size of government and the competence of government

[mu4]

People are great, systems are horrible and government employees loathe efficiency by nature.

By promoting that a government job is the last thing a upstanding productive citizen will engage in is the worst way to get the right people into government. In societies where it's a stain to enter government, only the incompetent and corrupt will enter government. Successful governments always seem to start off well, people are generally pushed into impossible situations and positions out of necessity, many of the civil servants do their job out of a feeling of community and service rather than greed or laziness. But eventually all the cynicism and lack of urgency push the competent into bartending, business or some other diversion.

Anyways, given the antipathy most people have towards civil service. It might be pragmatic to implement a civil(unarmed) service requirement for people of qualifying age and education. Say at 30-65, 1-2 year service duration. GED or college educated. Given the quality of average civil servants and their job security, it might be nice to get competent individuals at the DMV and put a bit of pressure on existing civil servants. I think the idea of life-long civil servants/government work as a career tends towards inefficiency.

[InvisibleJim]

By promoting that a government job is the last thing a upstanding productive citizen will engage in is the worst way to get the right people into government. In societies where it's a stain to enter government, only the incompetent and corrupt will enter government. Successful governments always seem to start off well, people are generally pushed into impossible situations and positions out of necessity, many of the civil servants do their job out of a feeling of community and service rather than greed or laziness. But eventually all the cynicism and lack of urgency push the competent into bartending, business or some other diversion.

My my, this explains the entirely non-corrupt, highly productive yet simultaneously massive governments in Latin America explicitly!

Congratulations on your hypothesis.

I'll get back to agreeing with Africans... http://www.sap4africa.net/news/price...-oil-discovery

[mu4]

My my, this explains the entirely non-corrupt, highly productive yet simultaneously massive governments in Latin America explicitly!

Congratulations on your hypothesis.

I'll get back to agreeing with Africans... http://www.sap4africa.net/news/price...-oil-discovery

Latin American governments are nothing like this, fundamentally no government has adopted this approach, they've tried by sending youth to the country-side but that's not what I'm proposing. The important thing isn't to push people into civil service, but rather to push some people out of civil service. Think of it as term limits for non-elected bureaucrats. Peaceful civilization doesn't need mandatory military duty, but modern bureaucracies require a involvement of its people within it's bureaucracy.

Anyways, implementation is far more important than any sort of big government, small government naive thinking, technology(and government is technology) is about implementation and execution once design patterns are matured. Regressive fantasy building and hasn't solved civilizations ills in the past and it won't solve it in the future, all civilizations fall, what matters is succession of that civilization, quality of life for the people of a civilization during it's existence and advancements that can be transferred to future civilizations.

Your example is exactly why those people need to be pushed out of government, but due to the fact that most people have no interest in governance. Corrupt individuals take the reins. The key is to make it that once these individuals are pushed out, their replacements can hold them accountable for their crimes. Fundamentally this sort of process cannot occur in a unstable violent society, but only in a stable peaceful democracy, so don't expect it to happen in developing countries anytime soon.

[InvisibleJim]

Latin American governments are nothing like this, fundamentally no government has adopted this approach, they've tried by sending youth to the country-side but that's not what I'm proposing. The important thing isn't to push people into civil service, but rather to push some people out of civil service. Think of it as term limits for non-elected bureaucrats. Peaceful civilization doesn't need mandatory military duty, but modern bureaucracies require a involvement of its people within it's bureaucracy.

Anyways, implementation is far more important than any sort of big government, small government naive thinking, technology(and government is technology) is about implementation and execution once design patterns are matured. Regressive fantasy building and hasn't solved civilizations ills in the past and it won't solve it in the future, all civilizations fall, what matters is succession of that civilization, quality of life for the people of a civilization during it's existence and advancements that can be transferred to future civilizations.

Your example is exactly why those people need to be pushed out of government, but due to the fact that most people have no interest in governance. Corrupt individuals take the reins. The key is to make it that once these individuals are pushed out, their replacements can hold them accountable for their crimes.

... So you believe that by picking random people you will increase the 'competence' of the government ...

Oh hkkmr.

[mu4]

... So you believe that by picking random people you will increase the 'competence' of the government ...

Oh hkkmr.

When did I say "random".

Actually a vast majority of government jobs would be capably filled by any college graduate/working professional, obviously there are also many that can't be easily filled. And it wouldn't be random but based on education level and experience. I'm not proposing any sort of uneducated individual to take high level positions but individuals who have already fulfilled a high level of competency. There are also many other jobs which the government employs which can be filled by menial laborers. Isn't that the whole argument of private enterprise vs public enterprise. That those in private enterprise are more competent? Why not let some of these individuals who are working in the private sector fix the government? Are these individuals supposed to be more competent?

[InvisibleJim]

That those in private enterprise are more competent? Why not let some of these individuals who are working in the private sector fix the government? Are these individuals supposed to be more competent?

Are you really going to 'force' people to work for government and then believe they will act to improve it rather than detest it?

You should read some articles about national service in the Russian military. It's really inspiring when you ask people to do things at gun point or with the threat of law.

The difficulty with Western Government is that it is a job creation vehicle, governments use themselves to pick up the dross that Private Enterprise removes from selection to keep unemployment down.

[mu4]

Are you really going to 'force' people to work for government and then believe they will act to improve it rather than detest it?

You should read some articles about national service in the Russian military. It's really inspiring when you ask people to do things at gun point or with the threat of law.

The difficulty with Western Government is that it is a job creation vehicle, governments use themselves to pick up the dross that Private Enterprise removes from selection to keep unemployment down.

They absolutely shouldn't forced to do it, there are ways of promoting jobs in a constructive fashion. Also it's important an individual can pick what they do for this service. Also it can be rolled into unemployment insurance where when people are laid off they can fulfill some of this time during those periods.

Healthcare benefits can also be rolled into this so that retirement healthcare may not be available for free post-retirement if service is not complete. Nothing should be done at gunpoint or thru force when incentives and choice are applicable. If someone really hates government service they shouldn't have too, but perhaps some government benefits will not be available to these individuals.

If the Western Government wasn't a job creation vehicle, what do you propose to be done with the dross? They will not go away to die quietly, do you put a gun up against their head as well or coerce them with the threat of law. Do you establish ghettos and slums? These were the solutions of the past, and these solutions didn't make the world a better place either.

As far as I'm concerned a concerted effort to increase the average IQ of society by 1 pt would likely have a great effect than any of these grand ideological fantasies people want to promote, but nobody wants to pay for education.

[Jimbean]

Anyways, given the antipathy most people have towards civil service. It might be pragmatic to implement a civil(unarmed) service requirement for people of qualifying age and education. Say at 30-65, 1-2 year service duration. GED or college educated. Given the quality of average civil servants and their job security, it might be nice to get competent individuals at the DMV and put a bit of pressure on existing civil servants. I think the idea of life-long civil servants/government work as a career tends towards inefficiency.

This is a collectivist viewpoint. Since when has forcibly collectivizing people worked efficiently?

[Aquagraph]

This is a collectivist viewpoint. Since when has forcibly collectivizing people worked efficiently?

What's wrong with, say, the Nordic welfare state model? You are American and your culture is less homogeneous than a typical European country and I think your viewpoint is easy to relate if I think it like this. It's more safer to implement molds into populace if that populace isn't that varied.

[mu4]

This is a collectivist viewpoint. Since when has forcibly collectivizing people worked efficiently?

You don't have to exert force to collectivize, there is something called incentives. Not all collectivism is involuntary, democracy is a voluntary collective, but one which a individual may be born into involuntarily. We're all born into this world out of another individual's volition and not our own, does that make our birth somehow forced or wrong? However, the use of force has always been efficient(for some) or at the very least effective. The pyramids were built, the Great Walls, a great number of Empires were built on the backs of slaves, Roman, French, British, America. It is not only out of efficiency that these things were abolished but also out of justice, benevolence, compassion, ethics and morality.

What made this world the one we live in today, where so many people are not subject to the lash, the whims of aristocracy, the brutality of slavery. It is enlightenment, of philosophy, science, ethics, law and the technologies that were brought by this enlightenment, which include democratic forms of government. Naive ideas of good and bad based on size of government is mere sophistry and rhetoric, and do not adequately represent the world we live in and the advancements that have been made in society.

The past does not have a good guide for us to go towards a free and open society, only empire. Some people might even prefer empire but that's a very big government.

My view is that modern democracies are not simply collectives, but semi-autonomous voluntary distributed collectives. This is quite a bit different than totalitarian involuntary centralized collectives.

[Jimbean]

You don't have to exert force to collectivize, there is something called incentives.

It might be pragmatic to implement a civil(unarmed) service requirement for people of qualifying age and education. Say at 30-65, 1-2 year service duration.

I am assuming that you are qualifying people in the private sector as well, since you did not say public. Simply having a public sector is also a form of forced collectivism since people do not choose to pay direct taxes (although in theory we could pay for it in indirect taxes).

[mu4]

I am assuming that you are qualifying people in the private sector as well, since you did not say public. Simply having a public sector is also a form of forced collectivism since people do not choose to pay direct taxes (although in theory we could pay for it in indirect taxes).

People did choose to form a public sector a long time ago and that's that, you might not like it, but that's you. Every decision a individual or a group of individuals make is going to have effects in the future which will not be someone else's choosing. That's just the way it is.

If you dissolved the public sector then you will be forcing people who want a public sector to not have one, and that's forced individualism, which is not necessary better.

[Jimbean]

People did choose to form a public sector a long time ago and that's that, you might not like it, but that's you. Every decision a individual or a group of individuals make is going to have effects in the future which will not be someone else's choosing. That's just the way it is.

This is called a social dilemma. People wanted a large public sector as a result of bad philosophy, that being defining liberty as positive (government/collectivist enabled) rather than negative (the absence of initiated force and fraud).

If you dissolved the public sector then you will be forcing people who want a public sector to not have one...

Actually this would result as an absence of initial force (since individuals would not be robbed in order to give to someone else) and allow people to be responsible for themselves. With the exception of market failures (i.e. providing for goods that the market does not have an incentive to do, such as traffic lights) and providing a protection service for people (as well as the extensions, such as people's property) absence of government allows for economic growth. Given some time, this condition improves the standard of living to everyone, thus reducing the need for charity.

...forced individualism...

I laughed at this.

[mu4]

This is called a social dilemma. People wanted a large public sector as a result of bad philosophy, that being defining liberty as positive (government/collectivist enabled) rather than negative (the absence of initiated force and fraud).

Actually this would result as an absence of initial force (since individuals would not be robbed in order to give to someone else) and allow people to be responsible for themselves. With the exception of market failures (i.e. providing for goods that the market does not have an incentive to do, such as traffic lights) and providing a protection service for people (as well as the extensions, such as people's property) absence of government allows for economic growth. Given some time, this condition improves the standard of living to everyone, thus reducing the need for charity.

I don't know many people who "want large public sectors" for its own sake, that's a straw-man, they want effective governance, freedom, quality of life, size is not a singular concern for many people as it is for you. Even the fact that their sweet-spot for government size is bigger than yours does not mean they want "large" public sector, they just want something larger than yours personal ideas about it. And consequently, people that want small government may not have the competency to implement small government and instead inflate the size of government due to mismanagement. This is largely what happens when people who function only based on ideology get in charge. To me individualism and collectivism aren't meaningful when used as opposing ideological talking points, humans are social animals with identity, which means humans are individuals that form collectives. Many humans want to maintain their identity while being part of a society. How to maintain one's identity and individuality, how to cooperate with others in society are far more important questions than the should or should not. If you don't want to cooperate in society, the system can and often will allow for that especially in modern democracies, however to impose that on the whole of society is not your right or privilege. You may believe certain things strongly, but that neither makes them right or implementable.

I laughed at this.

Why do you laugh at this, ostracization, exile, jail, solitary confinement all isolate the individual from a society. You can also voluntarily choose to leave a society or isolate yourself from society as well. Go join a commune, go live off the land or in the woods, it matters very little to me. However, I do not want to see any such policies implemented as central policy, as that is the form of tyranny. In effect you're advocating the overturning of existing society and forcing everyone to live under one singular philosophical ideal and that being the only way they can live, that is as a definition the face of tyranny. I prefer a society where individuals can debate over the short term management of society based on whatever philosophical ideals they happen to adopt.

Not everyone wants total individualism, not even you, because for you to accomplish your goals, you would need to group with like minded individuals. And that group would come into conflict with other groups which will fight for what they believe in. Winning this political conflict would result in some level of organization, which will seek to perpetuate its existence.

I haven't heard really any policy changes that would really be implementable from you, is sounds like a lot of rhetoric and wishful thinking. Now matter what people do, there will be undesired consequences, and that won't go away.