NationStates Jolt Archive

Which government agencies should be privatized and which should just be eliminated? Im talking about America. The United States of.

TThe PEntigon, The FBI, The CIA, and the White House, oh and the LSPD and the NYPD.

I wasnt aware that the White House was an agency.

I don't really think they should privatise any. A few could be eliminated, but I can't think of any excess agency that should be eliminated. If any of them all, the EPA cannot be privatised.

The ATF and the DEA, to start.

Severely cut the FCC down to size - take away it's right to censor the media due to "indecency"

The one thing I might leave it with are it's antitrust related powers, but even those seem a bit too draconian for my tastes.

Oh, and the ESRB is a load of BS too.

The FCC is the only agency I think should be gotten rid of. If people don't like something just don't watch/listen to it.

Which government agencies should be privatized and which should just be eliminated? Im talking about America. The United States of.

What a curious question.

Are you an anarchist?

Nope.

I don't think the ESRB is a government organization, I thought it was a private MPAA type regulatory board.

But yes, the FCC needs to be cut down to size as well

As long as the Ministry of Silly Walks is untouched, you can dispose of the rest.

frankly for every parent that complains that television corrupts their children all I have to say is 'look at the piss poor adult that couldn't even be bothered to teach their child right and wrong and reality from fiction'

self censorship and a bit of information before every program could well make the world a better place

What a curious question.

Are you an anarchist?
Reduction of bureaucracy is not an anarchic ideal. Federalism has less bureaucracy than unitary government, and confederation near none. Granted, anarchy has none, but I think everyone agrees that the less bureaucracy there is, the better. Though sometimes it must be put up with for other benefits.

Reduction of bureaucracy is not an anarchic ideal. Federalism has less bureaucracy than unitary government, and confederation near none. Granted, anarchy has none, but I think everyone agrees that the less bureaucracy there is, the better. Though sometimes it must be put up with for other benefits.
Agreed.

I think of myself as a somewhat libertarian-leaning liberal, and I see that in some places, the government is clearly too large and intrusive (seat belt laws, for one).

Nope.

If you are not an anarchist, then why would you consider that any government functions should be either privatised or eliminated?

If all government functions were privatised or eliminated, the obvious result is anarchy.

Why propose some if you are not prepared for all?

Education and social securiy are the two largest and most obvious places to start.

If you are not an anarchist, then why would you consider that any government functions should be either privatised or eliminated?

If all government functions were privatised or eliminated, the obvious result is anarchy.

Why propose some if you are not prepared for all?
Because there is more than just black and white. There's many shades of gray as well. Otherwise there could be absolutely no centrists. Most "true" conservatives and libertarians want less government, but they're not anarchists.

The Department of Agriculture could stand some huge cuts. Get rid of the subsidies for agribusiness; limit it to inspecting food to make sure it is safe.

I don't mean to say cut all agricultural subsidies--only the ones that go to huge companies such as ADM or ConAgra. They don't need them.

Because there is more than just black and white. There's many shades of gray as well. Otherwise there could be absolutely no centrists. Most "true" conservatives and libertarians want less government, but they're not anarchists.

So why would you consider "less government" do be desirable?

Are the government functions obsolete?

Or do you believe that the could be better provided by some other source? If that is the case, please provide examples where such functions have been a success.

In my experience, the provision of many governmental services that have been "outsourced" have resulted in higher costs and poorer service levels - for the simple reason that a private corporation is driven by the profit motive, so will seek to increase charges and or decrease costs (less maintenance work is a favourite).

The experience of the British rail network or the New Zealand electricity supply come to mind.

The Child Support Agency in the UK. Unending waste of money, that one.

The Department of Agriculture could stand some huge cuts. Get rid of the subsidies for agribusiness; limit it to inspecting food to make sure it is safe.

I don't mean to say cut all agricultural subsidies--only the ones that go to huge companies such as ADM or ConAgra. They don't need them.

I like where you are going here, but I would go further and cut all agricultural subsudies - and congressional marketing orders.

It's the environmentally sound thing to do.

So why would you consider "less government" do be desirable?
I don't, I'm simply explaining that not all people who want less government are not anarchists. I am a liberal myself (though I do believe that anarchy is the best, yet unattainable, form of government).

The answer is simple. A program should only be state run if it meets certain criteria.

The first criteria relates to the concept of externalities. Anything that creates possitive externalities should be government supported, and anything that creates negative externalities should be penalized. In other words, fire departments should be government funded because putting out a fire in one house supports the whole neighborhood not just that one house, so it is unreasonable to expect only the single home owner to pay for the cost of the protection for everyone. On the other side, a company that produces large amounts of pollution should be penalized by the government through taxation or forced cleanup to reduce the effects of the negative externality of pollution.

The second criteria relates to the concept of "free riders," which is sort of an offshoot of the externalities issue. If some people in a town wanted to hire a private army to protect them, the people in the town who chose not to pay would still recieve the benifit. In other words, the effect of the army cannot be localized to the property of only those who wish to pay for it, so it makes sense to either have everyone pay for some portion of national defense, or no one pay for any. Our current government (which is the people's representitive, for better or worse) believes in more spending for national defense, so it can be assumed that the general trend of beliefs in the country says that we need more defense. Other examples of programs that should be supported to prevent the free rider problem is fire departments, like above, and police departments.

Fundamentally, if a program does not meet one of these criteria, either producing positive or negative externalities, or preventing free riders, then it does not, in a purely economic sense, fit the mold for a successful government program. A large portion of the national budget is spent on projects which, while noble, are impractical and do not fit any of the criteria for a successful government program.

An example of a program that is funded but should not be is social security. There is no reason to believe that people are better off paying into a system that is choked with beurocracy as well as being on the brink of bankruptcy because no one can get close enough to fix it's fatal flaws without being finished politically, just to see smaller returns than they could get on average in the private market. Eliminating social security entirely (or entirely privatizing it, which is basically the same thing) would be both good for each citizen individually, and good for the economy as a whole. Very very good in fact when you consider the amount of stagnant money in the social security system that would be released into the free market.

Another example of a program that should not be funded is the health insurance. There is a certain degree of health protection that creates positive externalities (preventing the spread of disease) which could continue to be funded, but catastrophic injury insurance is extremely expensive, and growing more so without providing anything to the public good. At the same time, rather than preventing free riders federally supported health insurance actually creates them. Now I acknowledge that the health insurance industry in this country has many problems, and some of them much worse than those created by the government's funding, but health care does not fit the mold of a successful government program and should be eliminated except for that part which prevents the spread of diseases.

There are many more examples of programs that could be cut, at well as programs that should be funded but which aren't, in part due to the fact that the appropriations system is somewhat corrupt and in part due to the fact that the government doesn't have enough money to spend doing it's job since it it so busy trying to do the job of the market, and doing it poorly.

NASA needs to be privatized, or at least the space industry needs to gain a lot more private support. Otherwise it isn't going to go anywhere..and King George's plans of Moon and Mars Bases will be a forlorn dream.

I like where you are going here, but I would go further and cut all agricultural subsudies - and congressional marketing orders.

It's the environmentally sound thing to do.

I would agree with cutting out Congressional marketing orders. *pukes at commercialism* However, there is a reason why we have farm subsidies--the fortunes of a small family farm are extremely cyclical, and without some form of government intervention, thousands of family farms would go under with each turn of the business cycle.

With most of the free market, when prices go down, sellers are free to cut back their production. Farmers do not always have this capability, as they must still pay property taxes on their land; they may as well use it. Furthermore, a small farmer must use crop income for living and operating expenses, so he/she might not have a reserve fund large enough to cover several years of drought or underpriced crops. When prices are low, usually an individual farmer would try to make up for it by producing even more, leading to an agricultural death spiral. This is why we have farm subsidies for things like not planting on land and such.

Also, keep in mind that a small farmer individually has nearly no control over market price, simply because there are so many sellers on the market. Hence, overproduction and the agricultural death spiral.

I suggest you do some research into the late 19th-century Populist movement, and the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression.

However, large agribusiness companies do have the resources to weather adverse market conditions (as well as a lot more influence over crop prices) and therefore do not need the subsidies.

NASA needs to be privatized, or at least the space industry needs to gain a lot more private support. Otherwise it isn't going to go anywhere..and King George's plans of Moon and Mars Bases will be a forlorn dream.
Ooooh, good one.

Actually much of NASA is private, however their regulations are very overreaching and stifle a considerable amount of private competitive interest.

I like where you are going here, but I would go further and cut all agricultural subsudies - and congressional marketing orders.

It's the environmentally sound thing to do.
Don' cut them, just make a sunset clause mandatory. They can be useful for relief during a crisis.

So why would you consider "less government" do be desirable?

Are the government functions obsolete?

Or do you believe that the could be better provided by some other source? If that is the case, please provide examples where such functions have been a success.

In my experience, the provision of many governmental services that have been "outsourced" have resulted in higher costs and poorer service levels - for the simple reason that a private corporation is driven by the profit motive, so will seek to increase charges and or decrease costs (less maintenance work is a favourite).

The experience of the British rail network or the New Zealand electricity supply come to mind.
That goes back to the ideas of free enterprise. Although I don't know about your examples specifically, it would appear to me that they really didn't realize true privation. I mean, things like railroads and electricity need large centralized organizations to effectively run, thus one can't simply have competition between opposing companies. Without competition, privation is pointless and defeats the purpose of free enterprise. On the other hand, when orchestrated properly releasing a former responsibility of the government back to the poeple almost always has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided.

That goes back to the ideas of free enterprise. Although I don't know about your examples specifically, it would appear to me that they really didn't realize true privation. I mean, things like railroads and electricity need large centralized organizations to effectively run, thus one can't simply have competition between opposing companies. Without competition, privation is pointless and defeats the purpose of free enterprise. On the other hand, when orchestrated properly releasing a former responsibility of the government back to the poeple almost always has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided.

I have provided examples, even if you are unaware of their details.

I have also provided the mechanism which shows why privatisation does not work - the profit motive demands the increase in charges, and the lower of costs (most commonly maintenance). Over time, the cost to the user increases, often quite dramatically, and the quality of that service declines.

Your statement that "releasing a former responsibility of the government back to the poeple almost always has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided" contains neither examples nor driving mechanism, but seems to be of a more generic "philosophical" basis - unless, of course, you can provide examples and mechanisms.

That goes back to the ideas of free enterprise. Although I don't know about your examples specifically, it would appear to me that they really didn't realize true privation. I mean, things like railroads and electricity need large centralized organizations to effectively run, thus one can't simply have competition between opposing companies. Without competition, privation is pointless and defeats the purpose of free enterprise. On the other hand, when orchestrated properly releasing a former responsibility of the government back to the poeple almost always has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided.

I have provided examples, even if you are unaware of their details.

I have also provided the mechanism which shows why privatisation does not work - the profit motive demands the increase in charges, and the lowering of costs (most commonly maintenance). Over time, the cost to the user increases, often quite dramatically, and the quality of that service declines.

Your statement that "releasing a former responsibility of the government back to the poeple almost always has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided" contains neither examples nor driving mechanism, but seems to be of a more generic "philosophical" basis - unless, of course, you can provide examples and mechanisms.

The main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism demands more government control of industry, and capitalism less. Socialism typically results in lower quality, but lower prices. Capitalism usually results in higher quality, but higher prices. Socialism generally is better for the environment and social equality, and capitalism is better for the economy.

The main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism demands more government control of industry, and capitalism less. Socialism typically results in lower quality, but lower prices. Capitalism usually results in higher quality, but higher prices. Socialism generally is better for the environment and social equality, and capitalism is better for the economy.

None of which addresses the role of government agencies in either model.

"Carefully read and answer the question" was a common theme from the majority of my teachers.

The Internal Revenue Service,
should be eliminated.

That campaing add of Libertarian
Harry Browne blowing up the IRS Building
to make his point was a classic
to make his point

None of which addresses the role of government agencies in either model.

"Carefully read and answer the question" was a common theme from the majority of my teachers.
Government involvement in industry is indeed related to agencies. I was jsut trying to explain some of the basic differences between more and less government involvement, as some people were saying "How can you ever say to have less government?". Thread topics are not static.

Education and social securiy are the two largest and most obvious places to start.

Why?

What leads you to believe that either would be performed better by a non government organisation?

I would even be surprised if you could point to any nation that does not have government agencies running both functions.

I have provided examples, even if you are unaware of their details.

I have also provided the mechanism which shows why privatisation does not work - the profit motive demands the increase in charges, and the lower of costs (most commonly maintenance). Over time, the cost to the user increases, often quite dramatically, and the quality of that service declines.

Your statement that "releasing a former responsibility of the government back to the poeple almost always has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided" contains neither examples nor driving mechanism, but seems to be of a more generic "philosophical" basis - unless, of course, you can provide examples and mechanisms.


I'm sorry, I did state a mechanism by which privatization "has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided". That would simply be Competition. When two or more poeple/companies/corporations compete for the same market they tend to offer better quality services for lower prices in hopes of capturing a larger part of the market and thus make more money. This is simple economics. As for examples of this in action, there is countless numbers of them threwout the world, but seeing as I am not learned enough to speak on any of them in great detail I will use a local example. I live near Portland, OR, USA. If you don't know, Portland has several bridges that it is responsible for. Every few years one or more of the bridges are shut down for refurbishing. These projects are ran by the state and usually run over schedule and over budget. Not too long ago the city hired out the job to the lowest bidder. The bridge was finished several weeks under schedule, for millions of dollars under budget, and they even designed a way to allow people to commute on the bridge while it was under repairs.

DESTROY the FCC.
Perhaps we could cut down or privatize, or possibly even eliminate the ATF, DEA, FDA,the CIA (maybe) and the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

DESTROY the FCC.
Perhaps we could cut down or privatize, or possibly even eliminate the ATF, DEA, FDA,the CIA (maybe) and the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Why?

What leads you to believe that either would be performed better by a non government organisation?

I would even be surprised if you could point to any nation that does not have government agencies running both functions.

There are private schools now so...

D) All of the above

Then, arm the environmentalists and farmers/ranchers and let them guard the lands from evil corporations. Children all start getting home schooled so their parents can teach them about creationism/evolution in whichever way they favor. Everyone gets a bicycle, solar panels and wind turnines, and four acres with greenhouses to grow their own food on. High-speed internet is provided free of charge to everyone. And everyday is a national holiday called Matalatataka day.

I expect this would cause plenty of problems, but it's somewhere to start. Besides, nobody would ever let me be in charge. :mad:

Everyone gets a bicycle, solar panels and wind turnines, and four acres with greenhouses to grow their own food on.
I have no idea where you got the idea that any but a very few people would do that on their own. And there isn't enough room for everyone to have four acres of food.

I can only guess that you're being sarcastic, but it doesn't seem like that to me.

I have no idea where you got the idea that any but a very few people would do that on their own. And there isn't enough room for everyone to have four acres of food.

I can only guess that you're being sarcastic, but it doesn't seem like that to me.

Mostly sarcastic with just a whiff of sincerity. I would have thought the national holiday part would have given me away.

I'm sorry, I did state a mechanism by which privatization "has positive results both in the quality of service and the cost at which the service is provided". That would simply be Competition. When two or more poeple/companies/corporations compete for the same market they tend to offer better quality services for lower prices in hopes of capturing a larger part of the market and thus make more money. This is simple economics. As for examples of this in action, there is countless numbers of them threwout the world, but seeing as I am not learned enough to speak on any of them in great detail I will use a local example. I live near Portland, OR, USA. If you don't know, Portland has several bridges that it is responsible for. Every few years one or more of the bridges are shut down for refurbishing. These projects are ran by the state and usually run over schedule and over budget. Not too long ago the city hired out the job to the lowest bidder. The bridge was finished several weeks under schedule, for millions of dollars under budget, and they even designed a way to allow people to commute on the bridge while it was under repairs.

A one-off job hardly compares to the work of a government agency.

And are you really happy knowing that your bridge was maintained in the cheapest way possible?

And if it collapses next year, you can be sure that a government will still be around. A private company can be taken over, wind up, declare bankruptcy, etc. Just ask the residents of Bhopal, looked after less well than the residents of Chernobyl.

And what happens if a company becomes so efficient (or otherwise manages to crush competition) and so becomes a monopoly?

I remember when there were no Japanese motorbikes. Their pricing structure forced British and American manuifacturers out of business, so they can now dominate the market.

Most importantly, you can have direct input to the policy and practice of government. Try it with a multinational and see how you go.

There are private schools now so...

And they are ultimately controlled by ...

education-every child recieves a voucher(say 10,000) per year and can either attend a private school or as a small group with other childrens parents can hire a liscened teacher.

taxes-10% flat tax no deductions,tax shelters,tax credits or exceptions!this will seriously reduce the size of the I.R.S

legalize prostitution and gambling-regulate and tax

remove ourselves from all overseas military bases and according to constitution must get congress approval for declaration of war

balanced budget amendment

massive cuts in government spending

privatize social security but regulated by government

no foreign aid

take all that money and put it into health care and education

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of US government agencies (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha).

I'll start with executive agencies:
Of the current cabinet level departments, we should completely cut out:
the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services (except for the CDC, Office for Public Health Emergency Preparedness, and FDA, to be folded into the DoD), Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Labor.

Of the remaining cabinet level departments, the following should be folded into one agency:
Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Homeland Security.

Of the remaining cabinet level departments, the following should be downsized and or privatised: Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, and Department of the Treasury.

That leaves us with the Department of State and the Department of Justice. Both should be streamlined and overhauled.

The Executive Office of the President:
X = Cut, V = Downsize, P = Privatise, K = Keep, F = Folded into another agency
Council of Economic Advisers V
Council on Environmental Quality X
Domestic Policy Council VV
National Economic Council X
National Security Council K
Office of Administration V
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives X
Office of Management and Budget V
Office of National AIDS Policy F
Office of National Drug Control Policy X
Office of Science and Technology Policy X
Office of the First Lady X
Office of the Vice President of the United States V
President's Council on Sustainable Development X
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board F
United States Trade Representative X
White House Office F

Legislative agencies: congress can kep most of these. Howeve, cut the Architect of the Capitol, Office of Technology Assessment, Stennis Center for Public Service, and United States Botanic Garden.

Independent agencies:
X = Cut, V = Downsize, P = Privatise, K = Keep, F = Folded into another agency
Central Intelligence Agency CIA F
Federal Reserve System V
General Services Administration GSA V
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA X
National Archives and Records Administration NARA K
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities X
Office of Personnel Management V
Securities and Exchange Commission SEC F
Small Business Administration SBA X
Social Security Administration SSA X
United States Agency for International Development USAID X
United States Postal Service P
African Development Foundation X
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) VF
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) VF
Corporation for National and Community Service X
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) K
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) V
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) X
Export-Import Bank of the United States X
Farm Credit Administration X
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) X
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) X
Federal Election Commission (FEC) K
Federal Housing Finance Board X
Federal Labor Relations Authority X
Federal Maritime Commission K
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service X
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission X
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board X
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) VF
Inter-American Foundation X
Merit Systems Protection Board X
National Capital Planning Commission X
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) X
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) X
National Mediation Board X
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) X
National Science Foundation (NSF) X
National Transportation Safety Board VF
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) F
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission VF
Office of Government Ethics F
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) X
Overseas Private Investment Corporation X
Peace Corps X
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation X
Postal Rate Commission X
Railroad Retirement Board X
Selective Service System X
Tennessee Valley Authority X
U.S. Trade and Development Agency X
United States Commission on Civil Rights X
United States International Trade Commission (USITC) X

All 63 Boards, Commissions, and Committees (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Boards_Commissions_and_Committees/) can be cut.

All 69 Judicial (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Judicial/) and Quasi-Official (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Quasi-Official/) agencies except the United States Institute of Peace can be kept.

If you are not an anarchist, then why would you consider that any government functions should be either privatised or eliminated?

If all government functions were privatised or eliminated, the obvious result is anarchy.

Why propose some if you are not prepared for all?

My answer - because the US federal government has largely exceeded it's bounds and is engaged in activities it ought not be engaged in (regulating the economy, for exmple). Basically, I left the necessary agencies for the roles government should be engaged in: national defence, justice, public health, international relations, and the like.

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of US government agencies (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha).

I'll start with executive agencies:
Of the current cabinet level departments, we should completely cut out:
...

...
All 69 Judicial (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Judicial/) and Quasi-Official (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Quasi-Official/) agencies except the United States Institute of Peace can be kept.

Thank you for a list and a wish-list.

Perhaps you could explain why either :

1. The function is not required; or
2. The function could be performed better by a non-government agency.

A one-off job hardly compares to the work of a government agency.

And are you really happy knowing that your bridge was maintained in the cheapest way possible?

And if it collapses next year, you can be sure that a government will still be around. A private company can be taken over, wind up, declare bankruptcy, etc. Just ask the residents of Bhopal, looked after less well than the residents of Chernobyl.

And what happens if a company becomes so efficient (or otherwise manages to crush competition) and so becomes a monopoly?

I remember when there were no Japanese motorbikes. Their pricing structure forced British and American manuifacturers out of business, so they can now dominate the market.

Most importantly, you can have direct input to the policy and practice of government. Try it with a multinational and see how you go.
Admittedly, one job does not compare to a government agency, but it is an example of how a private outfit was able to do a better job than the government.
As far as monopolies are concerned, as long as they are providing the best product for the lowest price, let them be. Now when they are abusing their position as a monopoly, that represents a prefect example of when the government should step in, and enforce carefully laid out fair trade and ethical business laws to protect the consumer and to continue the practice of free enterprise.
I would like to point out that the government is a monopoly in and of it's self. It has the sole ability to govern the people. We can't very well turn to the United States of Wendy's when the Republic of McDonald's isn't working out for us. The government can pretty much give us the marching orders to do anything it likes, which goes back to the 2nd amendment and the need for the right to bare arms; however, I wont get into that.

Most importantly, you can have direct input to the policy and practice of government. Try it with a multinational and see how you go.
In politics you vote w/ your ballet, in free enterprize, you vote w/ your dollar.

So why would you consider "less government" do be desirable?

Because government is restrictive.

Are the government functions obsolete?

Some are.

Or do you believe that the could be better provided by some other source? If that is the case, please provide examples where such functions have been a success.

In my experience, the provision of many governmental services that have been "outsourced" have resulted in higher costs and poorer service levels - for the simple reason that a private corporation is driven by the profit motive, so will seek to increase charges and or decrease costs (less maintenance work is a favourite).

The experience of the British rail network or the New Zealand electricity supply come to mind.

I'll get to that in a minute. ;)

Admittedly, one job does not compare to a government agency, but it is an example of how a private outfit was able to do a better job than the government.
As far as monopolies are concerned, as long as they are providing the best product for the lowest price, let them be. Now when they are abusing their position as a monopoly, that represents a prefect example of when the government should step in, and enforce carefully laid out fair trade and ethical business laws to protect the consumer and to continue the practice of free enterprise.
I would like to point out that the government is a monopoly in and of it's self. It has the sole ability to govern the people. We can't very well turn to the United States of Wendy's when the Republic of McDonald's isn't working out for us. The government can pretty much give us the marching orders to do anything it likes, which goes back to the 2nd amendment and the need for the right to bare arms; however, I wont get into that.

I am pleased that you see some role for government, and better pleased that you see a governmental regulatory role over the excesses of capitalism.

And, being an Australian, with the hot summers we have here, I have always favoured short sleeves. :-)

And, being an Australian, with the hot summers we have here, I have always favoured short sleeves. :-)
smart @$$ ;)

Thank you for a list and a wish-list.

Perhaps you could explain why either :

1. The function is not required; or
2. The function could be performed better by a non-government agency.

Note that I called for very few to be privatised, and lots to be cut. Mostly these are not performing functions the government should be involved in.

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of US government agencies (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha).

I'll start with executive agencies:
Of the current cabinet level departments, we should completely cut out:
the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services (except for the CDC, Office for Public Health Emergency Preparedness, and FDA, to be folded into the DoD), Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Labor.

These are not required on philosophical grounds - they primarily serve as mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth. That is not a function the government is to undertake.

Of the remaining cabinet level departments, the following should be folded into one agency:
Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Homeland Security.

Redundancies. All thes functions, plus public health and intelligence, should fall under one national defense agency. Eliminates waste.


Of the remaining cabinet level departments, the following should be downsized and or privatised: Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, and Department of the Treasury.

Department of Transportation: the only thing we really need here is the FAA, to regulate movement. This probably could be privatised.

As for other means of transportation, I can tell you from experience here in Japan and in other countries: privatisation works. I have ridden on both Japan National Rail, Japan Rail (privatised), and private railways here. The private railways generally offer better service.
The same can be said of highways and tollroads. I have found semi-private and private tollroads to be better maintained and laid out.

Department of the Interior: Public lands should be severly cut back, especially national parks and forests . Consider that overgrazing is primarily a problem on public lands.

That leaves us with the Department of State and the Department of Justice. Both should be streamlined and overhauled.

Again redundancies.

The Executive Office of the President:
X = Cut, V = Downsize, P = Privatise, K = Keep, F = Folded into another agency
Council of Economic Advisers V
Council on Environmental Quality X
Domestic Policy Council VV
National Economic Council X
National Security Council K
Office of Administration V
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives X
Office of Management and Budget V
Office of National AIDS Policy F
Office of National Drug Control Policy X
Office of Science and Technology Policy X
Office of the First Lady X
Office of the Vice President of the United States V
President's Council on Sustainable Development X
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board F
United States Trade Representative X
White House Office F

Legislative agencies: congress can kep most of these. Howeve, cut the Architect of the Capitol, Office of Technology Assessment, Stennis Center for Public Service, and United States Botanic Garden.

Independent agencies:
X = Cut, V = Downsize, P = Privatise, K = Keep, F = Folded into another agency
Central Intelligence Agency CIA F
Federal Reserve System V
General Services Administration GSA V
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA X
National Archives and Records Administration NARA K
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities X
Office of Personnel Management V
Securities and Exchange Commission SEC F
Small Business Administration SBA X
Social Security Administration SSA X
United States Agency for International Development USAID X
United States Postal Service P
African Development Foundation X
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) VF
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) VF
Corporation for National and Community Service X
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) K
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) V
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) X
Export-Import Bank of the United States X
Farm Credit Administration X
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) X
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) X
Federal Election Commission (FEC) K
Federal Housing Finance Board X
Federal Labor Relations Authority X
Federal Maritime Commission K
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service X
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission X
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board X
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) VF
Inter-American Foundation X
Merit Systems Protection Board X
National Capital Planning Commission X
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) X
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) X
National Mediation Board X
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) X
National Science Foundation (NSF) X
National Transportation Safety Board VF
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) F
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission VF
Office of Government Ethics F
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) X
Overseas Private Investment Corporation X
Peace Corps X
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation X
Postal Rate Commission X
Railroad Retirement Board X
Selective Service System X
Tennessee Valley Authority X
U.S. Trade and Development Agency X
United States Commission on Civil Rights X
United States International Trade Commission (USITC) X

All 63 Boards, Commissions, and Committees (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Boards_Commissions_and_Committees/) can be cut.

All 69 Judicial (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Judicial/) and Quasi-Official (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/Quasi-Official/) agencies except the United States Institute of Peace can be kept.

Those to be cut aren't performing functions that government should be engaged in.

I remember when there were no Japanese motorbikes. Their pricing structure forced British and American manuifacturers out of business, so they can now dominate the market.

Japanese companies recieve big inputs from the national government - the domestic market is highly protected, labor unions are severly restricted, and the economy was essentially centrally planned by MITI. Some of this has changed, but the results have ended up being catastrophic.

Most importantly, you can have direct input to the policy and practice of government. Try it with a multinational and see how you go.

As someone above pointed out, your spending is a direct input to the policies and practices of any company. In fact, often stronger than your vote. Note that this may not apply in cases of government granted monopolies.

D) All of the above

Then, arm the environmentalists and farmers/ranchers and let them guard the lands from evil corporations. Children all start getting home schooled so their parents can teach them about creationism/evolution in whichever way they favor. Everyone gets a bicycle, solar panels and wind turnines, and four acres with greenhouses to grow their own food on. High-speed internet is provided free of charge to everyone. And everyday is a national holiday called Matalatataka day.

I expect this would cause plenty of problems, but it's somewhere to start. Besides, nobody would ever let me be in charge. :mad:

Who provides all that and how?

for those of you saying the goverment shouldnt deal with the economy.
A.oooooook whatever
B.you endorse total monoply of one company that replaces the goverment then correct?
its management and owner's become the aristocrats and your back where you started.

for those of you saying the goverment shouldnt deal with the economy.
A.oooooook whatever
B.you endorse total monoply of one company that replaces the goverment then correct?
its management and owner's become the aristocrats and your back where you started.


No, why would that happen?

I didn't know there was an "office of the first lady."

Man that pisses me off.

No, why would that happen?


because the goverment is the economy.money makes the world go round.money controls politics.
if you allow unlimited capitilism(ie unlimited economic freedom) every corporations goal would be to gain a monopoly and then expand.screwing all employes and customers in the process.
ever seen what the working class was like 100 years ago?wage slave doesnt begin the describe it.

eventully one corporation would be on top,and replace the goverment.now you have a dictatorship.

for those of you saying the goverment shouldnt deal with the economy.
A.oooooook whatever
B.you endorse total monoply of one company that replaces the goverment then correct?
its management and owner's become the aristocrats and your back where you started.

:confused:

Incorrect. How did you manage to extrapolate that from what anyone here has said?

Historically, all stable monopolies are de jure. Natural (de facto) monoplies are rare, and inherently unstable due to the market being dynamic.

because the goverment is the economy.

Wrong.

money makes the world go round.money controls politics.

Wrong.

if you allow unlimited capitilism(ie unlimited economic freedom) every corporations goal would be to gain a monopoly and then expand.screwing all employes and customers in the process.

Wrong.

ever seen what the working class was like 100 years ago?wage slave doesnt begin the describe it.

Are you at all aware that the government was explictly complicit in and supportive of that circumstance?

eventully one corporation would be on top,and replace the goverment.now you have a dictatorship.

Wrong.

Perhaps we shuold begin to privatize welfare to some extent . . . while I don't agree w/Bush's idea of a 'faith-based charity iniative', he may actually be onto something; instead of being faith-based perhaps it should be a local-based one..

Which government agencies should be privatized and which should just be eliminated? Im talking about America. The United States of.

Well that's simple, the state should only exist to oppose the initiation of force.

So All (Failure reward) "welfare" spending.
Transport.
Pensions.
All health (except vaccines (viri can be used as weapons))
Scrap the State child-care system (also known as DoE and provide loans for school costs instead)
Corporation Tax abolished, as it's only passed on to customers as higher prices.
Totally scrap the ATF as its no longer relevant.
Make having a child you cannot afford a jailable offense.
Junk the IRS, as no more fines for financial success.
Scrap the federal reserve, so currency holders cannot be defrauded by the state.

That was the jist of the last welfare reform bill, sponsored by republicans and approved by Clinton. It moved more of the authority to state level.

-The DEA: eliminate and regulate substances with undermentioned new agency
-ATF: split, merge, undermentioned

One agency for food, drugs, alcohol, tobacco and the other kind of drugs.

another agency for firearms. Personally, I don't think alcohol and firearms are a good combination. :p

FCC: reduce. Can we really allow KKK-TV?


Agricultural subsidies to large corporations: eliminate

NASA: partially privatise and internationalise. More minds working together and more funds-> faster progress.

NASA: partially privatise and internationalise. More minds working together and more funds-> faster progress.
While I'm all for Privatization of NASA I'd like to point out that internationalism doesn't work, it creates unneeded bureaucracy and reduces the amount of competition.