From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 19:27:53 MST
--- Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 06:11:59PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Just as those who wrote the US constitution created
> > the separation of powers to prevent tyranny, we, two
> > and a quarter centuries down the road, might apply the
> > same or a similar principle to slow, stop, and then
> > reverse the heretofor 'uncontrolled' growth of Govt.
>
> Hmm, how does your constitution help you here? Mind you,
> I think your consitution is a wonderful document and
> American constitutionalism a positive thing. But it
> seems mostly tuned to handle external misuses of power,
> not internal bloat.
Actually, the courts were able to handle the bloat problem until the
FDR dynasty threatened them with irrelevancy by packing the court.
Until the packing episode, the courts had struck down every one of his
proposals as unconstitutional bloat. Since that time, there have been
few attempts to redress the problem, since demogogues have redefined
the terms 'interstate commerce' and 'public welfare' to encompass any
socialist flight of fantasy. The bloat is now entrenched with
significant constituencies beyond merely the bureaucratic class.
Nor was FDR the first to do this. His cousin, Teddy, and his
'Progressive' party, along with the muckrakers and socialists like
Sinclair Lewis's propaganda and disinformation, created the first bloat
primarily as a response to a tendency of the industrial revolution to
distort the socio-economic landscape into a more euro-esque vertical
patron/client orientation rather than the horizontal citizen-citizen
relationships typical of the pre-Lincoln era (excepting the slavery
problem).
>
> > If government bureaucracies as currently structured
> > tend to grow overlarge, cannot we look at that
> > structure, find the factors at fault, and propose a
> > restructuring aimed at improving the situation.
>
> Sure. I think the libertarian approach has much to offer
> here. We need some buraucracy for some things, but it is
> risky and has to be kept under control. Public choice
> theory shows some of the economics of this. One way to
> keep it in check is to reduce the incentives of growth,
> to set up funding and organisation so that it is not
> desirable for any office to grow beyond just what is
> needed - ideally it should shrink if it could. Generally
> setting up strong economic constraints on government
> might be very helpful.
I think that a primary means of accomplishing it is through
competition. Multiple departments of education, welfare, etc where
citizens can subscribe to one or the other and the bureaucrats must
compete for clients, and cannot compel participation.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST