All empires fall and the US is now
in the empire stage.

Best not to be underneath…if that’s
possible.

I’m beginning to suspect that the fall
occurs when the weight of the sacrifice
by the citizens to support empire is
unbearable and in a myriad of ways they
cease to do so, in word and deed.

First, his questions:

If society has the moral obligation, and the government should not be the agent for discharging that obligation, whose obligation should it be?

Why do you think someone other than the elected government can deliver services in a way that would avoid the problems that you think government causes?.

First question: My thought is that one of the major problems with government is that it is not voluntary. I believe, and I think most Americans believe, that helping our fellow man is an incredibly important act of virtue. America has consistently held itself out to be an absolute leader in charitable contributions, even on top of all the money paid to government.

I think it is society’s job, but while I might try to convince you to help others, I don’t think I have a right to stick my hand in your pocket and force you to. I believe private charity can and will step up, help those in need, and be fully funded by Americans who, like me, believe that it is our job to do so. When the government steals from me for the same purpose, I think they steal more than just money, they pull “virtue” out of the equation.

Second question: This is related to the comment you left on my site about accountability.

I believe private charity is more flexible, more accountable, and more efficient than the government.

Flexibility: Federal government specifically, is simply a “one size fits all” solution. Show up at the door, take your check, move along. People are individuals with individual problems. I think private charity has more intention and more ability to take an individual approach and cure problems, rather than treat symptoms.

Accountability: Who is the federal government accountable to? Not voters, with the gerrymandering problems we have. Not the recipients, because they have no power to speak out. Not their funding, because people who are spending other people’s money rarely worry that much about how it’s spent. Private charities rely on voluntary contributions. As such, they need to provide results and honesty, or their contributions will be put to more reputable charities. Government gets their cut of your income without any choice, nor do individuals have any recourse for removing that funding if they don’t like the system it supports.

Efficiency: Much like the above argument, this comes down to an OPM (other people’s money) issue. When you’re spending OPM, efficiency goes out the window. When there is no competitive market providing services, efficiency goes out the window. When oversight and control is farther and farther away from the people providing money and the people providing the service, efficiency goes out the window.

Simply put, I just don’t think the government is capable of living up to the promises they make. And a system outside government won’t be hampered by all the same problems, but will have competition and inherent feedback loops to ensure better performance. Note that I don’t say perfect performance, because that won’t be acheived either way. But I think the market is more perfect than the government.

I would never say that government is good. I would say that government is the most accountable of the three major institutions:

Church (in all religions and denominations),
Business,
State.

(I would not make a distinction between state and Federal government for this conversation).

Because I believe that government is, when it is run reasonably well, the most accountable, I would prefer the services to run through government.

I believe that in this country, at least, the government is run reasonably well. Especially when you compare it to everything else