It's not a mythical argument, and it's not libertarian, it's just a reality.

It's also rather obvious how byzantine most operational aspects of government are:

Ex: The DMV is the entity that would not send me an email or SMS to inform me about specific events at least when I lived in Cali. Even though every other company on planet earth can do that.

Ex: The Government of Ontario issues three different kinds of ID. The 'Health Care' ID cannot be used as valid ID anywhere else, only within health. There are huge bureaucracies dedicated to each form of ID. Why not issue one ID, and all of the agencies can use that? Answer: unions and job protectionism. I personally know the former CEO of 'Services Ontario' - he has no interest in increasing quality of service - there is absolutely zero incentive for him. Moreover - the Unions would make it quite impossible. Why would he even consider automating tasks when it reduces headcount? The union will put up a stink and it could get him fired. Moreover, he loses budget and power. So the incentives are completely upside down for most government agencies.

Ex: The TTC (Toronto Public Transit) pays many of it's staff quite a lot. Toronto really needs Subway extensions, which are massively expensive to the point we can't afford them = yet we are still paying people to collect change - as I mentioned above, some of them earn over $100K.

Ex: try visiting stats Canada right now:

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start

try making sense of that mess - there's tons and tons of data, most of it poorly organized, de-facto unsearchable. Very poorly presented when it is. Moreover - it's 2017 and up until a month ago NONE of the data was available via API (!!!). Just one month ago, they made some of it available. Of course, most of the data is not useful, they're not collecting some of the most relevant information that we need - specifically demographic information by postal code etc..

Can you imagine if Google quality engineers were responsible for the search and presentation of that data?

Ex: the Ontario Police (OPP) made a deal with the government such that they had to be the 'highest paid police' in the Province. So a local village, called 'Shelburne' Ontario, with 2 cops, for some reason of local dispute, decide to pay their 2 guys massively over the regular wage for a cop. Guess what: OPP unions take the government to task for insanely high wages. Meanwhile, there are budget cuts everywhere.

Ex: The Toronto Community housing rakes in $200-400 million dollars a year from city taxpayers - and almost 50% of that is spent on overhead and administration! So $100-100M just on staffing and other things. You do realize if this were a charity, it would be considered 'corrupt'? Moreover, the idea that governments should be building homes? Why are they doing that? If we are interested in having low income people live in specific area (one might ask the question why?) - then why wouldn't we just literally subsidize housing for them? Let them live where they please in that area and they will pay landlords/developer just as any other person. Government managers who so inefficiently spend 50% of their charitable budgets on overhead are somehow going to be able to hire contracts and manage building more efficiently than the private sector? No.

Ex: Parole officers in corrections Canada us FAX MACHINES when individuals need to request their various forms of leave. Why? 'Paper Trail'. So they say (And its not due to signatures). But they can't grasp using email, or some kind of portal for this. Because why should they?

What reason do these agencies have to change? Regular voters cannot really vote on these specific things - mostly we don't know they are happening.

If there is no reason for a system to change - or system incentives are set up to create more workers and less efficiency - well - that's what will happen.

It's all just bureaucracy absurdism.

Governments are needed for regulation, and they might need to operate specific things (i.e. roads, the power lines but not power plants, wireless spectrum, military) and of course Health is always a special case.

Teaching is one of those areas public schools can do well - because it's almost impossible to screw up: put a well educated, decent person in a room in front of a class with teaching plans and books and you have a school. It's not like the school can go 500% over budget. And there aren't really many ways to improve on it, as I don't believe that competitive bonuses actually improve teaching quality that much.

But otherwise, no. It's mostly just a massive form of distribution of surpluses.