A SILENT GOVERNMENT IS EVEN BETTER THAN A SMALL ONE (from elsewhere) Nina. Your

A SILENT GOVERNMENT IS EVEN BETTER THAN A SMALL ONE

(from elsewhere)

Nina.

Your proposal is doesn’t address the cause: 0) that the only commons governments must produce are those that cannot be produced by private means. 1) that our constitutions do not require sufficient legislation consist of ‘business plans’ for any commons produced, or their life cycle, nor the means of insuring their upkeep. 2) that ‘contracts for commons’ (legislation) are arbitrarily voidable by the legislature at whims, and that this is the problem of a weak constitution and majoritarianism over rule of law. 3) that the incentive of legislatures and bureaucrats is to ‘do something new’ and award their voters (not to keep something beautiful and serviceable). 4) that because of 2 and 3, legislatures rotate funds across each new generation of ‘new’ projects at the expense of old, creating a sea of hazards (decay) behind them. 5) that outsourcing customer service to the private sector with demanding measurable requirements by the government, appears to provides far better service than government employees, for more open hours, with greater public recourse (govt should be required to keep retail hours – period), but that outsourcing maintenance of the physical plant appears not to. 6) that the public’s general concern is not government management but the (excessive,exhaustive,offensive) rents obtained by government employees that service the public in correlation with the service hours, quality of customer service, and constant rotation of investment between commons.

Secondly, It is very hard to argue that the government should ‘instruct or educate’ anyone. In fact, the evidence is almost universal that the opposite is true, and that government should be entirely prohibited from informing and educating people. It’s very difficult to argue that it’s not small government as much as silent government that operates on retail hours with retail levels of service that is the problem.

Thirdly, It is very hard to argue that government should continue the use of redistributive, fiscal, and monetary policy rather than directly distribute liquidity to the population by debit card, and circumvent the financial and public services systems entirely. The worst public private partnership is the purely extractive one of charging interest for the distribution of purely electronic liquidity. The government need not operate as if currency and money are the same thing, or that fiat money is anything other than tradable shares in the economy open to constant dilution.