Name a government program that does work

[Jake]

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

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

Those places may be nice to live if you're lazy and poor, but if you want to move above that, the United States offers actual growth, job oppurtunities, and a real chance. Europe is for the drone, the US is for the entrepenuer.

[A18]

http://www.cato.org/new/09-04/09-20-04r.html

[Virginian87]

Regulators did not ruin American capitalism.  

[A18]

Regulators did not ruin American capitalism. 

They have slowed down our growth considerably.

[patrick1]

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.

But your assumption that all people act rationally...is flawed.

God forbid anyone trust FedEx...I'm a UPS guy myself.

How much does it cost to Fedex or UPS a letter to the other side of the country?  I know it is not  0.39.  Variety is good fro the American consumer.  The Post office serves its purposes a lot better than most government agencies.  Are you going to Fedex and UPS wedding invitations or Thank you notes?   It is a pretty good agency that operates 6 days a week with no surcharges for Saturday mail delivery.

Full disclosure: My dad has been a crazy, disgruntled letter carrier for over 35 years.

[Virginian87]

Regulators did not ruin American capitalism. 

They have slowed down our growth considerably.

You're a member of the party that claims to support entrepeneurship and small businesses.  Well, without some business regulation there would be no small businesses.  Every industry would be controlled by a trust.  It would be the late 19th Century all over again, with robber barons and corporate raiders abounding.

[Gabu]

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.

[A18]

Regulators did not ruin American capitalism. 

They have slowed down our growth considerably.

You're a member of the party that claims to support entrepeneurship and small businesses. Well, without some business regulation there would be no small businesses. Every industry would be controlled by a trust. It would be the late 19th Century all over again, with robber barons and corporate raiders abounding.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust#Criticisms_of_antitrust

[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.

[A18]

Why does it matter if the Constitution allows something or not?

[Jake]

A private Police Force? lol

Who makes the rules for these security guards exactly and what legal authority do they have to make arrests exactly?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why does it matter if the Constitution allows something or not?

Sig material!

[A18]

We're discussing what government should or should not do. The fact that the Constitution allows the government to do something, doesn't mean it should exercise that power.

[Gabu]

Electricity and water would still run just the same without government, and it'd probably be cheaper.

Why would a private company run electrical wires out to the people in the middle of nowhere, or to people in tiny cities?  It wouldn't be profitable to do so.  Private companies only do things when they can profit off of it.  The point of government-run electrical and hydro companies is not to make a buck off of it, but to get it to everyone.  Unless you think that it's a great idea to give a private company complete discretion with regards to who gets electricity or running water and who doesn't, I don't see how you can feel that privately run electicity or running water would be a good idea.

Roads are allowable by the Constitution, besides which I've already explained.

And?  You asked for a government program that works.  Roads are one.  The argument of "this doesn't count" does not work.

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.

Okay, let's imagine a world with a private police force.

"911, go ahead."
"Some people are trying to break into my house!  I think they're trying to kill me!  Please, send help!"
"Okay, sir, can you pay the cover charge for our service?"
"What?  No, I'm-"
"Sorry, sir, but we have to make a living, so if you can't pay, then there's nothing we can do. (click)"

Do you honestly think it's a good idea to have a police force that would only protect citizens or enforce the law when it's profitable to do so?  What exactly would be the difference between that and a pack of hired goons?

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.

It could be done better?  Okay, let's look things up.

Suppose I want to send a letter from Redmond to President Bush.  If I do it through the USPS, it's 39 cents.  If I do it through, say, UPS, using the slowest time span, it's around $6.

Quite frankly, if you want to send something to someone on the other side of the country, and if time is not an issue, you can't really beat the USPS.

As a general statement, I think you're entirely missing the point of having the government do something.  The point is not to make as much money off of it as you can.  The point is to provide the service to everyone - and no matter what you can say in favor of private companies, they do not do this, period.  Private companies' eyes are on the bottom line: making a buck.  If it won't make them a buck, they won't do it.  That's how the free market works.

[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.

[opebo]

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.

[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.

[Gabu]

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.

These methods would be better than having the government do it in much more convenient ways how?

What happens if it turns out that windmills are not profitable, so the company goes out of business?  What if it turns out that there really is no profitable way to bring electricity to a given city?  Should it just be left without power?

I would personally greatly favor a perhaps slightly less efficient method of getting electricity to the people if it meant that I didn't have to be afraid that the electricity company might go out of business, leaving me completely without power unless another one picks up the slack.

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.

Where's your proof?  You give none, as if everyone already agrees that the idea that it's a private company, so it's better in every way.

With roads, you get what's known as the "free rider" problem in economics.  Roads are a non-excludable good: once you provide them, you can't exclude people from using them.  Eventually, people would realize that, hey, they don't need to pay money for the good; they can just wait until someone else does.

Furthermore, what if a poor neighborhood can't afford what the company is charging?  Should their roads just be left to rot?

Who exactly is the one who will pay for the roads?  Should we just hope that everyone chips in?  Should we hope that each neighborhood has at least one benevolant rich person who foots the bill?

The fact of the matter is that roads are a public good, and private companies, given that they require people to voluntarily pay, simply cannot provide public goods at all effectively.  Most every economist will agree with me on this point.

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.

Why would they have guidelines?  Who will set the guidelines?  Should we just leave the guidelines up to the company?  That's what will happen if you privatize the police force - they set the rules on what their men do.  If they don't want to protect you because you can't pay (or just because they don't want to), then you're screwed.

"To serve and protect" would no longer apply universally to anything - only to those with enough money to foot the bill.  Otherwise, you're on your own.
 

In the situation you pointed out, there'd be no need for police if the person had a gun.

Yes, but in many situations police are necessary.  For anything related to gang-related violence or something on a grand scale, one civilian isn't going to be able to do much, even when armed with a gun; you need an organized force like the police.

Even in the situation, what if the person is horribly afraid and doesn't like using guns?  Should the person just be left high and dry?  Doesn't the person deserve protection from someone trying to kill him?

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.

As far as I can tell, your entire argument seems to be "it's not run by the government, so it's better".  The problem with this argument is that it doesn't work on people who don't already agree with it.  You have done absolutely nothing to address my points with respect to the fact that private companies would only provide a good or service if it's profitable and if the person could afford it.

The government solves the free rider problem with public goods, and is sometimes the only means of getting some essential service to everyone, given that it's not always profitable to do so.  Should we have the government do everything?  Obviously not, but I am not at all convinced that any of the things above are items that should be given to private companies to handle, for the reasons I have given above.

[opebo]

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.

It is absurd to expect a program to cure a social ill if the system which created the ill (Capitalism) remains in place.  The purpose of liberal social programs is to alleviate what is in any case a permanent ill - such as poverty or lack of social mobility. 

And as I say, in any case spending itself is exerts a positive Keynesian effect whether it is an 'effective' program or not.  For example it doesn't matter if welfare goes to cheats, layabouts, or the 'genuinely needy' - the point is to get money redistributed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Look, government happens to be more efficient than the private sector and running some things and vice versa.
For example, the private sector cannot *efficiently* provide decent quality healthcare for the bulk of the population, it's just not in it's interests to do so. Sure for a lot of people, private healthcare is excellent (no disputing that) but that's not the point.
As an aside has anyone seen how much more (in % terms) the U.S Government spends on various programmes to prop up the private insurance system, compared to how much the U.K Government spends on the blatently socialist (most government healthcare schemes aren't socialist, btw) NHS?
The same goes for railways (as in the tracks etc). For a few years over here we had a private company (Railtrack) running the railways because of a genuinely braindead ideological policy of the Major government. It was a complete and utter disaster and was renationalised (on the cheap) a few years ago.
People that claim that the private sector can do everything better than the government or vice versa do not live in the real world.

[Platypus]

medicare

[muon2]

Here's another one: education. Overall, I've received a much better education from public schools than from private schools, after spending a roughly equal amount of time in each.

That is of course anecdotal evidence. In any event, private education is in many cases superior to public education. Surely, this is the case with higher education.

While it is true that the evidence is anecdotal, it is also anecdotal to think that private higher education is superior to public higher education. In fact at the highest level of education, the top public universities are held in the same esteem in their fields of expertise as are the top private universities.

Let me provide a government program that became wildly successful beyond its creators imaginings. At every stage it was funded and led by public institutions because the market didn't understand its value, or thought the entry cost was too high. Yet the private sector now profits greatly from this public-sponsored program. Of course you are using it right now -- the arpanet / internet / world wide web.

[John Dibble]

Here's another one: education. Overall, I've received a much better education from public schools than from private schools, after spending a roughly equal amount of time in each.

That is of course anecdotal evidence. In any event, private education is in many cases superior to public education. Surely, this is the case with higher education.

While it is true that the evidence is anecdotal, it is also anecdotal to think that private higher education is superior to public higher education. In fact at the highest level of education, the top public universities are held in the same esteem in their fields of expertise as are the top private universities.

When people talk about private vs/public school, I think they mainly are referring to high school and below. My theory is there are three main factors in determining how well a student will perform:

1. How interested the student is in learning.
2. How interested the parent is in their child learning.
3. How interested the teacher is in their students learning.

With public schools, you tend to get a mixed bag of all of these. With private, I think are likely to get a higher of the second at the very least, if not an improvement in the one and three. Also, when you have the second, I think the first is generally going to be higher(I know it's not always the case). With universities though, you really get much more likely to encounter both the first and the second at high levels - after all, this level of education is not mandatory, so those going are really likely to want to increase their education and are motivated to learn.

Though I certainly think the public school system has other problems on its own, I think areas where public schools don't perform well are likely to have high rates of students and parents who don't care much about education. It's not fair to blame the schools alone when the people who are using them aren't trying.

[Gabu]

Though I certainly think the public school system has other problems on its own, I think areas where public schools don't perform well are likely to have high rates of students and parents who don't care much about education. It's not fair to blame the schools alone when the people who are using them aren't trying.

I think that one issue that many seem not to consider when discussing the relative performance of students in public and private schools is the issue of the types of people that use each form of schooling.  Given how costly private schools tend to be, the people going there are extremely likely to have parents that have a strong interest in their child doing well educationally, and as such, the child is probably more likely to have a sense of duty to perform well when going to school.  Those who go to public schools are... well, everyone else.  You have the bright kids who just come from a poor family, you have the kids who would likely fail no matter what you do, and you have the kids with parents who really don't care all that much.  Hardly any of the second and third groups would ever be seen in a private school.

I personally have a feeling that the private aspect of private schools is only one part of the equation, and that if everyone was able to go to private schools, the average performance of privately schooled children would probably drop, given that the profile of children being sent to private schools would substantially change.

[muon2]

Here's another one: education. Overall, I've received a much better education from public schools than from private schools, after spending a roughly equal amount of time in each.

That is of course anecdotal evidence. In any event, private education is in many cases superior to public education. Surely, this is the case with higher education.

While it is true that the evidence is anecdotal, it is also anecdotal to think that private higher education is superior to public higher education. In fact at the highest level of education, the top public universities are held in the same esteem in their fields of expertise as are the top private universities.

When people talk about private vs/public school, I think they mainly are referring to high school and below. My theory is there are three main factors in determining how well a student will perform:

1. How interested the student is in learning.
2. How interested the parent is in their child learning.
3. How interested the teacher is in their students learning.

With public schools, you tend to get a mixed bag of all of these. With private, I think are likely to get a higher of the second at the very least, if not an improvement in the one and three. Also, when you have the second, I think the first is generally going to be higher(I know it's not always the case). With universities though, you really get much more likely to encounter both the first and the second at high levels - after all, this level of education is not mandatory, so those going are really likely to want to increase their education and are motivated to learn.

Though I certainly think the public school system has other problems on its own, I think areas where public schools don't perform well are likely to have high rates of students and parents who don't care much about education. It's not fair to blame the schools alone when the people who are using them aren't trying.

I agree that there is a significant distinction between K-12 and higher education due to the mandatory attendance in the former.  My comment was spurred by Emsworth specifically singling out higher education.