It looks obvious

It is always baffle me why people suggesting that the government will take more responsibilities where it use to, or at least should have been, handled better by private competing entities. But we often have to confront the fallacy that the government can do something better, or that by removing artificially the profit factor the service level will be magically improved. Stories about the stupidity and complete lack of efficiency of government’s services, like the one told by Megan McArdle, are not the exception but the more common description of what one should expect:

At the age of nineteen, way back in 1992, I purchased a beer in a Philadelphia bar.

[...]

The problem, you see, is that at the time of my conviction, I did not have a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Driver’s License. Indeed, I had no driver’s license at all, being one of those benighted city people who get their first driver’s license at the age of 23. The laws of the State of Pennsylvania, however, say that the Department of Transportation is entitled to suspend the driver’s license of anyone arrested for underaged drinking. And the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is, apparently, determined to exercise this privilege. Thus, the spectacle of a 35 year old woman being informed that she is about to have her driver’s license suspended for underaged drinking.

To add insult to injury, I am expected to fill out a form and, at my own expense, mail it to the DOT in order to commence this suspension.

This would be funny and mildly annoying if it were not for the fact that until they clear the suspension, I cannot get a DC driver’s license, because states are required to scan for violations from other states before they issue a new license. (No word on how I got one out of the State of New York). And until I get a DC driver’s license, I cannot register the car I just bought. The DMV here, after much wrangling, gave me temporary tags, but it looks like I’m going to have to garage the thing for three months unless the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relents. Which, at this time, they show no evidence of doing.

This is a story we all familiar with - a government agency that has no profit incentive, and is by nature a monopoly, doesn’t get punished by the consumers and has very little incentives to become more efficient, or to provide better service. And yet, despite any evidence for the contrary and any logical argument, people keeps wants more services for “Free”.

The biggest problem with the 3 year old children is not the lack of training regime. Apparently, if you are doing the mistake and listening to the National Children’s Bureau in England, its those 3 years old children who are saying “yuk” to unfamiliar foreign food:

The National Children’s Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says “yuk” in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

[...]

The guide goes on to warn that children might also “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuk’”

I didn’t realize it before, but it is really dangerous world for the 3 years old…

If big government is such a great thing why does it use newspeak?

Title definition here.

This is almost as good as the claim that paying taxes is voluntary:

“I’m not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I’m sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do.”

I guess we really did something bad to deserve these representatives…

Light bulbs are externally serious matter! So serious that the federal government has to regulate almost every aspect of using them. We are cannot be trusted to decide which kind of light bulb we prefer to use, and how to replace them when needed, and therefore those who cannot run a restaurant efficiently should use their monopoly on the means of coercion to make sure we are doing the right thing.

(via)

Ever wondered how the life in occupied city is? What do feel people that need to stand at checkpoint and roadblock on the way home? or did you ever complain that American people are shielded from what is going on in the world? Don’t worry! Soon a short visit in Washington DC will solve these problems:

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

One have to wonder what will be the next initiative…

Before the congress send the lawyers to sue OPEC, it might be wise to check if US is not committing the same crime:

I am sure, either through scheming or more likely incompetence, that OPEC countries are under-supplying their potential capacity for oil production. But if we want to deem this a crime, who is the biggest criminal? The US is the only country I know of that has, by statute, made illegal the development of enormous domestic reserves. Just last week, Democrats in Congress, in fact the exact same folks sponsoring this bill, voted to continue an effective moratorium on US oil shale development. No country in the world is doing less to develop the most promising oil reserves than is the US. Congress, sue thyself. I mocked this idea weeks ago when Hillary first suggested it. If this passes, I would love to see the US counter-sued for not developing ANWR. Or large areas of the Gulf. Or most of the Pacific coast. Or all of the Atlantic coast. Or our largest-in-the-world oil shale deposits.

Since this populist legislation was never intended to be executed, only to create some notion among potential voters, we will not have the pleasure to see this scenario tested. What a shame…

File this under stupid populism and waste of time:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Tuesday to let the Justice Department pursue energy antitrust and price fixing cases against members of the OPEC oil cartel, although critics said such attempts would likely be fruitless and could prompt a backlash from oil producers

The bill, approved 324-84, also would create a special Justice Department task force to investigate energy markets to root out manipulation and unwarranted speculation.

I wonder if any of the people that voted for this bill actually believed in what they voted for. If this is the case they aren’t only hypocrite that deceit their voters, they are also stupid - which make it much worse.

Do you care about American football league? I happened to not care about it even a little bit. But I was mistaken because apparently professional NFL games, and all that involve with them are extremely important. Otherwise how can you explain the need of the federal government to check if one team was spying on another and by that breaking, or not, some rules of the league association. This is obviously should not be handled by the league, which the last time I checked was private organization, but by no other than the mighty Arlen Specter.

After all once you allow cheating in football games, it is a short way to complete ceos. No, I’m not joking if the federal government will not act expediently to solve this crisis we are going to face a major problem with the values of are youth:

“They are enormous role models for everybody,” Specter said. “If you can cheat in the NFL, you can cheat in college, you can cheat in high school, you can cheat on your grade-school math test. There’s no limit as to what you can do. I think they owe the public a lot more candor and a lot more credibility.”

The few readers of this blog already know that I hold quite an extreme position on government regulating social affairs. I don’t think that the government should regulate, for example, who should a corporation hire or not, what will be the compensation and many other issues. One exception for this rule is, obviously, the government. Government regulations administrating its own affairs must be enforced.

But surprisingly, instead of being the only one subject to its own regulation - it is the only one exempt from them.