Can Government operate as a business?

[imbalance]

And going further than whether it can; should it? Is that the role of government the Founding Fathers intended? I'm already aware of the leftists' warped ideology here but what do many of you so-called 'conservatives' think?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuvhOY6gk5A]Ron Paul ~ Freedom Watch ~ The Plain Truth ~ 12/9/2011 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr Natural]

A business is a dictatorship.

Is that what you want?

 

[imbalance]

A business is a dictatorship.

Is that what you want?

lol NO

 

[Jarhead]

I believe it was back in the 20's when the government decided it should go into the iron business in an effort to cut the costs to manufacture military vehicles...and they deemed it better than buying from the private sector.

They pumped all kinds of money into the operation....built it (took twice as long to make than anticipated and at nearly twice the anticipated cost)

Once completed it was realized that the cost to extract iron and convert it to a useable product was over twice the cost to purchase it from the private sector and so it shut down before it extracted a single peice of iron.

When you have unlimited funds and such funds are not yours nor are you personally responsible for how they are spent, you are likely to fail to turn a profit..or even break even.

 

[imbalance]

I believe it was back in the 20's when the government decided it should go into the iron business in an effort to cut the costs to manufacture military vehicles...and they deemed it better than buying from the private sector.

They pumped all kinds of money into the operation....built it (took twice as long to make than anticipated and at nearly twice the anticipated cost)

Once completed it was realized that the cost to extract iron and convert it to a useable product was over twice the cost to purchase it from the private sector and so it shut down before it extracted a single peice of iron.

When you have unlimited funds and such funds are not yours nor are you personally responsible for how they are spent, you are likely to fail to turn a profit..or even break even.

This is a great historical example of what not to do and one Professor Gingrich should probably consider before he does any further lobbying for his gov subsidized moon mining and space mirror ventures lol

 

[oreo]

And going further than whether it can; should it? Is that the role of government the Founding Fathers intended? I'm already aware of the leftists' warped ideology here but what do many of you so-called 'conservatives' think?

Ron Paul ~ Freedom Watch ~ The Plain Truth ~ 12/9/2011 - YouTube

The Federal Government couldn't operate a lemonade stand without driving it into bankruptcy.

 

[whitehall]

How else should it operate? As a monarchy?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Not a serious growth oriented and mission focused one.

 

[imbalance]

How else should it operate? As a monarchy?

I didn't do a very good job of framing the question. The vid in the OP presents the concept better than I did.

What I mean is, is it the role of government to operate within the economy as any other efficient, ever-expanding, for-profit business competing to increase market share and dividend payouts to shareholders? Does the fact that government can write civil & criminal law, print currency, control interest rates, issue patents, enact capital controls, enact protectionist trade barriers, and use force to seize private capital make it inevitably impossible for private industry, free markets, and free trade to survive in the US? Once private enterprise is crowded out sector by sector and government begins monopolizing markets, will government still be working for us or will we be officially working for government at that point? Should government be our employer or our employee? If the former, what happens when foreign investment dries up, no one will buy our exports, all private capital has been seized, every new dollar printed devalues total money supply and/or the UN simply prohibits us from printing the $USD, wealth creation is mathematically impossible, and government has to start terminating employees . . .

Lenin opted for mass famine and civil war, a proactive Hitler opted for mass civilian executions and WWII, Stalin opted for all of the above.

So, can government operate as a business? Should it?

 

[imbalance]

Not a serious growth oriented and mission focused one.

I agree with the first part but isn't the oath to defend the Constitution equivalent to a mission statement?

 

[editec]

I believe it was back in the 20's when the government decided it should go into the iron business in an effort to cut the costs to manufacture military vehicles...and they deemed it better than buying from the private sector.

They pumped all kinds of money into the operation....built it (took twice as long to make than anticipated and at nearly twice the anticipated cost)

Once completed it was realized that the cost to extract iron and convert it to a useable product was over twice the cost to purchase it from the private sector and so it shut down before it extracted a single peice of iron.

When you have unlimited funds and such funds are not yours nor are you personally responsible for how they are spent, you are likely to fail to turn a profit..or even break even.

Interesting story. Can you link us to your source of it?

I only ask because I don't believe its true, not because I doubt you believe it's true.

 

[editec]

The business of government is goverance.

Asking the government to operate like a business is the request of an imbecile.

 

[imbalance]

The business of government is goverance.

Asking the government to operate like a business is the request of an imbecile.

Agree 100%

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I wish the government could just balance their budget.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's set aside for a minute what the U.S. government has become.

IMO,

What the Founders INTENDED the U.S. government to be was the entity that would be responsible to secure and protect the unalienable rights of the people, would provide the common defense, and promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not individuals, groups, or special interests. As government is dependent on taxes and fees collected from the people for its existence, and produces no wealth from its own labor, government cannot be run as a business.

Now let's look at what charity is. Charity is not business because the purpose of charity is to receive VOLUNTARY contributions of time, labor, or property/money from people willing to contribute it for the express purpose of helping those in need.

Now let's look at what business is. It is not intended to secure anybody's rights nor provide the common defense nor promote the general welfare though at times it can contribute to all three. Business is not for the purpose of benevolence or altruistic ventures though it can at times will voluntarily or coincidentally engage in such activities.

Business is for the sole purpose of serving the interests of and profiting the person or persons engaged in it.

In a free market, however, business operating purely to serve the interests of those engaged in it will by default benefit the whole of society, provide the resources by which charity can be dispensed, and makes it possible for the government to have the necessary funds to do its essential functions.

 

[Dragon]

Some people responding on this thread seem to have misunderstood the OP's question. It was not "Should the government OPERATE a business," it was "Should the government operate AS a business." Not a question about socialism or government-run economic entities, but about the manner in which the government should be operated while performing its normal functions.

I agree with the general consensus among those who seem to have understood the question. NO, the government should not be run like a business.

My take on it is this. A business is responsible only for the selfish interests of its shareholders or owners. It is a PART of the economy, in competition with other parts. It seeks to control more of the market for its goods or services than its competitors -- its gain is their loss and vice-versa. It does not care, either, about the welfare of anyone except its shareholders or owners: not its employees, not the community in which it operates, not even its customers, except insofar as it must in order to serve the interests of its owners.

The government, however, is responsible for the well-being of everyone under its jurisdiction. It is responsible for the entire economy, not just a sliver of it, and cannot care whether ABC Corp. or its competitors is winning the competition for market share. It is responsible for upholding the rights of ABC's employees, customers, competitors, and the community in which ABC operates, as well as those of ABC. This requires a completely different mind-set than would serve for efficient running of a business.

For the same reason, experienced businessmen rarely make good politicians. Most of the time, they are too stuck in the mind-set and skill-set of running a business, which is antithetical to the mind-set and skill-set that makes for good governance.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They're the torchbearer of irresponsibility and unaccountability. No, I definitely wouldn't want them as a business partner.