And both Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have stated repeatedly that this bill was only a step necessary in killing the private medical and related insurance industry BEFORE implementing a single payer health care system. Each of them have repeatedly assured the public in response to attacks by GOP members, conservatives, or anyone for that matter that the goal of THIS bill is NOT a single payer system or a government take over at this point. So yes, the unified opposition by conservatives, the GOP, and most every state legislature for what it is worth is to attack the foundation of this entire bill and not just modify it to ensure their own piece of the pork pie. Pretty admirable considering such division in the democratic leadership of congress that "considering they were most likely going to pass it anyway" that at least a RINO like Olympia Snowe could have likely raked in enough pork that nobody in her state would ever have needed to work again. Come on, when you reach the line not even Olympia Snowe won't cross, you just got to saw "wow".
So just to be clear, the unified stand against doorway prying legislation is a point for or against the GOP leadership in your book?
Uhh... then I bet you did not read the bill. Resource allocation is one of the stated purposes, and the entire student loan industry has been redesigned for the purpose of production such that we do not need to count on a single doctor not packing up and leaving the country as fast as they can get their affairs in order. McCarthy is dead so arguing on the basis of "ITS SOCIALisjikl2@$#" really doesn't mean anything anymore. But for whatever little meaning that word may actually have you have clearly demonstrated why this IS socialism, whether or not that actually brings anything meaningful to the "debate" which I argue it does not. The quality of this bill does not in any way hinge on proving that it can or can not fit into a box called socialism. Its classification either way is nothing more than a foot note for a history textbook.
I don't think many people understand this whole federalism thing. Not all police are Federal agents, and I don't think there is a Federal fire department other than the requirement that all naval officers must be trained as fireman, but they don't deal in domestic issues / wild fires. If people like the way police and fire departments work then that is an argument to keep tax dollars at the local level. The fact that the fewest tax dollars go to local government and the most money goes to the fed is ass backwards. Also, to my understanding, private patrol industry is booming while many publically funded police departments are struggling terribly.
This isn't about public health care system versus private; every state is heavily involved in the medical industry in their states, and to my understanding both "sides" agree that there is no state that is doing a very good job of it. And strangely enough each "side" are using that as their respective core argument for and against a federal take over.
If I were a welfare baby hoping to win the dole, I would prefer each state be left to try whatever it likes and when some state finally comes up with a system that doesn't suck ass, that is where I will move to. Funny enough, if you are on the complete other side and don't think you will ever get sick, but just in case keep enough cash on hand in case you require the services of a doctor, then you can move to the state of your choice as well. And really, if it isn't that important, what is with all the debate anyway?
I agree, two commentators fighting to kiss the most big brother ass does not create any controversy or ratings. I am so glad we finally agree on something. We should reflect on this moment.
Perchance could this congress and administrations approach, method, and ideology driving the drafting and passing of this particular bill be an utter disaster and for no reason what so ever related to any point brought up or repeated ad infinium via any commentator on Fox News? If thousands of pages of legislation could be summed up in one word being "good" or "bad", isn't it perfectly possible both "sides" could be right for all the wrong reasons? The mass majority of people I know are completely apathetic to this entire process, are not following the debate in any way, but generally trust the government at least in so far as they do not believe there is anything they can do even if they did care, and they hope that things get better.
And though it was a draft version of several iterations ago, I do not know a single person other than myself that has read in its entirety ANY version of the health care bill. I would be confounded to believe that anywhere near an upper limit of 10% of congress independently read the entire bill even once.
When I read it, I did not think it was a very good or very well thought out plan. Not fire and brimstone OH GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! but just that it was so extreme disproportionately to how well it seemed to be thought out, I personally was not a fan of it. Well intended goals are not enough to make a good rule of law, and with all the games being played on both sides, this debate is too serious to enact major, sweeping legislation that will rule over people that actually do good things in this world like doctors, and people that build and manage hospitals, or medical equipment, or just about ANYBODY involved in the medical field in so far as they make decisions over what to do with their bodies as much as the patients do.
Yeah, so screw Ailes, screw Fox, screw Obama, and every corrupt member of Congress.
As with everything including socialism, it isn't an argument about whether or not it should be regulated or rationed or whatever but about WHO gets to regulate and ration. When things are not regulated they can get out of control when it is important. That does not provide any basis or argument for any particular person or group to step in and do the regulating.
Every moment of your life and all things around you are regulated in one manner or another. For example rainfall is heavily regulated by temperature, and how often I see my doctor is regulated by how well I am feeling and how much money I have. Whether or not a person opens a business is regulated by... err.. you get the point.
Before trying to fix something and reaching for the biggest tool you can find, ask yourself this question: What is a government? Where does it come from? What can governments do? What can government NOT do? A really fun question is what are some good things governments can and can not do vs bad things governments can and can not do contrasted with should not and list why.
Sometimes I wish I could punch Thomas Hobbes in the face for not explaining his work to people that would wish to take his observations out of context and try to reason that they were laws of nature and society. His observation was that the mass majority will comply with ever increasing government because any single step towards greater control always seems less harmful than the idea of "returning to a state of nature", or no government. Further, people tend to look at government control as freedom from responsibility, which is generally true, and for the consumer relief from responsibility by government means it may or may not only be easier for them such that it is a win win situation. Health Care for example: the class of individuals needing medical care mutually exclusive of medical providers believes that either 1)they are going to get something for free, 2) nothing is going to change for them. This class so greatly out numbers health care providers that their opinion is irrelevant. Therefore, logically, median voter says government takeover of health care can be good thing. It would also baffle the mind of most people to understand why anyone could possibly oppose a perpetually more powerful government. Also, if you agree with Hobbes (which is so deeply rooted in modern western thought anyway) we "know" that government only gets larger because the only way for it to get smaller would be for a significant number of people so opposed to whatever the government is doing that they would be willing to do without it completely. Such a situation is SO rare, who cares, right? Next, once we have accepted that government is going to only get bigger, and just take the leap forward that since progress is directly correlated to the size of government therefore government tends towards improving society.
Yeah, so all your arguments about how if it is important then we need to create a government bureaucracy, or more so, you are going to keep sitting on your ass while someone else both creates and another becomes the victim of a government bureaucracy is no argument at all, just a shibboleth of your political ideology.
And can you please explain your signature? Is your argument: Socialism = bad, Universal Health Care = good, therefore Universal Health Care != Socialism? It is almost like you make an argument against socialism, but then don't... therefore you are right. What?!? Back to the earlier check your reality and try again questions. What is a government? What is the general structure or philosophy behind a socialist ideology? Where when and how does it work and for what purpose? Where may or may not this ideology be incompatible with the theory of what a government can and can not be, and under what circumstances or steps might be taken to mitigate possible shortfalls of socialism?
So how about this: Health Care is a good thing and universal elements of it are tried and true rules of th
PG&E is private like paying income tax is voluntary. It is really a matter of what is meant by the words. PG&E does whatever the government tells them to do, but other than that they are free to do whatever they want when they are told it is ok. I think it might have been more appropriate, or at least context free, to say "This is the type of quality you get when consumers have no choice". PG&E only has to work so hard as it is necessary to keep your business... and a democratic energy policy by way of whatever will please the most voters whether or not it works has played a role here.
Also, these smart meters do not generate power making at least your last statement irrelevant, as long as we are nit picking terms here.
... I'm all with you, but find me a person that knows what an avoirdupois is.
Sorry, but this 'argument' just isn't ever going to end. On the other hand it does make for great analogies when introducing people to epistemology. Imagine how hard that would be to explain to a lay person if every word had a clearly definable meaning. Otherwise people might think that it was the study of lying or just being wrong... ehh... there is probably someone out there.
I give them the benefit of the doubt. We use 64-bit processors, not \x40-bit processors. Hard drive platters do not store discrete units of bits like ram. The fabrication process for ram makes it practical to do them in powers of 2, but not for hard drives. Hard drives are quite crude in the way they store information and make really accurate guesses about what was probably stored at a single sector. In the end, who really care how many transistors or electrons were being used to create a particular technology? Yeah, it is confusing, but people know they are different and take appropriate measure. What people are really looking from data storage is permutations. Nobody really cares the information is stored in bits in ram any more than the fact that they are not stored in bits on hard drives.
I think Canonical makes a good argument; help people express their data in a way that is consistent and makes sense for them.
One CS guy told me it was because hard drive platters don't actually store bits and that the "base" is different across different fabrication processes and what not. You don't think hard drives heads put down one electron and then hope it is still there later, do you? For example, given the way charges like to flip on you sometimes, why not use base 10,000 over a larger area and have 10000 be equal to 10,000,000 units of charge or what not. Then when the charge degrades from 10,000,000 to 99,627,180 it still reads back as 10,000.
Registers, Cache, and RAM does not work like that, they all have discrete storage of bits. While it makes complete sense to standardize to file system data structure, you could argue that it is only those pieces that are practically measured in base 2, and everything else is measured in base 10. We do not measure PSU watts in base 2. We don't measure register sizes in base 2, but in base 10; last I checked Intel doesn't sell a 40-bit processor. It makes sense to use base 16 when you are looking to represent a meaningful discrete unit of bits, but even then we are talking about the number of bits, not the number of permutations a piece of ram is capable of being put into which is technically what we are really looking for. Who are the users that really care how it is implemented?
And just to make it more confusing, if I said I had 10 gigs of ram, would you assume that was 5 x 2, 4 x 4, or would you ask, or just say "...what?"
Ha ha ha!!! Finally the feature everyone has been waiting for. The big seller that brings everyone over for the Year of Linux is going to be when I show them how much more storage space they get from using Ubuntu. I laugh and cry a little bit all at the same time knowing that to some degree it is true.
Uhh... huh? Wouldn't they just use the displayfilesize(filepointer) function or some equivalent that outputs a string? If it isn't a system thing function, then what is really the point? I agree that if it is just a file with one or two bits somewhere in/etc/ and leave every app to decide what that means and decide how to implement it... who cares, if not worse. I would like to hope / expect that they are going to actually implement this in a useful way, not just bark at app developers about how everyone needs to design their stuff a certain way.
You sound like some wacko libertarian type that believes people can be trusted independently of government to make both economic AND personal choices completely defying the two party systems that says you must pick one and crush the other.
Yeah, right there with you.
The problem (which I don't think mandates prohibitive regulation) is that there are warning labels on everything and people dismiss them faster than Windows Security warnings. The labels are meaningful for 1 good lawsuit, and 2 weeks of scary headlines in the newspaper, and after that it is an embedded cost passed on to consumers of all related products. Such regulations should go far enough to allow people to take personal responsibility and be ENABLED to make an informed decision which may actually require some reading or research. Prohibition, even of lead enriched food products as you put it, is an attempt to protect people from themselves. Creating a bureaucracy for the purpose of protecting us from ourselves has no limit as we can see people are "trusted" less and less to spend their own money wisely. I'll stop there; that is either a philosophy you agree with or do not. Neither side can get their point across to the other in any meaningful way.
The AMOUNT of scrutiny? You mean those people that get paid by the hour to pretend like they know what they are talking about? Just because you get slammed with endless over sight and it takes often dozens of people to sign off on something before anything gets done only makes it very expensive, not improve quality or efficiency. In any business you get 0, 1 or 2 of 3 things: Good, Fast, Cheap. I will give credit to our military: their toys are really really good, but at the same time much of that technology comes from private industry, but paid for with tax dollars, so effectively the same thing. Halliburton is amazing as the good and fast thing, like when someone has a need for a refugee camp with food, water, and shelter some random place in the world for 10,000 people, and we need it tomorrow... Well considering that Halliburton is the only company that provides that type of service, not much to compare it to. Does no competition due to lack of capital qualify as cheap? anyway...
Government is "amazing" in many respects. Good managers of our money? Hmm... I don't think so. And those are just the nice things I can say.
Efficiency is consumer choice. They either buy it because you did something right, or they do not, and in any way that is a fallacious argument the case for government is far worse. If you are Nolan's definition of a Statist such that the governments goal is to self empower with no greater purpose than itself, then yeah, I concede government is quite efficient. Just look at the progressiveness of the Wilson administration.
Slashdot Mirror
And both Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have stated repeatedly that this bill was only a step necessary in killing the private medical and related insurance industry BEFORE implementing a single payer health care system. Each of them have repeatedly assured the public in response to attacks by GOP members, conservatives, or anyone for that matter that the goal of THIS bill is NOT a single payer system or a government take over at this point. So yes, the unified opposition by conservatives, the GOP, and most every state legislature for what it is worth is to attack the foundation of this entire bill and not just modify it to ensure their own piece of the pork pie. Pretty admirable considering such division in the democratic leadership of congress that "considering they were most likely going to pass it anyway" that at least a RINO like Olympia Snowe could have likely raked in enough pork that nobody in her state would ever have needed to work again. Come on, when you reach the line not even Olympia Snowe won't cross, you just got to saw "wow".
So just to be clear, the unified stand against doorway prying legislation is a point for or against the GOP leadership in your book?
Uhh... then I bet you did not read the bill. Resource allocation is one of the stated purposes, and the entire student loan industry has been redesigned for the purpose of production such that we do not need to count on a single doctor not packing up and leaving the country as fast as they can get their affairs in order. McCarthy is dead so arguing on the basis of "ITS SOCIALisjikl2@$#" really doesn't mean anything anymore. But for whatever little meaning that word may actually have you have clearly demonstrated why this IS socialism, whether or not that actually brings anything meaningful to the "debate" which I argue it does not. The quality of this bill does not in any way hinge on proving that it can or can not fit into a box called socialism. Its classification either way is nothing more than a foot note for a history textbook.
I don't think many people understand this whole federalism thing. Not all police are Federal agents, and I don't think there is a Federal fire department other than the requirement that all naval officers must be trained as fireman, but they don't deal in domestic issues / wild fires. If people like the way police and fire departments work then that is an argument to keep tax dollars at the local level. The fact that the fewest tax dollars go to local government and the most money goes to the fed is ass backwards. Also, to my understanding, private patrol industry is booming while many publically funded police departments are struggling terribly.
This isn't about public health care system versus private; every state is heavily involved in the medical industry in their states, and to my understanding both "sides" agree that there is no state that is doing a very good job of it. And strangely enough each "side" are using that as their respective core argument for and against a federal take over.
If I were a welfare baby hoping to win the dole, I would prefer each state be left to try whatever it likes and when some state finally comes up with a system that doesn't suck ass, that is where I will move to. Funny enough, if you are on the complete other side and don't think you will ever get sick, but just in case keep enough cash on hand in case you require the services of a doctor, then you can move to the state of your choice as well. And really, if it isn't that important, what is with all the debate anyway?
I agree, two commentators fighting to kiss the most big brother ass does not create any controversy or ratings. I am so glad we finally agree on something. We should reflect on this moment.
Well based on their ratings, it obviously isn't money... Unless kissing enough ass to get a bail out counts.
Perchance could this congress and administrations approach, method, and ideology driving the drafting and passing of this particular bill be an utter disaster and for no reason what so ever related to any point brought up or repeated ad infinium via any commentator on Fox News? If thousands of pages of legislation could be summed up in one word being "good" or "bad", isn't it perfectly possible both "sides" could be right for all the wrong reasons? The mass majority of people I know are completely apathetic to this entire process, are not following the debate in any way, but generally trust the government at least in so far as they do not believe there is anything they can do even if they did care, and they hope that things get better.
And though it was a draft version of several iterations ago, I do not know a single person other than myself that has read in its entirety ANY version of the health care bill. I would be confounded to believe that anywhere near an upper limit of 10% of congress independently read the entire bill even once.
When I read it, I did not think it was a very good or very well thought out plan. Not fire and brimstone OH GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! but just that it was so extreme disproportionately to how well it seemed to be thought out, I personally was not a fan of it. Well intended goals are not enough to make a good rule of law, and with all the games being played on both sides, this debate is too serious to enact major, sweeping legislation that will rule over people that actually do good things in this world like doctors, and people that build and manage hospitals, or medical equipment, or just about ANYBODY involved in the medical field in so far as they make decisions over what to do with their bodies as much as the patients do.
Yeah, so screw Ailes, screw Fox, screw Obama, and every corrupt member of Congress.
As with everything including socialism, it isn't an argument about whether or not it should be regulated or rationed or whatever but about WHO gets to regulate and ration. When things are not regulated they can get out of control when it is important. That does not provide any basis or argument for any particular person or group to step in and do the regulating.
... err.. you get the point.
... therefore you are right. What?!? Back to the earlier check your reality and try again questions. What is a government? What is the general structure or philosophy behind a socialist ideology? Where when and how does it work and for what purpose? Where may or may not this ideology be incompatible with the theory of what a government can and can not be, and under what circumstances or steps might be taken to mitigate possible shortfalls of socialism?
Every moment of your life and all things around you are regulated in one manner or another. For example rainfall is heavily regulated by temperature, and how often I see my doctor is regulated by how well I am feeling and how much money I have. Whether or not a person opens a business is regulated by
Before trying to fix something and reaching for the biggest tool you can find, ask yourself this question: What is a government? Where does it come from? What can governments do? What can government NOT do? A really fun question is what are some good things governments can and can not do vs bad things governments can and can not do contrasted with should not and list why.
Sometimes I wish I could punch Thomas Hobbes in the face for not explaining his work to people that would wish to take his observations out of context and try to reason that they were laws of nature and society. His observation was that the mass majority will comply with ever increasing government because any single step towards greater control always seems less harmful than the idea of "returning to a state of nature", or no government. Further, people tend to look at government control as freedom from responsibility, which is generally true, and for the consumer relief from responsibility by government means it may or may not only be easier for them such that it is a win win situation. Health Care for example: the class of individuals needing medical care mutually exclusive of medical providers believes that either 1)they are going to get something for free, 2) nothing is going to change for them. This class so greatly out numbers health care providers that their opinion is irrelevant. Therefore, logically, median voter says government takeover of health care can be good thing. It would also baffle the mind of most people to understand why anyone could possibly oppose a perpetually more powerful government. Also, if you agree with Hobbes (which is so deeply rooted in modern western thought anyway) we "know" that government only gets larger because the only way for it to get smaller would be for a significant number of people so opposed to whatever the government is doing that they would be willing to do without it completely. Such a situation is SO rare, who cares, right? Next, once we have accepted that government is going to only get bigger, and just take the leap forward that since progress is directly correlated to the size of government therefore government tends towards improving society.
Yeah, so all your arguments about how if it is important then we need to create a government bureaucracy, or more so, you are going to keep sitting on your ass while someone else both creates and another becomes the victim of a government bureaucracy is no argument at all, just a shibboleth of your political ideology.
And can you please explain your signature? Is your argument: Socialism = bad, Universal Health Care = good, therefore Universal Health Care != Socialism? It is almost like you make an argument against socialism, but then don't
So how about this:
Health Care is a good thing and universal elements of it are tried and true rules of th
PG&E is private like paying income tax is voluntary. It is really a matter of what is meant by the words. PG&E does whatever the government tells them to do, but other than that they are free to do whatever they want when they are told it is ok. I think it might have been more appropriate, or at least context free, to say "This is the type of quality you get when consumers have no choice". PG&E only has to work so hard as it is necessary to keep your business... and a democratic energy policy by way of whatever will please the most voters whether or not it works has played a role here.
Also, these smart meters do not generate power making at least your last statement irrelevant, as long as we are nit picking terms here.
Actually, lavender sugar cookies are delicious and delightfully aromatic.
... I'm all with you, but find me a person that knows what an avoirdupois is.
Sorry, but this 'argument' just isn't ever going to end. On the other hand it does make for great analogies when introducing people to epistemology. Imagine how hard that would be to explain to a lay person if every word had a clearly definable meaning. Otherwise people might think that it was the study of lying or just being wrong... ehh... there is probably someone out there.
So if I tell you I have 10 gigs of ram, would you assume that is 5x2 or 4x4?
I give them the benefit of the doubt. We use 64-bit processors, not \x40-bit processors. Hard drive platters do not store discrete units of bits like ram. The fabrication process for ram makes it practical to do them in powers of 2, but not for hard drives. Hard drives are quite crude in the way they store information and make really accurate guesses about what was probably stored at a single sector. In the end, who really care how many transistors or electrons were being used to create a particular technology? Yeah, it is confusing, but people know they are different and take appropriate measure. What people are really looking from data storage is permutations. Nobody really cares the information is stored in bits in ram any more than the fact that they are not stored in bits on hard drives.
I think Canonical makes a good argument; help people express their data in a way that is consistent and makes sense for them.
One CS guy told me it was because hard drive platters don't actually store bits and that the "base" is different across different fabrication processes and what not. You don't think hard drives heads put down one electron and then hope it is still there later, do you? For example, given the way charges like to flip on you sometimes, why not use base 10,000 over a larger area and have 10000 be equal to 10,000,000 units of charge or what not. Then when the charge degrades from 10,000,000 to 99,627,180 it still reads back as 10,000.
Registers, Cache, and RAM does not work like that, they all have discrete storage of bits. While it makes complete sense to standardize to file system data structure, you could argue that it is only those pieces that are practically measured in base 2, and everything else is measured in base 10. We do not measure PSU watts in base 2. We don't measure register sizes in base 2, but in base 10; last I checked Intel doesn't sell a 40-bit processor. It makes sense to use base 16 when you are looking to represent a meaningful discrete unit of bits, but even then we are talking about the number of bits, not the number of permutations a piece of ram is capable of being put into which is technically what we are really looking for. Who are the users that really care how it is implemented?
And just to make it more confusing, if I said I had 10 gigs of ram, would you assume that was 5 x 2, 4 x 4, or would you ask, or just say "...what?"
yeah, I am sure using base-2 for binary was just a coincidental mistake.
50% Insightful
30% Overrated
20% Interesting
?!? You were trying to be funny, right?
why not just add a function like gnome_DisplayFileSize(filePointer, displayType) where displayType is 0 for system default, 1 for KiB, 2 for KB?
Ha ha ha!!! Finally the feature everyone has been waiting for. The big seller that brings everyone over for the Year of Linux is going to be when I show them how much more storage space they get from using Ubuntu. I laugh and cry a little bit all at the same time knowing that to some degree it is true.
Uhh... huh? Wouldn't they just use the displayfilesize(filepointer) function or some equivalent that outputs a string? If it isn't a system thing function, then what is really the point? I agree that if it is just a file with one or two bits somewhere in /etc/ and leave every app to decide what that means and decide how to implement it... who cares, if not worse. I would like to hope / expect that they are going to actually implement this in a useful way, not just bark at app developers about how everyone needs to design their stuff a certain way.
I'm just glad that my computer will finally give me the same size hard drive as the manufacturer told me I was buying!
I wish more people had respect for the reverse to be true. Too many people see profit = not paying the employees enough.
Yeah, but they hire you. Two people that think they are getting the best deal and the other is being screwed is a sign of a deal gone well.
Errr... for the sake of argument where would a person that embraces personal responsibility as a great gift in these United States today?
You sound like some wacko libertarian type that believes people can be trusted independently of government to make both economic AND personal choices completely defying the two party systems that says you must pick one and crush the other.
Yeah, right there with you.
The problem (which I don't think mandates prohibitive regulation) is that there are warning labels on everything and people dismiss them faster than Windows Security warnings. The labels are meaningful for 1 good lawsuit, and 2 weeks of scary headlines in the newspaper, and after that it is an embedded cost passed on to consumers of all related products. Such regulations should go far enough to allow people to take personal responsibility and be ENABLED to make an informed decision which may actually require some reading or research. Prohibition, even of lead enriched food products as you put it, is an attempt to protect people from themselves. Creating a bureaucracy for the purpose of protecting us from ourselves has no limit as we can see people are "trusted" less and less to spend their own money wisely. I'll stop there; that is either a philosophy you agree with or do not. Neither side can get their point across to the other in any meaningful way.
This sounds like a job for *horns blaring* da da da DA GOVERNMENT MAN!
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
The AMOUNT of scrutiny? You mean those people that get paid by the hour to pretend like they know what they are talking about? Just because you get slammed with endless over sight and it takes often dozens of people to sign off on something before anything gets done only makes it very expensive, not improve quality or efficiency. In any business you get 0, 1 or 2 of 3 things: Good, Fast, Cheap. I will give credit to our military: their toys are really really good, but at the same time much of that technology comes from private industry, but paid for with tax dollars, so effectively the same thing. Halliburton is amazing as the good and fast thing, like when someone has a need for a refugee camp with food, water, and shelter some random place in the world for 10,000 people, and we need it tomorrow... Well considering that Halliburton is the only company that provides that type of service, not much to compare it to. Does no competition due to lack of capital qualify as cheap? anyway...
Government is "amazing" in many respects. Good managers of our money? Hmm... I don't think so. And those are just the nice things I can say.
Efficiency is consumer choice. They either buy it because you did something right, or they do not, and in any way that is a fallacious argument the case for government is far worse. If you are Nolan's definition of a Statist such that the governments goal is to self empower with no greater purpose than itself, then yeah, I concede government is quite efficient. Just look at the progressiveness of the Wilson administration.
Hi, my name is Bob shitswhenhewalks. I hear you have a job opening?