Hop, I thoroughly enjoyed your post and don't agree with most of it, but it is because of a difference in understanding we both have. I also think I like your look because we take topics fairly and use your libertarian/masters degree studies to defend it. You don't just dismiss things. So kudos to you, it was rare to find free thinkers when I went through grad school merely puppets.
So as I sign of respect I will defend what you contest to.
Virginia and state fiscal responsibility: I can't possibly understand all state authorities but I am pretty well versed on those in the midwest primarily IL, WI, but also MO, MN. These states don't have such a solid track record, except WI and that is pre-scot walker WI. I support the use of a budget but the question isn't how much they spend money, it is how they spend money. For example the House of Reps and the senate have very similar responsibilities. Each senator has a staff, and each house has a staff. But there are far more Reps. If the federal government would accumulate some of the states power, they would have less employees. Less is more right? But a weaker state will be much less then a weaker fed. More resources to share, less levels of bureaucracy. Why should the reps pay more for staff then the senate does? The more divided anything is the most costly it is. So when I just said it is how they spend money what I'm really refering to is, is it right for decisions to be made to the constraints of the governmental budget or instead the ROI of the individual project? State governments as a combined entity currently employs more people than the fed, the departments of the states tend also to be heavily micromanaged and work independently of the welfare of the state. Leading to situations in which the transportation department will try to justify (without recognizable cause) a budget increase, that happens to against education, etc. The issues involved here lead to a lot of imcompetencies. I know this part is confusing, I probably could have used better words. But the lack of standardization makes it even more difficult for the state execs to have a thorough understanding of the benefits of their decisions.
Mainly I feel the ball has been dropped on federal auditing of cause and effect to government on all levels, which hits smaller sectors harder. So my real take on this situation is The management of the fed is awful but is greater than state is greater than district is greater then local is greater than corporate.
I think it is great we are on the same page with the dangers of corporate power. But you did not see the connection to the current discussion. It was brought up to reference the dangers of shrinking auditing procedures of the fed. If you limit the fed you limit the regulations, if you limit regulations you increase the power of these bastards. If you increase the powers of these bastards you limit freedoms of the individuals. That could be a complicated concept, but the SEC is the agency that would be first on my list then the three that you listed. Everyone is complaining about how big the fed but they fail to see the immense amount of safety that comes from it, That's why I brought it up.
Onto peanut butter. This is an outright opposite opinion here. If the sense of profit is gone, then all that is left in regards to indivual peanut butter is an attribution to cost to manufacture. But you are totally correct and I can't argue with your concept of worker motivation and innovation to the peanut butter industry. But I don't advocate communism. I advocate community, and efficiency. I am NOT a commie, I am NOT a capitalistie. Why are those two options the only ones? Why can't the federal government own a peanut butter factory, pay employees to the share of the contribution they make towards the final product, charge consumers in reference to the cost it takes to produce those goods,and use their completely managed profits to pay for government services, at the same time compete with the public sector to drive down prices to a more consistent level of affordability and quality of life? That's not communism, that is intervention that can be geared towards companies that lower the quality of life. There are millions of smart minds in the world we can create the kind of world we should live in, but I'm an anti-conformist so... Ummm... back to topic, motivation falls in a communist society because of lack of attribution in work to wage. motivation in a capitalist society falls because of lack of attribution in work to wage. Government ownership doesn't mandate equal wages for everybody though communism supports it. Capitalism is notorious for being a classist sect, that encourages discrimination against productive work. It is a completely backwards system. Their are DEFINETELY ways to improve productivity in comparison to the capitalist system.
Government subsidies: I agree with your statements, but disagree with your views. The fed does tons of things wrong but it doesn't the concept is wrong. For example Solyndra, without governement assistance the free market would have to develop alternative energy, however the current energy tycoons would use all of their powers to keep them down for as long possible. Did the governement make mistakes? Of course but they are championing innovation in areas like this. It is positive. And in most cases there is logic in the madness. The food subsidies are a product of the dust bowl. Alternative energies are a product of oil scarcity and global warming. Things that don't work right should be fixed or abandoned. But so many people think abandoning is always the answer but the sunk costs are more alarming then the path of true understanding and the most viable solutions to these mismanagement issues. Increased government intervention in regards to oil disbursement for example can keep our oil here, and force it into a realizable value of cost to manufacture as well as ACTUAL supply vs demand. More lax government in trade will result in the same actions we are doing now. Which is better for the people of this country? Because at the end of the day isn't that what is important?
The fed does so many things wrong, but it doesn't mean it being big is bad. Instead of shrinking it we need to fix it. Sorry for the length.
