size of government and the competence of government

[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.

[InvisibleJim]

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.

I think you can only get productivity out of the non-productive with a transparent policy of carrots and sticks.

[Jimbean]

@hkkmr

I think you are looking at government as a hypothetical system, rather than looking at the historical nature of government.

I think this leads to the next question of what direction of approach and political philosophy is either correct or optimal.

[mu4]

@hkkmr

I think you are looking at government as a hypothetical system, rather than looking at the historical nature of government.

I think this leads to the next question of what direction of approach and political philosophy is either correct or optimal.

The historical nature of government is that it arises in some form and collapses in some form. There is no ideal or hypothetical, it either lives or it dies in the environment that it exists in. Governments are just social organism that live, achieves what it achieves and dies, no more no less. Correct and optimal is something for the historians to decide, and they generally don't agree on.

By even having the pretense to "correct" and "optimal" you're the one dealing in hypothetical. As a scientist, I deal in approximations, probability, measurement and analysis, beyond that I don't know what's correct and optimal, that's a shifting target.

[Jimbean]

The historical nature of government is that it arises in some form and collapses in some form. There is no ideal or hypothetical, it either lives or it dies in the environment that it exists in. Governments are just social organism that live, achieves what it achieves and dies, no more no less. Correct and optimal is something for the historians to decide, and they generally don't agree on.

By even having the pretense to "correct" and "optimal" you're the one dealing in hypothetical. As a scientist, I deal in approximations, probability, measurement and analysis, beyond that I don't know what's correct and optimal, that's a shifting target.

If you are not talking about hypothetical or optimization, then what are talking about? I was talking about what governments generally do, and that is they get too big, become inefficient, and a burden on the productive class of citizens.