tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post5553075264741951608..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: The left has no theory of the behavior of the government?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-26068687487498535652018-09-26T10:08:50.338+00:002018-09-26T10:08:50.338+00:00> What major leftist type party or organisation...> What major leftist type party or organisation doesn't, clearly, support and take the view that the problem of agency needs to be dealt with?<br /><br />I can't think of a single one that does. Perhaps you could provide a link to the manifesto or other such doc of one that does?<br /><br />> Agency problems are really important to all the great free market thinkers<br /><br />Yes, indeed. But the left isn't notable for it's support of free markets, quite the reverse, and AFAIK there are no leftist "great" FMTs.<br /><br />> that 'public choice' was a government-specific theory with strong implications<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />> that it is essentially adopted only on the right<br /><br />Sort of. "only on the right" I think is correct, but not (as repeatedly said) universally on the right.<br /><br />> and that not having a government-specific theory was therefore a problem of blindness on the left<br /><br />No, I didn't say that. I said that the left didn't have a theory of govt behaviour (in fact I didn't even say that. I said that others had said that, and asked if anyone could provide counter examples. So far, everyone has failed to do so). I did not say that the left's theory had to be specific to govt.<br /><br />> You did require that the leftist theory you demanded had to be government-specifi<br /><br />No.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-4399095789506221082018-09-26T09:42:42.773+00:002018-09-26T09:42:42.773+00:00Turn that around. What major leftist type party or...Turn that around. What major leftist type party or organisation doesn't, clearly, support and take the view that the problem of agency needs to be dealt with? It's the leftist type parties and organisations that forced the Australian commission of enquiry into banking, insurance and superannuation, after all: a commission which has demonstrated that the major regulators have been captured by the big banks, insurers and for-profit superannuation funds; a commission which has demonstrated that conservative governments have been particularly active in giving public cover for that misconduct. <br /><br />Agency problems are really important to all the great free market thinkers. That's why, for many of them, limited liability was strongly rejected. Agency problems are really important to all the great progressive thinkers too. And views range pretty widely.<br /><br />The problem of agency is implicit in policy recommendations by left, right, and ambidextrous parties and organisations. There's no reason why a particular version of or view on this should be labelled 'left'. And there are good reasons why people with a range of views of this kind would not see any particular value in a government-specific, and government-denying, fudge like 'public choice'.<br /><br />Your post - interesting, as always! - claimed that 'public choice' was a government-specific theory with strong implications; that it is essentially adopted only on the right; and that not having a government-specific theory was therefore a problem of blindness on the left. That is a non-sequitur and led several comments above to challenge the 'small government' conclusion you think follows from 'public choice' theory. Those comments seemed to me to dispute the attempt of 'public choice' arguments to confine their effect to government and governmental bodies.<br /><br />You did require that the leftist theory you demanded had to be government-specific, implicitly and expressly, until you considered my argument to the contrary. That's what you were doing above, in comments like your 'Marxist, but no one says what it is' point. You did want to see rejection of the government-specific as if it were a contention that 'the left doesn't need a theory of government' and that this would be self evidently a failure to meet a necessary step in thinking about government and government action.<br /><br />I don't think your post survives acknowledgment that 'public choice' can be answered from wider perspectives, not only by a correspondingly narrow government-specific theory.<br /><br />Chrishodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-76907870316351324052018-09-26T08:55:24.959+00:002018-09-26T08:55:24.959+00:00I don't agree with your view on PC, but doubt ...I don't agree with your view on PC, but doubt I can convince you otherwise, so won't try.<br /><br />Your theory of govt behaviour, then, is the agency problem. That is acceptable; there was no requirement that the theory had to be govt-specific.<br /><br />But what you've failed to do is show that this theory is held by any of "the left". You appear to believ it yourself, though I'm not sure you've accepted the obvious consequences. But do you think that any major leftist type parties or organisations espouse it, in relation to govt behaviour?William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-83553036777886149252018-09-26T08:44:24.755+00:002018-09-26T08:44:24.755+00:00My answer was that a demand for a theory specific ...My answer was that a demand for a theory specific to government is twisted, like a demand for a theory of military action by the USA (or, for me, Australia) only. There is no demand for, or need for, a 'government specific' theory. The 'public choice' idea is just a label for pretending that somehow a familiar, general problem only applies, or applies in a unique way, to government. You think the left needs a theory of government, and not having one is obviously wrong. I think well established theories of agency, applied to government as to other representative situations, apply - and they are the theories applicable to government. You only need a government-specific theory because you want to treat government as radically separate from every other human activity. I don't.<br /><br />Nor do I caricature 'public choice'. I don't need to: it is a caricature of argument, and devoid of serious analysis or study.<br />Chrishodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-84002028223371003272018-09-26T06:31:32.088+00:002018-09-26T06:31:32.088+00:00OK, so you don't like (your caricature of) PC;...OK, so you don't like (your caricature of) PC; many on the left don't. But the question wasn't "do you like PC" the question was "do the left have a theory of govt behaviour". Your answer appears to be that the left doesn't need a theory of govt, which I think is obviously wrong.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-23822353639942262272018-09-26T05:14:31.395+00:002018-09-26T05:14:31.395+00:00Asking what the 'left' theory of governmen...Asking what the 'left' theory of government is, is like asking for any other theory blind to generality and blind to reality.<br /><br />The real theory, of which 'public choice' theory is an unsavoury strait-jacketed mess, is the theory of - the problem of - agency. In all situations where people have to serve others as well as themselves, there will be a conflict between looking after their own immediate interests and looking after the wider interest. The problem of agency has a really big literature and a lot of real analysis of what actually happens in particular situations, and of how to minimise the problem and maximise the service of wider purposes.<br /><br />There's nothing in 'public choice' theory that goes beyond the problem of agency. There's a lot left out: most obviously, that the problem of agency applies to office bearers (in corporations, in trusts, in agencies, in government) and to employees (even in unincorporated employment). But the purpose of 'public choice' theory is to elide the difference between the real, and obviously true, observation that all agents may pursue personal interests contrary to their wider obligations, and the (anti-governmental and empirically false) contention that in governmental work no-one actually serves any wider obligations and all purported service of wider purposes is merely a mask for self-service. <br /><br />Even in its limited anti-government function, 'public choice' theory is incoherent rubbish. The very argument that government action is wholly captured by sectional interests treats people as perfectly able to look after those sectional interests rather than their personal interests. At that point the whole edifice turns out to be an illusion.<br /><br />In the real world, most people have to cope with the problem of capture and diversion of effort across all sorts of activity. Most people have to work out strategies for minimising problems and getting better outcomes, alike for employment, incorporation, and administrative agency. <br /><br />So the question whether 'leftists' or others unpersuaded by the views of the Mont Pelerinistas have 'a theory of the behaviour of government' is simply question-begging. Most people don't need a theory confined to government alone and pretending to have no application to other areas of representation, agency or service. Indeed, no people need such a theory; only propagandists put one forward.Chrishodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-85319575489722397772018-09-24T18:28:54.879+00:002018-09-24T18:28:54.879+00:00> can you point to any major (or failing that, ...> can you point to any major (or failing that, minor) "left" political party arguing for it?<br /><br />Nope. Parties genuinely in favor of small government are few and far between and they are typically centrist. Usually, the small govt people work across parties or outside of parties.<br />The small govt perspective is even more marginalized among leftist parties because many small government leftists are hostile to elections to begin with.<br /><br />> That isn't obvious to me. I think that "size of the govt" isn't even considered.<br />> I missed that. Which "old leftist ideas" are you thinking of?<br />> Again, I don't understand. Warren's proposal for "corporate charters" or whatever can't be amended into anything that doesn't increase govt.<br /><br />Since you seem interested, let's talk Warren instead of carbon.<br /><br />The article states that "At a time of low levels of public trust in institutions, Warren’s proposals don’t ask anyone to have faith that government officials are going to make good use of resources."<br />It also makes much of how Warren's proposals are an alternative to social programs, wouldn't cost anything and so forth. All this evidences if not a genuine concern about the size of the govt, at least a concern about how small govt people will perceive the proposals... which would of course only be common sense for a national-level US politician.<br /><br />You've apparently missed the main point of Warren's proposals which is to make US corporate governance more like Germany's through codetermination which is an old reformist approach to redistribute power from both capitalists and government officials to workers. A successful implementation would naturally shrink social as well as law enforcement spending and would open the way to abolishing or shrinking business regulations and regulatory offices.<br />The pitfall is of course that it might actually end up redistributing power to trade union officials and suchlike. Warren apparently intends to leverage codetermination to reduce collusion between capitalists and politicans (something else which would shrink government) but according to my quick read the article has nothing to say about collusion between politicians and union officials or indeed about union politics in general would be quite the blindspot if one was seriously entertaining codetermination.<br />The burdensome charters could be dumped in favor of straight codetermination (which Warren's proposals seem to shy away from) or possibly a board composition more in line with the stated objectives of the charters (that is, inclusive of customer and community reps).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-56177323460467888552018-09-24T16:05:18.560+00:002018-09-24T16:05:18.560+00:00> only that many are
I'm still not convinc...> only that many are<br /><br />I'm still not convinced. You might know some individuals, but can you point to any major (or failing that, minor) "left" political party arguing for it?<br /><br />> these proposals reflect a concern about the size of the government<br /><br />That isn't obvious to me. I think that "size of the govt" isn't even considered. They have other objectives, and that they would increase govt size and reach is not considered a problem.<br /><br />> they incorportate old leftist ideas which might actually shrink governments if<br /><br />I missed that. Which "old leftist ideas" are you thinking of?<br /><br />> amending them into leaner and more sensible versions<br /><br />Again, I don't understand. Warren's proposal for "corporate charters" or whatever can't be amended into anything that doesn't increase govt.<br /><br />> carbon taxes<br /><br />Yes; see other comments here.<br /><br />> At what percentage<br /><br />I'm not terribly interested in that, because it isn't an important question, IMO. We're so far away from what I'd think sensible that there's no need to try to set a line, just a direction of travel.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-21662895106324120682018-09-24T15:48:49.740+00:002018-09-24T15:48:49.740+00:00What is small and what is big? What is right-sized...What is small and what is big? What is right-sized?<br /><br />At what percentage of GDP does 'normal' government go from small to right-sized to big?<br /><br />Or is percentage of GDP an incorrect metric? If so, what should be used?<br /><br />I would recommend looking at other benchmarks and noticing what government costs are as a percentage of GDP.<br /><br />For example, look at the high rankers in the Global Happiness Index and note what the percentage of GDP they are paying to government. Or countries scoring best on longevity.<br /><br />It's something that could be done in half an hour. Wish I had half an hour...Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-3937809281757394732018-09-24T13:23:51.208+00:002018-09-24T13:23:51.208+00:00I didn't say most leftists are keen on small g...I didn't say most leftists are keen on small govt, only that many are. I realize I don't speak for all leftists. Obviously many moderate left-wingers are in favor of various boondoggles while many in the far left are in favor of authoritarian regimes. But these people do not represent the left as a whole anymore than I do.<br />I don't want to be convincing. I realize I can't argue you out of your beliefs. All I can do is to volunteer information and perhaps answer your questions. What you do with that is your buisness. If you don't change your mind, that's fine my me.<br /><br />You've linked to articles about a couple of reform proposals I'm not familiar with. For the sake of the argument, I'll assume the reporting is accurate. These proposals show that influential leftists within both Labour and the Democratic party (parties I'm glad to say I have nothing whatsoever to do with) do not shy away from proposals that would enlarge the governments of the USA and the UK. I don't think anybody disputes that.<br />At the same time, these proposals reflect a concern about the size of the government. In particular, they incorportate old leftist ideas which might actually shrink governments if they weren't mixed in with new taxes, new government departments and such. So I would rather try to reason people who back these proposals into amending them into leaner and more sensible versions than to attack their underlying principles.<br />Instead of going into the specifics of proposals I assume neither of us cares much about, perhaps we could use the matter of carbon taxes as an example. I'm in favor of a simple tax the proceeds of which would either be handed back to taxpayers or replace taxes such as the VAT which pointlessly repress formal economic activity. I've occasionally argued with leftists about this so I realize many of us would prefer to fund renewable subsides and suchlike. Some of us even like tax hikes in principle because they do not trust the average taxpayers with their money. I on the other hand do not trust either governments or the renewable industry to police themselves and prevent grossly inefficient outcomes. So I disagree with many leftists about government and its role in society. Yet we all agree with the principle of a carbon tax. And what makes us leftists instead of right-wingers who happen to recognize the need for a carbon tax is that we also agree on most of the other core leftist issues... none of which has much to do with the size of the government. People have on occasion taken me for a right-winger but a more substantial discussion disabused them. Likewise, academic political questionnaires put me very far to the left of the political spectrum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-62991238406731707722018-09-24T08:25:53.467+00:002018-09-24T08:25:53.467+00:00> Like many leftists, I'm in favor of minim...> Like many leftists, I'm in favor of minimising government<br /><br />I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on that if you want to be convincing. With stuff like https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-23/labour-would-force-u-k-companies-to-hand-10-of-equity-to-staff (or the USANian version https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations) floating around, it's hard to see leftists as keen on small govt.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-77453497499481818782018-09-24T06:59:05.697+00:002018-09-24T06:59:05.697+00:00PCT as you described it seems commonsensical. I ha...PCT as you described it seems commonsensical. I have no objections to the bare bones you laid out.<br />Like many leftists, I'm in favor of minimising government. The main difference between my politics and your probably has to do with what exactly we call government as well as how one might go about minimising it. Hint: I don't subscribe to classical liberal notions such as natural law.<br />Since I don't even know if this comment is going to be accepted by your software or for that matter whether you have any interest in my opinion, please forgive me for not elaborating further at this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-71970078867796836472018-09-23T06:18:18.914+00:002018-09-23T06:18:18.914+00:00The Right seems to have done a better job of reali...The Right seems to have done a better job of realising the importance of interpreting the law. That isn't particularly PC, that goes back to Hobbes. Why now? It isn't "now"; it's a trend that's been going on for decades. the conventional explanation I read is that actually making law is increasingly gridlocked, so to "get things done" people turn to the courts.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-9888673636702393042018-09-23T00:56:17.673+00:002018-09-23T00:56:17.673+00:00How does PCT apply itself to the notion of those o...How does PCT apply itself to the notion of those on the (mostly) right (over here they are usually called Republicans) who are now stacking the SCOTUS and the lower courts with windnuts of their own ilk? Moreso, it would currently appear than in the past.<br /><br />"so long as the identification of the individual with the group does not extend to the point of making all individual utility functions identical"<br /><br />How Trump (the Rump Chump) is shifting the most important courts in the country<br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/trump-federal-judges/?utm_term=.1fce7c8f7160<br /><br />Sorry for the WaPo link.<br /><br />BTW, is PCT truly a right sided ideology or some such? Teh wiki appears to be mostly from a NPOV AFAIK.<br /><br />"The middle has a deeply flawed theory of government behaviours?"<br /><br />Better title.<br />Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-73046687667987046502018-09-22T18:19:51.598+00:002018-09-22T18:19:51.598+00:00> feature, not a flaw
I didn't say anythin...> feature, not a flaw<br /><br />I didn't say anything to suggest it was a flaw. Indeed, it is almost definitional. In Olde Englande for example the Barons were allowed to use force, but arguably that was equivalent to the state being fractured. But it is always a good thing to remember, and another argument for minimalism: you want as few people with as few reasons to have the right to be violent towards you as possible.<br /><br />I don't know anything about why Blogger blocks logins. Wordpress is often weird.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-21387614175883052482018-09-22T17:40:25.394+00:002018-09-22T17:40:25.394+00:00@-WC
"monopoly of the legitimate use of physi...@-WC<br />"monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force"<br /><br />That is a feature, not a flaw.<br />Consider the governments that try to enforce a monopoly on the legitimate ownership of the best present means of exercising physical force, guns.<br />They tend to have a good deal less physical force or fatal violence than those that don't.<br /><br />izen (blogger is blocking posting with my izen login??)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-55353931309196828782018-09-22T16:22:33.302+00:002018-09-22T16:22:33.302+00:00> multiple party game theory
It might be a the...> multiple party game theory<br /><br />It might be a theory of govt, but at the moment it isn't any group's, as far as I can see.<br /><br />> The title of this post should be<br /><br />You're welcome to make such suggestions, but it would be reasonable to offer at least a tentative suggestion as to what such a flaw might be. Also, as I've said before, you should not assume that a majority of the "right" have even heard of PC.<br /><br />> https://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/publications/behavioural-government/<br /><br />Appears to be using the string of words in a different sense; for example: "Applying these insights to create ‘behavioural public policy’ means governments adopt a more realistic view of human behaviour than they have done in the past. Previously, many policies have been developed and executed with an expectation that people would respond to them after carefully weighing up the relevant pros and cons...". They are thinking there of tuning their policies to interact better with the behaviour of the oiks; that's rather different. I'm guessing the WAPO one is the same, but I'm out of free articles there. Ditto the next few; alas, one of the problems of Google searches; Google doesn't have the required subtlety of understanding.<br /><br />The first cite does go further though: "Take the optimism bias mentioned above. The UK National Audit Office has often criticised the ‘endemic overoptimism which characterizes decisions to commit to [government] projects and the subsequent management of them’". The idea that govts (or any other institutions) could make better decisions by being aware of these problems is without a doubt true. But the advice there is all rather in the technocratic mold and ignores the (IMO more important) PC insights. So it's all very well to talk about unconscious biases and so on, but somewhat vapid if you ignore the far more important conscious but not owned up to biases. Unless you understand why the current morass exists, you can't change it.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-78917776332761822592018-09-22T15:35:24.362+00:002018-09-22T15:35:24.362+00:00Which came first, the behaviour or the government?...Which came first, the behaviour or the government?<br />Google behaviour of the government (no quotes)<br /><br />https://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/publications/behavioural-government/<br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/11/governments-are-trying-to-nudge-us-into-better-behavior-is-it-working/?utm_term=.c6f9e08a6bc0<br />https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/why-government-nudges-motivate-good-behavior-by-citizens<br />https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/campaigns/behavioural-change/<br />https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2011/apr/20/government-can-change-peoples-behaviour<br />Government control of individual behavior--its right and its proper role: the first annual Rosenhaus Lecture. (1974)<br />https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1775590/pdf/amjph00804-0094.pdf<br />(really nice list there, the Google search list, that is, above from the 1st seven hits, I beleve, but I've got better things to do at this rather late stage in my life)<br /><br />I have no opinion or knowledge on the left's or the right's or the middle's "so called" theory of government behaviour. <br /><br />Are governments flawed and/or are individuals flawed?<br /><br />The title of this post should be ... <br /><br />"The right has a flawed theory of the behaviour of the government?"<br />(i. e. a statement and not a question but with a question mark at the end, as that is the Stoat's style?)<br />Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-39868557109994481532018-09-22T06:46:43.020+00:002018-09-22T06:46:43.020+00:00I have recently read descriptions of articles on t...I have recently read descriptions of articles on the behavior of various social mammals, including humans. The experiments or just observations indicate a willingness to give up some private or individual gain in order to maintain group cohesion. One paper dared to mention that repeated trials appeared to move towards Nash equilibrium. <br /><br />So surely multiple party game theory with repeated games and variable coalitions is a theory of the behavior of government. Far more inclusive than PC, the problem is that it is too complex to be very predictive; far better to just study political history. David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914145623997712113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-62724369914634019942018-09-22T06:24:26.482+00:002018-09-22T06:24:26.482+00:00An application of Arrow's Theorem:
Dr. Arrow,...An application of Arrow's Theorem:<br /><br />Dr. Arrow, in his 1951 thesis, listed 5 criteria required for a fair election. I'll call an election system meeting all 5 Arrow fair. He proved that only a single binary choice is Arrow fair. <br /><br />In Washington state the election system consists of a primary followed by a general election. Anybody can file to run in the primary. The two contenders receiving the most votes then stand for the general election; this is independent of political party. <br /><br />Since the general election is a binary choice, it is Arrow fair. But the primary is multiple choice, so not Arrow fair. Therefore the entire two part election system is not Arrow fair. <br /><br />So be it. It has nothing to do with leftish or rightish tendencies or so-called theories of government. David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914145623997712113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-28035276098253982142018-09-21T12:42:23.748+00:002018-09-21T12:42:23.748+00:00"Yes, but they didn't go away. Venezuela ..."Yes, but they didn't go away. Venezuela is still there, the corrupt dictatorship still oppressing the people; were it a corp, it would be gone by now. Similarly, Zimbabwe needed a coup to get rid of Mugabe; and how much of the actual govt is still there?<br />"<br /><br />Oh yeah, I did say in that post, that I saw that it was an issue that they were still there... Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-38226656515035157662018-09-21T12:39:13.829+00:002018-09-21T12:39:13.829+00:00The only thing that protects people from the viole...<br />The only thing that protects people from the violence of other organisations is Govt. So we have a pact with the devil with Govt. No one has said they cant go bad. but at least we have some semblance of control... In Democracies... I think everyone would agree that Autocracies have too much power. We need to seek a happy medium, too powerful and they can be violent at a whim, and not powerful enough and they allow violence to be applied by other organisations. So it's a balancing act.<br /><br />And when you restrict Govt power, it doesn't necessarily mean the people get that power - most of the time that power goes to the wealthy. Which is why the wealthy promote the idea that the Govt is the issue, so they can get that power back and become wealthier.<br /><br /><br />"But perhaps you aren't interested in Brexit, or Trump, or the general unhappiness with govt nowadays. "<br />I have always been unhappy with Govt - I don't see these days as especially disappointing... I think there are a lot of stupid people in power that I wish weren't. But there's not much I can do from Australia about that... But I also don't think that living under a corporate power would be better. I work in private industry - I would hate my Country to be run like that.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-63058672801367108582018-09-21T09:06:08.431+00:002018-09-21T09:06:08.431+00:00> Venezuela and Zimbabwe
Yes, but they didn...> Venezuela and Zimbabwe<br /><br />Yes, but they didn't go away. Venezuela is still there, the corrupt dictatorship still oppressing the people; were it a corp, it would be gone by now. Similarly, Zimbabwe needed a coup to get rid of Mugabe; and how much of the actual govt is still there?<br /><br />> What is this "administrative state"?<br /><br />Really? A genuine question I guess. But perhaps you aren't interested in Brexit, or Trump, or the general unhappiness with govt nowadays. There's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Administrative_State" rel="nofollow">a wiki page about it</a>, but that's just about the book. You want the para beginning "Dr. Michael Greve...". Similar to <a rel="nofollow">Deep State</a>.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-32532655102526647482018-09-21T08:54:52.148+00:002018-09-21T08:54:52.148+00:00"You didn't really think that I was asser..."You didn't really think that I was asserting that only govts ever do anything violent, did you? "<br /><br />Well, I thought the point you were making was irrelevant. As the counter example I provided. Regulation is quite poor in some areas and that leads to violence by business on people (look at the Australian examples I provided).<br /><br />I guess part of the issue is that we're lumping all Govts together. For example the way the Australian and English Govts operate would be different to Govt in China or Venezuela or North Korea... <br /><br />I think this discussion is just a bit vague because it isn't defined; can there be a theory of Govt that encompasses the North Korean, New Zealand, and Swiss models? I don't know... I guess we can start we the idea that generally they act in their own self-interest. But is that really interesting? All organisations will act generally in their own self-interest. <br /><br />What is this "administrative state"? And why can't we sack it? The bureaucracy? <br /><br />Govts have gone bankrupt.... USSR. I suppose Venezuela and Zimbabwe.. Maybe Greece. Weimar Republic? I think there'd be quite few examples. I guess the issue is that some continue despite going bankrupt... Generally that's more related to being an autocracy I would think.<br /><br />Perhaps the differences between all Govts around the world relates more to the degree of self interest, so NK, Ven, Zim, and US all rate very high in the self-interest stakes. Hard to quantify, though<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-69706835998210347772018-09-21T08:24:13.112+00:002018-09-21T08:24:13.112+00:00> dispute that
Sorry, I could have been more p...> dispute that<br /><br />Sorry, I could have been more precise. Perhaps "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force"; or throw in a "claims". Reading the linked article would have made this clear (people seem to be curiously reluctant to follow links).<br /><br />> Violence does happen<br /><br />Violence does happen between private individuals too. But the point is that it is contrary to law. I did kinda expect that to be obvious. You didn't really think that I was asserting that only govts ever do anything violent, did you? That would be totally weird.<br /><br />> the benefit of Govt is you can sack them<br /><br />We're drifting ever further from the point, but since you've gone there: actually, the reverse of this is part of the "administrative state" problem: you can't sack it, no matter what you do to the fluff on top. And unlike private enterprise that goes bankrupt if sufficiently incompetent, there is no such constraint on govt.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com