From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 02:00:24 MST
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 06:11:59PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Anders' comment
> suggests the problem **starts** with a perceived
> degree of intractability comparable to trying to
> overturn a law of nature. "Bureaucracies/governments
> are thus and so, have always been so, will always be
> so. It cannot be otherwise." But governments,
> constitutions, and laws are constructed by humans, and
> logically subject to modification by those same--or
> later--humans.
Yes, being based on humans there is a potential
flexibility and arbitrariness in their structure. In
principle they could be disbanded by just saying "you
don't exist". But in practice a bureaucracy is almost a
homeostatic entity, where the decisions of its "cells"
(made out of self-interest mixed with varying degrees of
faith in what they are doing is a good thing that should
be done). This makes such structures resist change with
great ingenuity and ferocity.
So while it is physically feasible for the government to
say "you're disbanded!" to an unnecessary piece of flab,
it is usually not politically and administratively
feasible - suddenly lawyers, experts and forgotten
protocols emerge from the woodwork. In your competition
example, just imagine the legal cases that would
suddenly swamp you.
> Just as those who wrote the US constitution created
> the separation of powers to prevent tyranny, we, two
> and a quarter centuries down the road, might apply the
> same or a similar principle to slow, stop, and then
> reverse the heretofor 'uncontrolled' growth of Govt.
Hmm, how does your constitution help you here? Mind you,
I think your consitution is a wonderful document and
American constitutionalism a positive thing. But it
seems mostly tuned to handle external misuses of power,
not internal bloat.
> If government bureaucracies as currently structured
> tend to grow overlarge, cannot we look at that
> structure, find the factors at fault, and propose a
> restructuring aimed at improving the situation.
Sure. I think the libertarian approach has much to offer
here. We need some buraucracy for some things, but it is
risky and has to be kept under control. Public choice
theory shows some of the economics of this. One way to
keep it in check is to reduce the incentives of growth,
to set up funding and organisation so that it is not
desirable for any office to grow beyond just what is
needed - ideally it should shrink if it could. Generally
setting up strong economic constraints on government
might be very helpful.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:52 MST