Name a government program that does work

[MaC]

I was watching the Harry Browne show last night, and he pointed something out, there really isn't a single government program that does work.  His case in point, the guest he had on the show said "Pell Grants", but Pell Grants are just another take from one group and give to another program by force and they've raised the cost of college.  College used to be affordable, but since government gets in the business of helping people, and some are economically advantaged through these programs, they tend to rise the cost of college very steeply.  And the worst part is that politicians don't realize their mistakes, and get the government out of people's lives, they do the opposite by making a larger more intrusive government.

This isn't about the Pell Grants, because it's already been discussed
<here>http://www.freemarketnews.com/portfolio/index.php (it's about an hour long program)

However, I would like someone to make the case these social programs work, and work well, and benefit society without hurting others.

[MaC]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.  It doesn't work now, and it was doomed for failure when it started in the 1930s.  The concept is I take your $50 and promise you $100 in a month.  To get your $100, I take from at least two more people $50 with the same claim I made to my first customer.  It fails when I cannot find enough support at the lowest levels to support those on top.  
Now if you or I were to do this, it would be illegal (as it was for Charles Ponzi in the 1920s), but when government does it, it's mandated and forced on us. Double standard?
However, I'm much more concerned with managing my retirement fund than government is, and I have much more confidence in myself to do it.  

I don't understand your reference to air ballons, are you implying that without government, they'd be no cars or something?

[MaC]

Social Security
GI Bill
Medicaid
Pell Grants

Social Security-see answer for McFarlan
GI Bill-as well as Pell Grants increased the cost of college through handouts, and gives welfare (steals from workers) for unemployment comp.
Medicaid-the cost is shifted by getting government into the medical insurance business.  This means you have to pay someone else's bills for them.  And they might not even get the coverage they need because of the costly way government redistributes.  There're many different insurance industries, and I'm positive in a free market there'd be an insurance company that would take care of the needs of the poor/eldery/young/unfortunate.  In addition to this private charity as always been an option, and there are so many charities out there.  I'm sure some would
Pell Grants-see my initial example

all of these 'entitlements' hurt me as a taxpayer and hinder my ability to spend on stuff I know will benefit me, or will hinder my resources so that I can give to charity (freely and not coerced)

[MaC]

TVA
National Parks Service (if you classify that as a government program)
FDIC (see above)
Interstate Highway System
St. Lawrence Seaway
Conrail was a government program that succeeded tremendously and was later privatized.
...just to name a few.  I'll think of more later.

Social Security has some problems that need fixin', but not through personal accounts.
Amtrak would have worked out well if the government would fund it a little more.



I'm waiting for A18 to explode in an anti-government rant.

TVA-what is this, care to unabbreviate?
National Parks, not really a hot button with me, but I'll attempt anyways.  Land must be set aside for these parks, and purchased by the government.  The government must then slap a buttload of regualtions on the parks concerning what people who are let into these parks can or cannot do.  They must then spend for enforcement and charge accordingly.  If an individual were to own a park and have people go through, they would have the profit incentive motivating themselves to keep it clean and such, rather than force.  The rules they write may not be super restrictive and more people would feel welcomed in.  Besides which, it's taxpayer money supporting these parks and some taxpayers may not want to go to the park.
FDIC-if banks were not forced to have this insuance policy, your interest rate might increase.  Why should the government interfere with how the banks conduct business.
Interstate Highway System-Democrats often complain about how the rich only want to get richer.  In this case it would be a good thing. A rich person or company would purchase land from the government and/or the indiviuals it needs to start the highway.  Since it's a good system, people will want to drive on it, and the person can charge an amount of money to let people drive it.  I'm in not in favor of paying for the roads, but I would rather do it if I needed to reach a certain place, rather than have my taxpayer money coercively taken for it.  It's not one of the things I'm too steamed at though because the Constitution does allow congress to post roads.  To show the government doesn't work, in Michigan we have the worst roads imaginable in some places, absolutely ptohole riden.  They get "fixed" with this black tar crap and in a few years time they need fixing again, but it's even more costly than the original job.  A prime example of how well a public good is maintained by government.
St. Lawrence and Conrail (although I'm not very familiar with them), it seems much of what can be said about the highway system can be said about them.

When there's a problem, someone will figure a way to fix it, make it better for everyone, and get rich off it.  It's a much better path than government passing a bill, creating only temporary jobs, taking taxpayer money, and creating it, and then when it fails, increase spending, applying a temporary fix, and tax us more.  And when that plan fails ten years later, same cycle.

[MaC]

Social Darwinism would be much worse.

These programs help a lot more than they hurt.

No they don't many of the lesser advantaged people didn't gain after they started these programs and the general populous had more of a tax burden and more interference in their life.

You might as well not even bother arguing with him. The GI Bill set the stage for the post war economic boom, of course, since it cost taxpayer money, it failed. This is not so much an exercise in debate, but an exercise of him whining about the government.

you know of any programs that work Jake?
I'm not whining, I'm just saying, these things are harmful to all of us, yet we keep paying for it.  Why?

The GI Bill didn't make an economic boom out of anything.  If anything it made it more expensive for the common man to go to college.  The later 1940s was running for a recovery anyways, as it was due for a recovery since the economy naturally goes through ups and downs.

[MaC]

TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority. The built dams in the south and basically "plugged the south in" w/electric.

though I'm arguing with Virginian and not States (he simply defined it)

Like I said before, when there is a need, someone will see it and profit from it.  Utilities need not be controlled by a government monopoly, but by a company that can compete with other companies and therefore lower the price and increase the quality.

[MaC]

When there's a problem, someone will figure a way to fix it, make it better for everyone, and get rich off it. 

Welcome to extreme-libertarian la-la land.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I believe in free markets, competition, and all that, but your level of naivete is astounding.  People, as a general rule, are crooked.  They will screw over and destroy the lives of others in the path towards profit, if that path is the path of least resistance.  It's just the way people are.

Yes, there are those kind souls who fix problems for the good of humanity, and any profit to come out of the enterprise is secondary and incidental.  But those people are rare.  For every one person who is willing to work to fix a problem, there are 100 working to exploit it.

may I ask "Why do you believe your fellow man is crooked, yet expect your government to be any better?"

[MaC]

Milk and Cereal:
National Parks, not really a hot button with me, but I'll attempt anyways.  Land must be set aside for these parks, and purchased by the government.  The government must then slap a buttload of regualtions on the parks concerning what people who are let into these parks can or cannot do.  They must then spend for enforcement and charge accordingly.  If an individual were to own a park and have people go through, they would have the profit incentive motivating themselves to keep it clean and such, rather than force.  The rules they write may not be super restrictive and more people would feel welcomed in.  Besides which, it's taxpayer money supporting these parks and some taxpayers may not want to go to the park.

Virginian:
Without those regulations, people would trash the parks, defeating the whole purpose of them in the first place as preserves.  You can't expect everyone who goes to the parks to be responsible enough not to litter.  People are naturally going to litter, so this crazy libertarian argument of expecting everybody to be insightful and responsible about picking up their own trash isn't going to work.  By that logic, the Hudson River would be clean and there would be no hole in the ozone layer. 

Milk and Cereal:
If someone owns property and allows others to use it, then they should expect their property not to be trashed.  If someone does trash their property, they have the right to never let that person use their property again.  Have you ever gone hunting, or used someone else's private property?  If so, you should know how offensive it is to them if they found you polluted their land.

Milk and Cereal:
Interstate Highway System-Democrats often complain about how the rich only want to get richer.  In this case it would be a good thing. A rich person or company would purchase land from the government and/or the indiviuals it needs to start the highway.  Since it's a good system, people will want to drive on it, and the person can charge an amount of money to let people drive it.  I'm in not in favor of paying for the roads, but I would rather do it if I needed to reach a certain place, rather than have my taxpayer money coercively taken for it.  It's not one of the things I'm too steamed at though because the Constitution does allow congress to post roads.  To show the government doesn't work, in Michigan we have the worst roads imaginable in some places, absolutely ptohole riden.  They get "fixed" with this black tar crap and in a few years time they need fixing again, but it's even more costly than the original job.  A prime example of how well a public good is maintained by government.

Virginian:
Oh yeah, and if private individuals owned the roads they would be sparkling clean.  Right.  Whatever.

Milk and Cereal: Did I ever say things will be sparkling clean?  Have you ever seen roads that were?  I never said nor meant that, but we can have roads that require much less fixing and roads that don't tear apart every winter.


Virginian:
The St. Lawrence Seaway provided ocean access to Great Lakes ports like Duluth, Minn. and Superior Wis. (important ports for iron ore), Detroit, and Sandusky and Erie (coal ports).  I don't think any single private individual would have the insight much less the funds to construct such a system of canals and locks. 

Milk and Cereal:
No, but that's the beauty of the free market.  There's a story called I, Pencil that perfectly demonstrates this point.  Consider if you will a pencil.  How did it get there?  There was an economy to built it that leads all the way through the machinery to make it, the timber company that cut down the trees to make it, the lead that goes into the pencil and so forth.  It shows that a truly free market, free of regulation or one big government source can have unlimited potential in solving problems (or creating pencils).  Would a single indiviual have the insight for the docks? Probably not, but he's only one person.  When people have an amount of expetise and apply it to what they're good at they can work as a unit to manage these things.  And when the government is off our backs as how to control them, they can be done much more efficiently.

(I messed up with quotes, but I put what we said in brackets and didn't alter anything)

[MaC]

Most Americans get a good deal of bang for their buck through the Postal Service.

at least it's written into the Constitution.  However, I pose the same question that's argued in Browne's book, "If you had a package that absolutely had to be mailed 1000 miles away by tomorrow morning, would you send it by
a)The Post Office, a government agency
or
b)Fed-Ex, a private company whose sucess depends on being more reliable than it's competitors?

my choice is obvious.

[MaC]

Who says we can't make it more efficient without gutting the entire thing?

Theoretically, the government could 100% efficient; but theoretically, private enterprise could also be 100% efficient.

But in practice, capitalism tends to be far more efficient than socialism. Obviously, there are a few exceptions; the military, for example, is one.

Just because it has been less efficient does not mean it will always be less efficient.  Perhaps why government is so inefficient is because it's practically expected for it to be inefficient.

Or maybe it's because of all the pork and random, pointless bureaucracy

Oh well, just because there's always been random, pointless bureaucracy doesn't mean there will always need to be random, pointless bureaucracy *stubborn optimist*

the problem that exists is generally made worse through reform.  Per Jake and bandit's examples: Health care started getting more expensive after HMOs and medicare were enacted.   Funding kept pumping into it for those who cannot afford it, and consequently the price is driven up for everyone.

[MaC]

Capitalism is a fool's paradise and a failure.

Of course not. It is, in fact, the only economic system which works.

Then why isn't it working in America?

It was until regulators, social programs, pork barrel handouts, welfare, price controls, the income tax and redistributive payments tainted it.

[MaC]

American quality of life is among the highest in the world.

Not when compared to Canada and Europe, which have more socialist touches.

how is Canada really much different than here?  They're in large supported economically because the United States is a major trade partner. Same with some of Europe, although I'm sure all of Europe isn't peaches and cream, war-torn Bosnia for example.

[MaC]

Well, let's see...

I kind of like electricity and running water.

Having a postal service that will deliver anywhere in the country for a very cheap price is nice.

It's generally good to have policemen and firemen around in case something goes wrong.

Paved roads are always a plus.

The fact of the matter is that there really are only a few things that the government does that are actually controversial, but because nobody focuses on the other things, people get the sense that everything a government does is that way.

Even the controversial things generally do what they're supposed to do.  It's only a question of how well they're doing them or of whether or not what they're doing is a good thing.

Electricity and water would still run just the same without government, and it'd probably be cheaper.
Roads are allowable by the Constitution, besides which I've already explained.
Police, it's debatable, but I bet that a police force that's employed as a private company could even work.  Ex. Springshield on the Simpsons (granted it's a cartoon), but it shows that police don't have to be government run.
Post office I've already explained.  I consider it one of the things government has probably done the least wrong in (btw, how bad could you screw up something like that   ) It is already allowed in the constitution, but it could be done better with a private institution.

[MaC]

As for the electricity/water deal, there are many ways to bring those utilities to a city.  In a small town, one could use irragation systems, make an exchange with a city for water rights, use windmills for electricity.  In this case, the need might spark an innovative way that could benefit other groups of people.

Roads are something that would be made, and probably made a good deal more efficient if it we're not for the government making them.  I already explained the reason for profit, and simply the need for them is enough to get someone to make them.

As for cops, they're corruptable with government, and without I think they'd still be corruptable.  They'd be hired based upon the social contract and have guidelines they would follow to keep the job, or they'd be fired. 
In the situation you pointed out, there'd be no need for police if the person had a gun.

General statement-private companies help others for the reason of seeking a profit
-government helps others for seeking political points, power, helping their friends and punishing their enemies.
Private companies do not forcibly push their product upon others.  Government agencies do.

[MaC]

Capitalism is a fool's paradise and a failure.

Of course not. It is, in fact, the only economic system which works.

Then why isn't it working in America?

American quality of life is among the highest in the world.

No, it is a sh**thole.

But as for government programs, there is no such thing as a bad one, because even if it 'fails' in the sense of not fully elleviating the ill it was designed for, it exerts an excellent Keyensian effect.

If a program fails, it is to be expected.  Most programs are simply short term fixes that in the long run do more harm than help.  The short term narrowmindedness is easy to overlook because it works momentarily and it gets the politician who started it re-elected, but after the bill comes in and the cost to people like me and you outwieghs the worth and it didn't really do much in the first place, then it's not worth it.

[MaC]

A couple of US programs are very useful, the US Census, the US Geological Survey, rapidly come to mind.  I doubt if these could be privitived and businesses use (and often need) their services.

How is the census a program?  It's just a count on how many people reside in an area for the purposes of re-apportionment.  It becomes too large and burdensome when they ask your skin color, profession, and yearly salary, which is clearly none of their business

[MaC]

Pell Grants do work . . . and this is coming from someone who use to manage a University campus. 

Granted, but by economically favoring some people to get the grants, it drives up the price of college for the rest of us.  Since government has got involved, education is more expensive comparatively.