5 ms·

>But it would be truly pathetic if the legal/economic organisation of our society was optimised for government surveillance and tax collection and not for the e

by Produce 15y ago

>But it would be truly pathetic if the legal/economic organisation of our society was optimised for government surveillance and tax collection and not for the exercise of autonomy in pursuit of a meaningful life. Unfortunately, it already is. Bureaucracy is essentially an approach where the 'server' (government/business/whatever) forces the 'clients' (individuals/employees) to change their behavior for the benefit of the 'server', with no clear benefit for the 'clients'. When considering it in these terms, words like 'oppressive' seem to have some significance. After all, the definition of the word is: >Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. In the case of bureaucracy, the 'burdensome' and, arguably, 'unjust' components of the definition are fitting. Either way, it's inspiring to see these issues finally being discussed in mainstream mediums.

klenwell 15y ago
Author uses the terms government surveillance and tax collection as if they are inherently bad things. There are some things I want the government to watch, at both a local and federal level. And keep in mind Oliver Wendell Holmes's Jr's adage about taxes: they help foot the bill for civilization. As for bureaucracy: it's a burden, but the alternative in many societies is systematic corruption. The author writes: Less obviously, but at least as importantly, we need to eliminate the insane patchwork of regulations that keep folks from legally cutting hair for money in a kitchen, or legally making a few bucks every now and then taxiing people around town in a 1988 Ford Escort. If it's an insane patchwork, perhaps. But if it's a sensible patchwork that helps keep schools funded and slows society for a dispiriting race to the bottom, why the hell would we want to do this?
- jacoblyles 15y ago
  The last paragraph of the article reminds me of recent closures of kids' lemonade stands by government inspectors: http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown-conti http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown-c... There's something perverse about a government that cuts away people's autonomy and forces everyone to rely on its handouts. I'd rather live in a society of free people than a society that can't imagine life without the government telling them what to do. I could do with a little less "civilization" when it comes to closing down a 5 year old girl's lemonade stand because she didn't prepare her pitcher in a kitchen with a 3-basin sink. Regulations aren't made with the good of society in mind. They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition. When you realize this, you will reach political enlightenment.
  - klenwell 15y ago
    I would say that that was a more a case of individuals police officers being pricks. But then again perhaps they were trying to conscientiously apply the same law with which they just harassed an immigrant street vendor on the other side of town. They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition Is "regulatory capture" the latest buzz phrase from Frank Luntz? Powerful business interests are going to try to influence the regulatory process anyway, so let's just let them run amok.
    - jacoblyles 15y ago
      >Is "regulatory capture" the latest buzz phrase from Frank Luntz? Beats me. But you're delusional if you think regulations are created by disinterested people contemplating the public good. We live in a world where Fannie and Freddie debt was regulated as Tier I capital, for goodness sake. We live in a world that requires (black) hair-braiders to pass a 400 hour course on cutting (white) people's hair to open up shop. We live in a world that caps San Francisco taxi cabs at approximately 1% of the number demanded. The evidence demands at least a slightly cynical evaluation of the regulatory state. I don't think I've ever watched Fox News or listened to Limbaugh, by the way, at least not for more than 5 minutes in a waiting room. You can leave the ad hominem at home.
    - dereg 15y ago
      Um, no. It was coined by the late great economist, George Stigler. It comes from the field of economics. What concerns me is your ease in classifying a phrase as a Frank Luntz "buzz word" for the mere reason of disagreeing with it. It shows a deep lack of imagination, no different from those who hold delusional views about George Soros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- Produce 15y ago
  I agree with your point about bureaucracy being necessary when using a hierarchical model for society. This has a basis in our neurochemistry, in particular, Dunbar's number which puts a limit on how many individuals we consider to be people, where everyone else we know are lumped into 'the others' category. The majority of us treat 'the others' considerably worse than our friends, where we are more likely to lie, cheat and steal from them. Bureaucracy is necessary when such large organizations exist since it patches the bug. Unfortunately, as we can see from the results, it's a low quality patch which addresses the effects and not the causes. An obvious solution is to go around the mountain. If such large monolithic structures come with such a burden then why not decentralize and cut them down to a reasonable size that our hardware can better handle? This is, ofcourse, also a patch, which, personally, I think would address the effects more efficiently. To address the root causes, we would either need to modify our neurochemistry or DNA or provide education so that individuals can overcome Dunbar's number.
  - klenwell 15y ago
    And I agree entirely with what you identify as the premises of the problems. Can we decentralize to a level where hierarchy isn't implicit? An abusive father or tyrannical HOA seems a much more real threat for most Americans than an inefficient FDA. While I accept that a lot of the "less government" rhetoric around here, and even among many politicians, is motivated by sincere ideological conviction and a belief in the efficiency of decentralized organizations, the net effect of this ideological surge within the US over the last 30 years has been a redistribution of wealth and privilege that has sharpened the hierarchy.

by Produce 15y ago

klenwell 15y ago

Author uses the terms government surveillance and tax collection as if they are inherently bad things. There are some things I want the government to watch, at both a local and federal level. And keep in mind Oliver Wendell Holmes's Jr's adage about taxes: they help foot the bill for civilization. As for bureaucracy: it's a burden, but the alternative in many societies is systematic corruption. The author writes: Less obviously, but at least as importantly, we need to eliminate the insane patchwork of regulations that keep folks from legally cutting hair for money in a kitchen, or legally making a few bucks every now and then taxiing people around town in a 1988 Ford Escort. If it's an insane patchwork, perhaps. But if it's a sensible patchwork that helps keep schools funded and slows society for a dispiriting race to the bottom, why the hell would we want to do this?

jacoblyles 15y ago
The last paragraph of the article reminds me of recent closures of kids' lemonade stands by government inspectors: http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown-conti http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown-c... There's something perverse about a government that cuts away people's autonomy and forces everyone to rely on its handouts. I'd rather live in a society of free people than a society that can't imagine life without the government telling them what to do. I could do with a little less "civilization" when it comes to closing down a 5 year old girl's lemonade stand because she didn't prepare her pitcher in a kitchen with a 3-basin sink. Regulations aren't made with the good of society in mind. They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition. When you realize this, you will reach political enlightenment.
- klenwell 15y ago
  I would say that that was a more a case of individuals police officers being pricks. But then again perhaps they were trying to conscientiously apply the same law with which they just harassed an immigrant street vendor on the other side of town. They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition Is "regulatory capture" the latest buzz phrase from Frank Luntz? Powerful business interests are going to try to influence the regulatory process anyway, so let's just let them run amok.
  - jacoblyles 15y ago
    >Is "regulatory capture" the latest buzz phrase from Frank Luntz? Beats me. But you're delusional if you think regulations are created by disinterested people contemplating the public good. We live in a world where Fannie and Freddie debt was regulated as Tier I capital, for goodness sake. We live in a world that requires (black) hair-braiders to pass a 400 hour course on cutting (white) people's hair to open up shop. We live in a world that caps San Francisco taxi cabs at approximately 1% of the number demanded. The evidence demands at least a slightly cynical evaluation of the regulatory state. I don't think I've ever watched Fox News or listened to Limbaugh, by the way, at least not for more than 5 minutes in a waiting room. You can leave the ad hominem at home.
  - dereg 15y ago
    Um, no. It was coined by the late great economist, George Stigler. It comes from the field of economics. What concerns me is your ease in classifying a phrase as a Frank Luntz "buzz word" for the mere reason of disagreeing with it. It shows a deep lack of imagination, no different from those who hold delusional views about George Soros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Produce 15y ago
I agree with your point about bureaucracy being necessary when using a hierarchical model for society. This has a basis in our neurochemistry, in particular, Dunbar's number which puts a limit on how many individuals we consider to be people, where everyone else we know are lumped into 'the others' category. The majority of us treat 'the others' considerably worse than our friends, where we are more likely to lie, cheat and steal from them. Bureaucracy is necessary when such large organizations exist since it patches the bug. Unfortunately, as we can see from the results, it's a low quality patch which addresses the effects and not the causes. An obvious solution is to go around the mountain. If such large monolithic structures come with such a burden then why not decentralize and cut them down to a reasonable size that our hardware can better handle? This is, ofcourse, also a patch, which, personally, I think would address the effects more efficiently. To address the root causes, we would either need to modify our neurochemistry or DNA or provide education so that individuals can overcome Dunbar's number.
- klenwell 15y ago
  And I agree entirely with what you identify as the premises of the problems. Can we decentralize to a level where hierarchy isn't implicit? An abusive father or tyrannical HOA seems a much more real threat for most Americans than an inefficient FDA. While I accept that a lot of the "less government" rhetoric around here, and even among many politicians, is motivated by sincere ideological conviction and a belief in the efficiency of decentralized organizations, the net effect of this ideological surge within the US over the last 30 years has been a redistribution of wealth and privilege that has sharpened the hierarchy.