If We Can Put a Man on The Moon...Then Why Does Government Fail at Just About Everything Else?

In If We Can Put a Man on The Moon... (Harvard Business Press), former Reason Foundation privatization analysts William D. Eggers and John O'Leary analyze why large-scale government projects typically go so wrong—and how to change a culture that almost demands such failure.

The response to Katrina, the Iraq war, NASA since the moon landing, Boston's Big Dig—it isn't difficult to list examples of utter, often tragic failures in the public sector. The key to avoiding such debacles, say Eggers and O'Leary (who bring a wealth of public and private-sector experience to the material) is to first make sure that government should be doing a given project in the first place. From there, both policymakers and the bureaucrats who will administer a given program need to understand and anticipate all sorts of traps into which they can, and all too often, do fall into.

Approximately 10 minutes. Interview by Nick Gillespie. Shot and edited by Meredith Bragg.

To watch on YouTube, go here.

For embed code and downloadable versions, scroll down.

[Thorbie]

No. Nobody is preventing the speaker from saying what they want to say, but they are not entitled to have a forum for such speech, such as a radio or TV program. The First Amendment only applies to state action. One example would be a cable tv station censoring profanity, due to their own policy vs. the government passing a law banning profanity on tv. Only the government ban would be subject to the first amendment.

[ejgdnd]

Two year long necromancy!
"Ok, you tell me, if there is no government, who sets the laws? Who makes sure that people follow the law?"
People who interact with each other will set rules for dealing with each, people will make sure that the other person follows the rules.
"No government means no sheriffs, no police, you are in charge of what it is you think is just, you are the one who carries out punishment."
But people would rightly see that as unjust.

[pismo]

It is all about reward, govt is rewarded by failure, overruns, over costs, extra years to do something. This is all good for the govt worker/bureaucrat. Ask yourself, what is the benefit on finishing on time, on budget when you have no skin in the game, when you are rewarded to finish late and have cost overruns.

[fpm]

You can. If you go to options next to "text comments" you can change the threshold.

[strato]

Very true observations, but many government failures still use contractors; the problem is these contractors have crappy rules to comply with (such as working on a basis that gets paid AFTER the work has been billed to the government) and sometimes are connected politically. Not to mention sending men to the moon included risking lives and national prestige (us vs soviets), something normal everyday government operations don't involve.

[Thorbie]

Freedom of speech doesn't entitle anyone to an audience. Under your scenario it is unfair that Olbermann's tv show gets much poorer ratings than O'Reilly's show, but that's not the fault of anyone but viewers who decide what speech they want to hear. The means to spread a message doesn't make it any more meaningful or heard if people choose not to listen to it. PBS has government funding, yet people choose to watch private networks in greater numbers. Nobody's rights are infringed.

[samuils]

@DaveDoggOwns An example you bring up is that of governments not bound or not following the law. USA has constitution by which the government is bound, following Constitution there should be no excessive taxes nor restricting regulations. An absence of government simply creates presence of other type of leaders (the fringes of society). Absence of government is not the answer, as history shows zero government breeds problems as it also means zero law.

[samuils]

@DaveDoggOwns Ok, you tell me, if there is no government, who sets the laws? Who makes sure that people follow the law? And the Chinese proverb is a good to advocate smaller government not anarchy. No government means no sheriffs, no police, you are in charge of what it is you think is just, you are the one who carries out punishment. And guess what happens when a gang decided to carry out its own law? As in take your property and harm your family? Anarchy has NEVER been good .

[magnusea]

"We Can Put a Man on The Moon"

Which crime did that man?

[samuils]

@DaveDoggOwns The wild west was not anarchy, you still had a form of government. Local and state. Anarchy again NEVER stays as anarchy. Some rule of law always comes. And higher crime has nothing to do with establishment of government. And law is kept by those who are in charge of law keeping. There has always been government be it local or national.

[FlailingJunk]

I downvote to show disapproval. I would prefer it if youtube would allow users to chose a threshold to show rather then simply not showing -6 ranking and below.

[magnusea]

It's fine that libertarians believe in the constitution and a small government. But Ron Paul is against military costs. Many says that nations are not important, and that there should be no moral implications in the law, which is quite radical. A liberal idea is that all cultures are equal as long as they stay peaceful. Libertarians in Sweden embrace Muslim immigration from Gaza, Somalia, etc. I'm not against other cultures in our society, but a large influx has created local sharia laws.

[Floccini]

The USSR could put people in space. It seems like it required mostly putting a lot more power into a known process.

[DamagedFX]

I would rather be spending more tax money on NASA than in the middle east.
I rather launch a "piece of junk" into space,
than launch a missile at somebody I don't know.

Human mind starves to learn, we're getting down to the DNA on earth already.
It's almost time to get off of this rock.

[ejgdnd]

I have no idea what you were replying to. But what I am saying is that your criticism of anarchy is misplaced. With no government, I mean no coercive, territorial monopolies, not no law. (Although it is easy to confuse the two).

There is no one constant rule of law, even within a society in which all courts are supposed to be interpreting the same written rules objectively. This is because people will interpret how laws apply to particular cases based on their own values.

[DamagedFX]

As you said: "We only annoy the Islamic world"

Should be like: "We only annoy the Islamic lands AND world.

[magnusea]

The good they did? Good is freedom. We have freedom through institutions, defended by them.

Churchill shows that some fought for freedom against ideas/ideologies of oppression which geographically expanded. More than half Central- and Western Europe had Nazi- and fascist regimes 65 years ago. If we hadn't fought the war we would have lost freedom.

(Pacifism is a radical/religous ideology, just like libertarianism, although I don't think libertarians has to be pacifists or against war.)

[Thorbie]

Actually, only the government can violate your freedom of speech. The first amendment doesn't extend to a right to be heard on a privately owned site which is designed to hide unpopular comments. Just as you can't allege someone is violating your freedom of speech by removing you from their private property for saying something they disagree with. I don't disagree with everything you've said, but this specific allegation of restricting freedom of speech is a misstatement of the law.

[ericatkinson]

It seems that now we can't put a man on the moon.

[samuils]

@DaveDoggOwns Libertarians are not anarchists, Libertarians believe in a very limited constitution bound government. Your personal view on government does not define Libertarianism. Government is needed for limited roles. Absence of government is simply impossible. Zero government also means zero law look at tribal countries, libertarians do not want that to be our model