these laws were largely a failure because of people who ignored them, of abandoned properties, and of insurance carriers who did not have the actual means of containing fires. So, for the common good, the government took over the duties of firefighting. One can argue that this is bad, a move toward socialism, an infringement by the government into private affairs, and a source of inefficiencies. And all those arguments would be valid. But they are all trumped, IMHO, by the fact that too many people were too stupid, too apathetic, too cheap to buy fire protection. And so, to protect the 10% of the worthwhile population from the 90% of the morons, the government stepped in. Of course, by doing so, it also protected the morons from themselves. What would be your solution?

There are many facets to fire protection. For example, our city (of 7400) just attained 100% coverage by hydrant for all homes recently, but it took some convincing to put in the additional city water systems on the side roads. Our city is somewhat unique in that we collaborate with surrounding cities to pool services like fire, and police to have one larger department, rather than many smaller inadequate ones. Therefore, also our relative costs are smaller than some other cities that don't have the cluster effect that we do. I live near a very large lake, which has attracted a cluster of residents which has caused all the cities and towns to grow together around the lake. All the towns around the lake in effect share a border even across the lake, and need to work closely with the county sheriff's water patrol. I have less argument for local taxes, like fire, police, and even the school (when they are reasonable), as long as I can trod on down to the city hall and vent my grief once in awhile. It's been effective a few times resulting in the mayor and the city council getting sacked at the next election. It's amazing what a mob of motivated citizens can do when the government is out of sync with their constituents and they get mad enough. It's harder to effect change though the higher up the food chain you go, which is why I believe the least amount of government should be at the federal level. The school is altogether another problem, where the teachers are strapped for money in the classroom, yet the spending per student is amongst the highest in the nation. In my opinion, there is too much money spent on administration, sports, swimming pools, and non-academics.

So, yeah, the government keeps getting bigger. Should we privatize the school systems? Maybe.

It should be an option. I advocate vouchers, or a partial tax rebate if you choose a private school for your child. It would be interesting to see if the teachers union remains as powerful if it had to negotiate with business, rather than government.

The correctional institutions? Probably not.

Although, I'd like to find an alternative to incarceration for non-violent crimes.

The postal service? If you've ever lived on a rural route, as I have, you'd say "Hell, no!"

It is somewhat privatized already.

The roads and highways? Possibly, though it would take a bit of technology.

In our state we have a mess regarding roads. Minnesota makes out OK with federal highway funds, but it is at the expense of the large populated states. The Twin Cities metro suffers because the bulk of the law makers in the State government are from rural areas. Therefore many hardly used roads get tended, while the city roads which are more heavily used are untended. It would be better handled as a local government problem, but it would make many rural roads revert back to gravel in many areas. That may not be a bad thing.

As to the markets, either extreme runs into problems. Somewhere in the middle, a well regulated (but not over regulated) free market (and that is NOT a contradiction) is the solution. However, unlike the simplistic and ineffectual extremes, something in the middle is difficult to achieve and how to achieve it is open to much argument. It takes intelligence to run a country, but only money and charisma to be put into the position to try.

Yeah, I'm not opposed to just enough regulation to stop the usury. I also think globalization has caused some of the problems where mergers have made worldwide mega monopolies. One bad captain at the tiller, or asleep at the wheel and the whole ship runs aground.