3 ms·

1) a well-staffed multi-partisan agency entirely dedicated to reviewing policy, with a mandate of removing any policy having a net-detrimental effect on society

1) a well-staffed multi-partisan agency entirely dedicated to reviewing policy, with a mandate of removing any policy having a net-detrimental effect on society. By launching scientific studies of the effects with subpoena power over other agencies, making policy recommendations, and potentially the power to temporarily suspend regulations until reviewed by congress. I know this sounds like a good idea. It almost sounds like a good idea to me. But I don't think it will have the effects that you imagine. Bureaucracies are always understaffed. That's because reality is always more complicated than they can model, so the task of rationalizing things so they can be apportioned, assessed, allotted, regulated or taxed can never end. If you put your plan into practice the immediate effect will be a need for a lot more bureaucrats. Before they just had the real world to worry about; but now, they will have to worry about reality plus an ongoing audit of the regulatory environment. And if they make stupid, unaccountable decisions, as bureaucrats sometimes do, some of them will involve stupidly and unaccountably repealing regulation that was serving a useful purpose. I'd be willing to bet that the problems caused when good law ceases to apply are worse than when bad laws are applied for too long.

baddox 9y ago
I think it is flawed at an even more fundamental level: what does “multi-partisan” mean, and how do you achieve it? It seems like the term was used simply to mean “fair and not favoring any particular political agenda,” but that is a huge hand-wave. Who decides the members of this agency? If we had a good method to establish this fair agency, we could just use that method to establish the entire government. This proposal just pushes the entire problem of governance back one step. I see this a lot in discussions about improving government: proposing some oversight committee to keep the government (which we all agree has flaws and biases) in check. Even the entire idea of checks and balances between branches of government is based on this concept, and is flawed for the same reasons (although that’s a bigger discussion). If you can make the oversight committee fair and efficient and effective, just do that for the whole government!

baddox 9y ago

I think it is flawed at an even more fundamental level: what does “multi-partisan” mean, and how do you achieve it? It seems like the term was used simply to mean “fair and not favoring any particular political agenda,” but that is a huge hand-wave. Who decides the members of this agency? If we had a good method to establish this fair agency, we could just use that method to establish the entire government. This proposal just pushes the entire problem of governance back one step. I see this a lot in discussions about improving government: proposing some oversight committee to keep the government (which we all agree has flaws and biases) in check. Even the entire idea of checks and balances between branches of government is based on this concept, and is flawed for the same reasons (although that’s a bigger discussion). If you can make the oversight committee fair and efficient and effective, just do that for the whole government!