At least with governments you get a representative.
I once had an incident where the receptionist at a DMV office messed up and didn't register me. I had patiently waited for 3 hours before noticing that people who lined up after me started getting called. So when I went up and asked if anything is wrong, the office manager looked something up on her screen and, upon seeing that I'm not registered, smiled and cracked a joke about it with another employee. She then told me I have to go back and take a seat and wait for my number to get called. At this point, I realized something went terribly wrong, and started literally begging to get expedited since I had already waited for more than three hours by then. The office manager's response was to scream at me, telling me that I'm causing disruption, and threatening to remove me with force.
I wonder if there's a way to actually improve the quality of these services?
In the UK the extremely user hostile government services are those for the marginalized; benefits and immigration. But the universal ones have pressure to work effectively.
I'm really curious how this works.
They don't take a picture of you in person for your driver's license? Even the first one? What about the driving tests? Eyesight tests?
What if you want to buy a used car from a stranger, do you hand over the cash and then wait weeks for the registration to change hands by post? How do they prevent title theft if they can't check ID in person?
One of the step to get full license is to take theory test in person at test centre. They check your address and verify ID again at this stage.
We have small driving test centres in most areas. You prebook the slot and turn up. They’re fairly punctual.
You go to your doctor and get a proof of health. Costs around $100.
Typically the tests are arranged with your driving instructor as part of the course. Each attempt is also around $100.
When selling a used car, you just give the person the registration certificate when you've received payment. Then you reregister the car on the tax authority Web site.
Driving tests are done in person with an appointment, so no queueing. There's no eyesight or medical tests, but at the start of the driving test the examiner will ask you to read a numberplate from a specific distance (20 meters?)
The registration transfer system used to be done on the basis of a "log book", which then became a piece of paper with an authentication hologram, but now it is of course online: https://www.gov.uk/checks-when-buying-a-used-car / https://motorway.co.uk/guides/v5c-the-ultimate-guide-to-the-...
> How do they prevent title theft if they can't check ID in person?
I'm not really sure what this means or how to translate it to the UK system? You might be at risk if someone managed to forge a V5 for a car they had stolen?
...if you live in a republic. Bonus points if it's a democratic republic; then your representative will actually listen to you... if you can outbid the competition and get said representative elected via advertising money.
At least with a corporation, they can't impose arbitrary fines on you and lock you in a concrete box if you don't pay said fines... unless the government says they can.
> ...if you live in a republic.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom doesn't actually exist? That explains a lot about Brexit.
Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void.
This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered.
So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory.
If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
If she so wished, given she is the font of all law in the country, she could close down Parliament and sack her advisors - there is no legal mechanism to stop her, except the practical consequences of doing so.
The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK and the monarch just can't decide anything. Even if they did, the House of Commons would still exist.
Yes, the Lords may only delay bills for up to a year and the Commons has the right to reintroduce the bill in the next session and pass it without the consent of the Lords under the Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949 respectively).
At least with corporations you get a choice, short of emigrating. Google is one of the most dominant corporations in the world, yet there are multiple alternatives to most of their services.
Some states don't even have charter schools, can you believe that?? They only have one choice for schooling from grade K-12
This is complete BS. Private schools have always existed, and still do. On top of that, homeschooling is legal.
That wouldn't be paying for it twice... it would be paying for it like 1.1 times because of the large number of house holds that have no children in public school and still pay taxes.
:)
Case in point: 300 people killed by Boeing and 100 people dead in the fire in Grenfell tower in UK.
On the contrary, a representative might amend/revere the situation, for example by changing the law.
How do we make it an apples to apples comparison? For example,today, 2 million people a year die from air pollution, who is to blame for those deaths?
What about drug cartels, do we count the deaths that occurred in fighting them 'against' government? But if the government did not exist, those deaths would be higher, so do we count 'prevented deaths'? What about tabacco, etc. I dont think a realistic tally can be made.