Is government truly inefficient?
If we're going to call something "inefficient", we have to define the parameters of the efficiency equation: input divided by output, and we have to compare the efficiency to the efficiency of something else. There is no such thing as "absolute" efficiency in the logical sense; there are only comparisons of relative efficiency.
We have seen time and again that government — even our modern dictatorship of bourgeoisie — can perform activities in objective reality — building roads, bridges, airports for example — using an amount of money and labor time comparable to that of private industry. This is not to say that government building projects are always efficient, but then again neither is private industry always efficient.
Rather than inefficient, it's more accurate to say that government tends to be inflexible. But government inflexibility is by design: The whole reason to have the government do something is to make uniform standards prevail. The building inspector is — by design — not interested in your house being built as inexpensively and quickly as possible; she's interested in making sure it's built safely, according to objective, uniform standards. Uniform standards prevent innovation to some extent, but they also prevent mistakes and corruption. If an inspector cannot make an individual "judgment call" and her work is periodically audited according to objective standards, then she also cannot be bought off and pretend she's judging something to be safe when it's actually not safe.
There are some situations where inflexibility is a good thing; there are some situations where inflexibility is a bad thing. The key is discerning the difference, and putting those activities in government hands where inflexibility and uniformity is beneficial.