(04-28-2010 05:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 02:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The best safeguard of liberty (and thus of human happiness) is to prevent the concentration of power in any institution. While all concentrations should be treated with skepticism, concentration in the hands of government is especially to be feared for several compelling reasons:
- the uniquely powerful tools at its disposal, which give it a unique ability to preserve its own monopolies;
- its abominable track record of inflicting human misery on a mass scale (in the last century alone, one of the dominant demographic facts is state-sponsored murder)*;
- and also because, despite the historical record, there seems to be a continuing stream of apologists who are always ready to make the case that this time, government can be trusted (not least because they typically fancy themselves as among those who would conduct, or at least influence, the governing -- a perennially enticing prospect for the self-proclaimed "smart").

These are sensible concerns, george. Are you fearful that the United States is one of those too-powerful governments that might one day inflict mass human misery and thus should not be trusted, even if elites say it should? Or are you fearful that this may happen not in the United States but in other countries that currently have extremely powerful, centralized governments (e.g., Iran)?

Domestically, the best safeguard of liberty and protection against misery is a federal republic, because (among other reasons) of all forms of government it seems to be the one least susceptible to concentration of power. One of the blessings of being an American is that we have such a government, thanks primarily to the essentially conservative nature of its founding.

Internationally, the best safeguard of liberty and protection against misery would be for the world to be genuine republics. For one thing, free countries do not make war on each other. But as long as there are tyrannies, it is essential that at least a few republics be powerful and willing (though judicious) to use that power -- for the same reason that as long as their are robbers, it is essential to have cops.

Of course, a world of free republics would be far from efficient. For example, if one thinks the most important goal of current government should be to adopt one's preferred policy on a particular topic (whether environmental, economic, or whatever), then the notion of a world of cantankerous republics, each answerable to their own cantankerous polities, is about the worst arrangement you can imagine.

(04-29-2010 05:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-29-2010 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  But I also know lots of government employees who are smart, dedicated, awesome people. I am grateful that they are serving our country.

I don't. You've obviously had better luck than I.

Well, wonder of wonders. I am actually going to come down on BO's side, a little, kinda, sorta. For the last 22 years, I have been in a committed relationship with a high-level bureaucrat, now retired. I have watched her work very hard, and she is very smart. I have also seen others of her coworkers who weren't worth a bucket of warm spit, and the maze of regulations, restrictions, and political correctness she had to traverse were beyond my patience.
BUT - government employees just think differently from people in profit-based enterprises, and in our early years some of the things she would tell me of her work would boggle my capitalistic mind. One example: she was crowing to me about a meeting she had with three other top level bureaucrats for three hours to iron out a difference of opinion - should a letter to be sent out use the word "presumed" or the word "assumed"? She was happy that her view prevailed. To her, it was important that it be done "right" - I would have written the letter in 10 minutes and not worried about the subtle differences. I could only think of the cost to the taxpayers of three hours of 4 GS-14s and higher deciding this majorly important matter. I learned about 15 years ago not to compare the government way of doing things with the business world way of doing the same things.

I guess you've expressed a lot of my frustrations. I've been in and out of both government and private industry throughout my career, and I've attended far more than my share of meetings similar to the one you describe. I've just dealt with too many bureaucrats with egos so overblown that getting their way, no matter how trivial the matter, was far more important than what it cost the taxpayers, or what good or bad results it inflicted on society, for them to get there. I'd much rather deal with people like that in the private sector, where I can always take my business down the street to a competitor, and if enough people do that they will be out on their head, ego and all.

I'm sure it is sometimes ego... but I suspect it is just as often the priorities of the position. In government, the priority is doing things according to the specific rules. When rules conflict or are unclear, meetings must be held... documents must be filed... butts must be covered. There is little room for independent decision making because the bosses really aren't "the bosses". The bosses are the myriad of rules and those who enforce them... often elected or appointed officials elected for a term and "unfirable" short of treason... and decisions must generally be applied across a variety of specific situations.

In a corporation, the process would be much quicker. Authority rests more locally and failure results in firings. You'd prepare a report to your boss on the conflict who might consult with someone and then decide. That decision wouldn't have to be applied equally across every situation. Each case could stand on its own

(04-29-2010 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-29-2010 05:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-29-2010 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  But I also know lots of government employees who are smart, dedicated, awesome people. I am grateful that they are serving our country.

I don't. You've obviously had better luck than I.

Well, wonder of wonders. I am actually going to come down on BO's side, a little, kinda, sorta. For the last 22 years, I have been in a committed relationship with a high-level bureaucrat, now retired. I have watched her work very hard, and she is very smart. I have also seen others of her coworkers who weren't worth a bucket of warm spit, and the maze of regulations, restrictions, and political correctness she had to traverse were beyond my patience.
BUT - government employees just think differently from people in profit-based enterprises, and in our early years some of the things she would tell me of her work would boggle my capitalistic mind. One example: she was crowing to me about a meeting she had with three other top level bureaucrats for three hours to iron out a difference of opinion - should a letter to be sent out use the word "presumed" or the word "assumed"? She was happy that her view prevailed. To her, it was important that it be done "right" - I would have written the letter in 10 minutes and not worried about the subtle differences. I could only think of the cost to the taxpayers of three hours of 4 GS-14s and higher deciding this majorly important matter. I learned about 15 years ago not to compare the government way of doing things with the business world way of doing the same things.

I guess you've expressed a lot of my frustrations. I've been in and out of both government and private industry throughout my career, and I've attended far more than my share of meetings similar to the one you describe. I've just dealt with too many bureaucrats with egos so overblown that getting their way, no matter how trivial the matter, was far more important than what it cost the taxpayers, or what good or bad results it inflicted on society, for them to get there. I'd much rather deal with people like that in the private sector, where I can always take my business down the street to a competitor, and if enough people do that they will be out on their head, ego and all.

I'm sure it is sometimes ego... but I suspect it is just as often the priorities of the position. In government, the priority is doing things according to the specific rules. When rules conflict or are unclear, meetings must be held... documents must be filed... butts must be covered. There is little room for independent decision making because the bosses really aren't "the bosses". The bosses are the myriad of rules and those who enforce them... often elected or appointed officials elected for a term and "unfirable" short of treason... and decisions must generally be applied across a variety of specific situations.

In a corporation, the process would be much quicker. Authority rests more locally and failure results in firings. You'd prepare a report to your boss on the conflict who might consult with someone and then decide. That decision wouldn't have to be applied equally across every situation. Each case could stand on its own

I agree.

You know, watching all the problems overseas caused by the possible National Defaults of Greece, Spain, Portugal, and now the issues with Germany, I have real concerns about what will/can/maybe happen in the US when the State of California strikes bottom and needs the US Government to bail it out.

A State that is "too big to fail" and you know Obama will be more than willing to write Arnold the check..