« Harrassing the unemployed | Main | What consumer problem? »

January 09, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e200e54fc684d78833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The utopia of better government:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

reason

I don't see how the rest of your post justifies the first (grandious) statement.

I believe that evolution works better and more reliability than revolution (even though massive short term intervention may be required because of local maxima). The main reason is that revolution tends to bring with it problems independent of the solution it produces (mainly the nature of the people who ferment it), and also tends to create unreasonable expectations which inhibit future development. (e.g. The US and its holy constitution).

No one pretends that an evolved system is a perfect ideal and so fiddling around the edges to improve it step by step is accepted by all. In that light, I think it is perfectly reasonable to try to improve things. Quibbling about the details is also perfectly reasonable, and part of the solution.

ad

"Could it be that large government organizations perform poorly not because individual ministers lack training, but simply because they are too big?"

I don't think that those explanations are mutually contradictory.

"Almost everyone thinks it is extremists who are utopians whilst centrists and defenders of the existing order are hard-headed and realistic."

Surely some extremists must be wrong. If Leninists are right, then libertarians must be wrong. (Or vice versa.)

reason

Wrong? How do you define that? Extremists just have unique success criteria.

Kevin Carson

As I understand it, successful private organizations are usually subsidized by the government. So for government to be "successful," it has only to cut out the middleman and subsidize its own inefficiency directly from the taxpayers--quite easy. So the government is already quite "successful" by the very same standards as the state-subsidized "private" sector: so long as it has an unlimited line of taxpayer credit and can suppress competition with its "services," it never has to worry about going out of business. Of course, this is probably what the Committee is trying to avoid.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad