Ok, zmaj, that bizarrely illogical. Just because you breathe air that isn't polluted to shit doesn't make you state property and has nothing to do with feudalism. Did you go entirely to private schools? If not, congrats, the value of your work is what it is because taxpayers invested in you. Do you use roads? Would you company be profitable if it had to build the entire infrastructure from scratch? The fact that there is some business that can pay you is due to public investment in part. The fact that you have money at all, rather than barter, is down to public investment. As usual conservatives totally ignore all that and pretend it all just falls magically from the heavens

Taxes are the cost of living in civilization.

@Ogion, I thought I made it clear I was perfectly aware that the public investment money didn't fall from the heavens. It came from my pocket. I'm painfully aware of it. I keep saying it. So what are you talking about?

Schools, roads, clean air - it was all paid by the taxpayers' money. My money. Your money. And we were forced to pay that money.

I want to keep that money for myself. I want to decide how I want to spend it. I don't want the state to invest my money in schools. I want to invest that money in my personal schooling. I'll take my chances.

I don't want the state to invest my money in roads, or waterworks, or sewage, or whatever my company needs. I'll take my chances with private contractors. I'm sure I'm not the only person who needs a road in my city, we'll reach a deal.

Interstate railroads were once built with private money, you know, as incredible as it may sound to you.

So don't try to hypnotize me into thinking that some bloated bureaucracy manages my money better than I could or knows my needs better than I do.

"Interstate railroads were once built with private money, you know, as incredible as it may sound to you."
D'oh! This is historically misleading, as the railroads, particularly the early transcontinentals in the United States, benefited from massive government subsidies, particularly in the form of land. I'm not sure whether this is also true of earlier railroads in the eastern part of the country (I rather suspect it was), but it was certainly true of infrastructure writ large. It also tended to benefit the northern states (i.e. where most of the railroads in pre-1860 America were built) -- so much so that when the South tried its hand (however fleetingly) at being the Confederate States of America, its founders wrote INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION that "neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof" (Article I, Section 8(3))

I should hasten to add that I am not using this to call Zmaj a Confederate sympathizer. Merely calling it up as evidence that infrastructure spending, along with opposition to it, has a VERY long history in the United States.

I will say that, while I approve of government spending in a range of arenas (military, prisons, infrastructural improvements), I think it's a myth that the public sector is actually focused on the public interest in all cases. I certainly think it's MORE true in a democracy, where government benefits are captured by a larger and more diverse set of non-governmental interests, but even still, bureaucrats and elected officials alike can keep an eye out for the main chance just as much as private business owners, corporate directors, and CEOs. They also have the advantage of having more direct access to changing and/or enforcing the laws and/or regulations to benefit themselves and their own interests.

Of course, we would decry all of this as ethically untenable (even if, through clever manipulation of the law, it is not actually illegal), but it doesn't seem to me that one can paint the state -- in general -- as being in its very nature better at serving the needs of the people overall than private business -- in general. Should it need also be said, I rather feel that the reverse is also true.

"I want to keep that money for myself. I want to decide how I want to spend it. I don't want the state to invest my money in schools. I want to invest that money in my personal schooling. I'll take my chances."

You're not just taking your chances. You want everyone in the country using those public goods and services to take their chances. Which turns out to be a shitty deal for a lot of them. But hey, you got yours, right?

@Lethologica, I wouldn't force others to do the same. If they want, they can give their money to the state and go to public schools. But I want everyone to be free to choose how to invest their schooling money. As it is, we all get a shitty deal as we are forced to pay for shitty schools. I got mine, you say. Yeah. I got my shitty deal. That's precisely why I want to change that. For my children's sake.

@OS, you're right, infrastructure spending has a long and complicated history. I hope you'll agree with me, however, that private enterprise and economy flourished in the early days with only a minimal role of the government.

@Zmaj
"I hope you'll agree with me, however, that private enterprise and economy flourished in the early days with only a minimal role of the government."
That seems pretty non-controversial to me (I will leave aside the usual "reminders" about slavery and capitalist depredations, since they don't really take away from the empirical point). To my mind, the general pattern of low government involvement during that period makes the fact that infrastructure spending was present even more worthy of mention.

Actually, the capitalist depredations are what show taht the notion of the economy "flourishing" to be false. If you mean that kids starving, people being poisoned, and workers maimed as a "flourishing economy" then that's not exactly something to aspire to, frankly.

The fact is zmaj, that schooling is another area where the public sector does well. It spends vastly less than private or charter schools, but perform every bit as well in the end. Want good schools? That takes money. Of course, if everyone wants to "keep my money" we end up with a bunch of undereducated kids who become undereducated unemployable adults.

I have to love this idea that you want to pool your money with "other people who want a road" because probably everyone will want to pool their money, at which point you need to figure out who is going to run that pool of money, so maybe you elect some folks to oversee the spending and work, and congratulations, you just recreated the democratic state. Of course, since you don't much seem to like democracy and only want resources spent on you because you have basically no sense of responsibility, that won't be very compelling to you.

Also, it should be pointed out that a public sector employee who bends the rules to benefit themselves gets sued and prosecuted for corruption, while a private sector employee who does gets a bonus and would be sued by their shareholders if they were honest, actually.

And a bureaucracy generally isn't bloated because the public sector almost never has the necessary funds. Want to see bloated, try attending big corporate events. There's your lavish bloat. Yikes.

And the fact that we started with is that a country of Zmaj's where it's every man for himself and no one is capable of cooperating will get smoked by a nation of people who are responsible and work together every single time.

"it should be pointed out that a public sector employee who bends the rules to benefit themselves gets sued and prosecuted for corruption"
Yes, but this ignores the point that I was making. There is plenty of discretion that public employees can have in implementing policy, all well within the realm of legality, that can nevertheless lead straight to the privileging of interests that are not the "public interest." This is in addition to the times when the law is written (and implemented according to its letter) specifically for the favoring of interests that are not the "public interest."

I agree that a state serving its people (rather than pursuing power and self-benefit) primarily is something admirable and worthy, just as I think that a company serving its clients/customers/consumers and its employees (rather than pursuing profit and self-benefit) primarily is something admirable and worthy. I do not believe, however, that either is an outcome likely to occur as a default setting.

"If you mean that kids starving, people being poisoned, and workers maimed as a 'flourishing economy' then that's not exactly something to aspire to, frankly."
I'm not sure I said I would aspire to it. But if one measures economic flourishing by productivity and production of goods and services (which is typically what I think of when I think of a flourishing economy -- you presumably have a different definition), then I think it's hard to deny the fact of the matter, eh?

Sure, but that's kind of superficial and silly definition. An economy is only as useful as its ability to produce value and good for its participants. An economy that leaves nearly everyone in dire straits isn't a good economy. If everyone were to work insanely to pile products in a great big hole and bury them, it'd be "flourishing" by your definition, but utterly terrible.

Well, yes, at the legislative level in particular the slanting to favor particular interests is a big thing. within the administrative state, that's much less of a issue because of who goes into that work. People don't do it to get rich, that's for damn sure.

"within the administrative state, that's much less of a issue because of who goes into that work. People don't do it to get rich, that's for damn sure."
No, but they can do their own sort of lobbying for the legislative changes that they can then be in charge of overseeing. The rule of law is a wonderful thing, for the reasons that you mention: if someone does try to bend or break the law to their own advantage, then that person will be prosecuted for corruption or abuse of power. The trade-off is that the law has to rule, even when it's manifestly unhelpful, inefficient, or even adverse. This is, however, a mere inconvenience when set next to the entire absence of the rule of law, when corruption can reign unchecked and people who don't like it either resign themselves to accepting it or else take part in it as part of the cost of participation.

I agree that the administrative state at the federal level still, by and large, functions under the rule of law. Working as a public school teacher in one of America's less successful cities, I am less sure that the rule of law has fully trickled all the way down.

^emphasis on FULLY in that last sentence

Well, yes, perfect it isn't, but then when public resources are limited, so is enforcement. (hence the notion that perhaps taxes are too low if better enforcement could lead to a better economy and society).
In the case of bending the law to push an agenda, that actually results in suits undoing the action for failure to comply with the law, rather than direct action against agency staff.

Well, unless the agency staff actually did something criminal like impermissibly diverting funds or accepting bribes or some such.

As an interesting aside of what your tax dollars buy, I came across this interesting story of the state of teh environment in the US when the EPA first came into being. Some of the increase in longevity is undoubtedly due to the EPA.
Check out the burning river.

https://medium.com/defiant/this-is-what-america-looked-like-before-the-epa-94cb4ab4bbe0#.c2pq0yca0

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/

oompa, loompa, duppity doo...

...don't worry, the gov't, is here to help you!

The EPA fucked up its attempt to safely excavate the wastewater at Gold King Mine, yes. It should pay up the same way it expects private companies to pay up after similar disasters.

The flip side of that coin is that there are hundreds of disasters-in-waiting all over that part of the state thanks to generations of unregulated old-tech mining. Well, apart from some other disasters that have already happened, like the Sunnyside Mine collapse in 1978, or the 1975 tailings pond failure. The locals had been resisting Superfund designation (and the accompanying intrusive federal cleanup) for decades; after the Gold King disaster, though, they actually voted for *more* of that 'government here to help' at which you sneer. If it weren't for the nakedness of the EPA's fuckup, one would suspect conspiracy.

Uh, just who do you think is on the hook for the mine? Yep the EPA and taxpayers. God knows it isn't the company that caused the problem. They get to take the money and run leaving us with the bill, yet again. That counts as "efficiency" in the private sector!

Superfund cleaned up the low-hanging fruit a long time ago. The more difficult sites still remain.

Corporations consider the environment an externality. They were happy to shunt off their toxic and untenable problems to the government.

We need regulations to prevent these things from happening in the first place precisely because private entities will disappear when cleanup becomes necessary. There's no money in it.

Indeed, I was talking to a friend who works in groundwater remediation. He was pitching Koch industries on an effort and they told him "we aren't going to clean anything. We're just going to keep everything in process until long after you've retired." Yep. Efficient.

Maybe zmaj would like to put up the cash for the toxic clean ups himself and "take his chances" that he and his kids don't die of cancer?

"Uh, just who do you think is on the hook for the mine? Yep the EPA and taxpayers."

The EPA tried invoking sovereign immunity to get off the hook for a lot of the costs. IDK if it worked, but it's not the sort of action that screams "We own this, guys."

But yes, the issue does basically trace back to private owners who never gave a shit about acid mine runoff until the government did, and then decided shutting down and letting the government deal with it was cheaper than cleaning it up themselves.

The only Superfund site I have ever gotten clearance to visit is now an overnourished dune wetland ecosystem full of invasive species. I guess that's better than being Outboard Marine's personal toxic waste dump.

Well, the EPA site pretty much says that the EPA takes responsibility, and hell they're the only ones doing clean up.

Interesting tidbit, it wasnt cleaned up under superfund, because local governments refused the money out of fears about tourism. Fucking brilliant, I must say.

Yeah, dealing with invasives and restoring dunes is easier than toxic waste. Sounds fascinating though. Where is it?