I didn’t intend to imply that citizen demands were the main cause of government inefficiency. I would add, though that another factor is being necessity of government being “fair“ to everyone. Once a standard is put in place there will be people who will find ways to exploit it and benefit in ways they should not.
Having spent over 46 years in government I think that government inefficiency is more complex than looking at the leaders. Constituents (voters) often demand specific services of the government that leads to the inefficiencies. We need to look at our expectations of government and ourselves. We might find that if we stop asking the government to lessen our "suffering" that we might suffer less.
I really appreciate your comments and your willingness to have open and honest discussions about meaningful things. Conversations like this are healthy and necessary if we are going to think seriously about how our systems actually function.
I think you make an important point, and I agree with you more than you might expect.
Citizens absolutely play a role in this. When voters continually ask government to solve problems that used to be handled by families, communities, churches, and local institutions, government naturally grows to meet those demands. Over time that creates expectations that government should cushion every difficulty or correct every imbalance.
That dynamic absolutely contributes to expansion.
Where I would respectfully push back is on the idea that those expectations are the primary reason government becomes inefficient.
The deeper issue is structural.
Even if voters demanded less, the incentive structure inside government would still be very different from systems where ownership and consequences are direct. When an organization is funded through compulsory taxation, insulated from competition, and operating under political cycles rather than market feedback, the normal correction mechanisms that drive efficiency simply do not exist in the same way.
In other words, citizen demand can expand the scope of government, but the inefficiency comes from how the system is designed to operate once that scope exists.
Your point about expectations is important because it highlights something we often overlook. A society that expects government to solve everything gradually gives up the personal responsibility and local problem solving that used to make communities resilient.
So I think we probably agree on the cultural piece.
Where my article focuses is the structural piece.
When responsibility sits closer to the people making decisions and bearing the consequences, things tend to run better. When it is pushed upward into large centralized systems, even well intentioned people struggle to produce efficient outcomes.
I didn’t intend to imply that citizen demands were the main cause of government inefficiency. I would add, though that another factor is being necessity of government being “fair“ to everyone. Once a standard is put in place there will be people who will find ways to exploit it and benefit in ways they should not.
I agree.
Having spent over 46 years in government I think that government inefficiency is more complex than looking at the leaders. Constituents (voters) often demand specific services of the government that leads to the inefficiencies. We need to look at our expectations of government and ourselves. We might find that if we stop asking the government to lessen our "suffering" that we might suffer less.
I really appreciate your comments and your willingness to have open and honest discussions about meaningful things. Conversations like this are healthy and necessary if we are going to think seriously about how our systems actually function.
I think you make an important point, and I agree with you more than you might expect.
Citizens absolutely play a role in this. When voters continually ask government to solve problems that used to be handled by families, communities, churches, and local institutions, government naturally grows to meet those demands. Over time that creates expectations that government should cushion every difficulty or correct every imbalance.
That dynamic absolutely contributes to expansion.
Where I would respectfully push back is on the idea that those expectations are the primary reason government becomes inefficient.
The deeper issue is structural.
Even if voters demanded less, the incentive structure inside government would still be very different from systems where ownership and consequences are direct. When an organization is funded through compulsory taxation, insulated from competition, and operating under political cycles rather than market feedback, the normal correction mechanisms that drive efficiency simply do not exist in the same way.
In other words, citizen demand can expand the scope of government, but the inefficiency comes from how the system is designed to operate once that scope exists.
Your point about expectations is important because it highlights something we often overlook. A society that expects government to solve everything gradually gives up the personal responsibility and local problem solving that used to make communities resilient.
So I think we probably agree on the cultural piece.
Where my article focuses is the structural piece.
When responsibility sits closer to the people making decisions and bearing the consequences, things tend to run better. When it is pushed upward into large centralized systems, even well intentioned people struggle to produce efficient outcomes.
Both dynamics matter.