Bureaucracy: how NOT to solve problems

      We live in a very imperfect world.  Ever since the first humans walked on this planet, mankind has been subjected to all manner of challenges and problems to overcome.  It started with finding adequate food, shelter, clothing, and fighting off man-eating beasts.  Today it has evolved into ensuring that our streets are safe, our doctors are competent, our internet is fast, and countless other day-to-day concerns and issues.  Face it:  life is tough.

      Nobody likes to deal with all these myriad problems every day of our lives, so we try to solve them.  But how?  Today's essay will address some good ways, and some not-so-good ways, to solve problems.
      Let's start with a random problem that can surely cause major grief:  

      Tainted food. 

      So here we have a for-profit food vendor.  It could be a restaurant, a food producer, a retailer, or anyone in the chain from the farmer on down.  Something goes wrong somewhere, and now the food is not adequately pure, or some nasty bug gets into it, whatever.  People consume it and get sick.  Clearly, we have a problem that must be fixed!
      The current problem-solving process goes something like this:  The government inspectors and agents get called into action.  They do their research and conduct their interviews.  Eventually, someone in the food chain gets cited, penalized, or fined.  Or the politicians and bureaucrats get involved and pass some more laws and rules and regulations.  Or all of the above, most likely.
      Here is another example of a major problem:  a car, train, or plane crash.  Something goes wrong, and the cars collide, or the train runs off the track, or the plane falls out of the sky, and people die.  This is another problem that must be solved!  So the government inspectors, agents, inspectors, bureaucrats, and politicians get busy, and eventually we end up with more laws and rules and regulations, and with it, more fines and penalties and prosecution.

     Over time, the laws and rules and regulations pile up.  To enforce said rules and regulations, the government must hire more agents and inspectors and administrators and managers and deputies and lots and lots of other people just to keep up.   It's called bureaucracy, and it ain't cheap.  And you, dear taxpayer, pay out the butt for it.

      Is there was some point in time where it all balances out?  If, at some future date, will we create so many deep and comprehensive rules and regulations so that we essentially create a society where every conceivable problem in life has been pre-solved?  If yes, then Ok, this might be a viable and preferable strategy. 
      But of course, that is just not the case.  We're no closer to a problem-free society than we were when our ancestors were fighting off man-eating beasts.  (It was probably easier to fight off a man-eating beast than an over-zealous bureaucrat.)
      So why does the bureaucracy exist?  The argument goes something like this:  Businesses that, for example, provide food, build cars, run trains, or fly airplanes are ONLY in it for the profit.  If their actions kill people, so what?  So long as the money rolls in!  Government agents, on the other hand, are not motivated by profit, and so they can focus on protecting the Common Good. 
      This pro-bureaucracy argument is totally bogus and flawed from the get-go.  To explain why, let us consider the following two individuals:
      Person "A" is a businessman.  Let's say he/she owns and runs a food production company.  His very livelihood depends on convincing the public that their product is safe and wholesome. 
      Person "B" is a government bureaucrat.  Let's say he/she works for the FDA (Food & Drug Administration).  His livelihood depends on the convincing the public that tainted food is a perpetual and continuously potential problem. 
      If "A" does indeed produce a healthy, wholesome product, then he makes more profit; but if the problem of tainted food goes away, then "B" has a difficult time justifying his job.  On the other hand, if problems DO arise, then "B" can justify increasing his staff and budget, writing more rules and regulations, and even get a promotion.  The bureaucrat's ultimate goal has more to do with acquiring POWER than being some unsung, altruistic hero.
      Which of the two Persons above truly has an INCENTIVE to actually prevent and solve problems?  "A" clearly comes out ahead by producing a quality product.  But for "B", it's just the opposite, because a lack of the problem would dampen his career advancement, if not end it completely.

      Bureaucracy, dear reader, is not an effective way to solve life's problems.  It's just another manifestation of the false notion that government is somehow better, smarter, more honest, and more perfect than us ordinary folk.  Reality check:  government is not a deity.