| > If there isn't a lot of red tape and strict contracts then it's likely the government will get robbed blind I'm mostly in agreement, but regarding this point: What needs to happen here instead of the strict contracts is that government nurtures good contractors. It's actually not terribly different from nurturing good employees. You need to look for people who do their jobs responsibly, efficiently and properly. If they don't, you try to help them correct course, and if they can't, you let them go. The strict contracts are precisely the problem - they lock everything down, lull you into false security and prevent you from discovering and cutting bad actors quickly. No cure, no pay never pans out, and meanwhile you're bleeding from the opportunity costs. Of course, in order to make this work, you need people with clue on the inside so they can distinguish good work from bad work. I do think you can attract people like this, if you don't prevent them from doing their work by letting the lawyers run the show. |
Strict contracts and the associated strict contracting rules do not exist to prevent the government from getting robbed by evil contractors that government officials are otherwise powerless to constrain, but to prevent the government from being robbed by corrupt government officers, including those at the highest level.
Likewise, strict government employment rules, which exist to prevent those with hiring authority (especially the elected chief executive) from instituting a spoils system with the government payroll.
Your ideas do not seem to address the threat model that the rules they would replace are concerned with.