Protectionism is endemic to corporate governments as well. For example, consider the fact that pay and compensation for corporate executives, in general has no
correlation to the company’s performance.

…..There are few free market leaders who 1) desire to run for office, 2) stick to their principles after being elected, and 3) proactively seek for positive change.

This is because most normal, rational people realize that that power and authority come with an equal helping of responsibility, obligation, and especially risk.

Effective leaders aren’t interested in power, as much as bringing to pass common goals.

Whereas, In my opinion, those that actively seek power as an end in itself, have a self-reinforcing belief that power can somehow mitigate personal risk and responsibility. How ironic that avoiding personal risk is one of the reasons they want power in the first place.

Without competition, government becomes indolent and inertia drives all operations towards a status-quo level……

Actually, competition is is a very important force in a bureaucracy. Competition for jobs, moneys, promotions, the time and attention of superiors, etc. However, in a bureaucracy it’s possible to eliminate competition simply by signing a document, filling out a form, or making a few phone calls. (Yet another fiction of government: that pen and ink trumps real economic forces, e.g. the Drug Enforcement Agency.) Thus, useful work, innovation, and excellence don’t pay off, exploiting the system does.

I just finished the book Freakonomics yesterday. I like the thinking process the authors use, but I’m more cautious accepting all of their conclusions.

Yet, despite the difficulty, people claim to know that it’s true.

I guess things would be easier for me if I could not think about it too much and just claim with utter conviction that it’s so. But what can I say — I’m an empiricist.

I think that would be pretty tough to measure. You’d have to control for job performance, job mobility, and other things that would be very difficult to measure across companies and the private/public spectrum.

I noticed that these articles just tell us that people think government jobs are more secure. (I already knew that.) But I wonder if that’s really so, or if they’re just operating off the same perception we already have.

I wonder how we could find out, beyond anecdotal evidence.

Here you go.

Also note this statement on the website federaljobsearch.com:

“Recession Proof” your career. Government employees enjoy unparalleled job security and career stability.

Thought that was pretty funny. Or how about from workforamerica.com:

United States Government jobs have long been considered among the most secure jobs available. Government employees’ jobs are protected by strict protocols, which means greater job security. So, once you get in, and if you do your job well, you’re pretty much there to stay.

Or from the general manager of careerbuilder.com’s government services group:

While today’s corporate jobs are more subject to downsizing, job security is one of the most noteworthy advantages of government employment. Though the government is known for its strict hierarchal structure and strict guidelines/procedures, these protocols protect your job from elimination. Thus, government jobs offer the luxury of planning for the future.

It seems logical that government jobs would be more secure than jobs in the corporate sector, but does evidence bear this out?

I’ve had corporate jobs that were on the safe side (as long as you did a reasonably good job), and I’ve had government sector jobs (uni) that weren’t all that safe (because governments are always under pressure to cut the education budget).

I’m wondering what information you’re working off of. Unless this post is intended to be a ‘rile-em-up’. Leech rhetoric and all.

I think the protective inertia you wrote of is present in all of us to some degree. We all have the ability to act out of love and faith, or out of fear. Fear leads to inertia and paranoia. Faith leads to learning and growth, even when mistakes are made. I have experienced both of these in my own life.

But I digress; let me tie this back into your post. Government has the guns, makes the rules, and controls the purse strings (all subject to the approval of the people, of course). Therefore when individuals in government act out of fear and self-protection, they have some backing, and tend to be able to survive and sometimes even thrive in the short-term despite the inertia. Individuals or businesses in society and private enterprise don’t exhibit this phenomenon because they rise and fall, ebb and flow, on their own merits.

On a side (but related) note, I think one reason the LDS Church leaders have spoken less in recent years about the Constitution and government is because of the heavy need to focus inwardly and change ourselves. I don’t think that changes our duty to uphold liberty and good government, but it may account for some of the general topic shift.

Mayor Thomas is right: electing good leaders is one step

We see what happens to good leaders, the majority don’t like them – like Ron Paul.

Let me put my tinfoil hat on for a second, and the puppetmasters don’t like them either.

But I think your still aiming too high;

But that step cannot be taken until we do our homework and understand what the problem is, and who can provide a good solution.

I think it starts with the people, there are those of us who aren’t spoon fed by the MSM, or who don’t spend hours upon hours in front of the boob tube but a majority do. They suck up everything that is spooned in from either side. Look at how they eat it, “Bomb Iran”, “Gun Restrictions”, etc…

There is no incentive for the government to correct it self, and currently there is no real incentive for the common man to do anything either.

I read a comment somewhere that explained why only students and the youth protest, because they have nothing to loose. Once the fat of America loose enough then you’ll have you incentive and inertia – of course I’m painting a pretty bleak forcast, but until then only the few will voice concern and the majority will still do nothing.