[ExI] government corruption, was: RE: Social Mobility and Bioconservatism

[Stathis Papaioannou]

2009/2/23 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>:

>  and incidentally may fail due to corruption or inefficiency. In
>> the final analysis, we should have the system that does the most good,
>> not the system that best fits a favoured ideology.
>
> ### So you proclaim yourself a consequentialist, right after excusing
> government failures with "good intentions".

I am a consequentialist. I just thought I'd point out the obvious
difference in motivation between business and government or non-profit
organisation, FWIW. Sometimes business will provide the best service
and sometimes government will, and we should choose accordingly. The
problem with you is that you take it as a given that business will
always do better. So if someone points out that, for example, a
particular public health system is cheaper and results in better
outcomes than a mostly private health system, you react as if you've
been presented with plans for a perpetual motion machine: you *know*
there must be a flaw, clever though the design may be, and it is just
a matter of finding it. It is this ideological commitment, rather than
the case by case arguments, that I find problematic.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou