3 ms·

> A small pedantic nit but I think the word "governor" in systems engineering predates cybernetic systems. Cybernetics & systems design is the distillation of

> A small pedantic nit but I think the word "governor" in systems engineering predates cybernetic systems. Cybernetics & systems design is the distillation of patterns common across various engineering & science domains. It still applies as an apt description. > So from this vantage point, the primary role of government is to facilitate coordination between constituent parts of society? I.e., you don't feel they have a role in terms of a service component? The government has become insanely bloated, full of grifters & opportunists, pseudoscience, revolving door lobbyists, misinformation, & other self-serving interests that have had a detrimental effect on society. Any "service" or "cure" that the government provides is caused by the government in the first place. > Can you give more concrete examples of exactly how this facilitation would be employed? Yes, let humans coordinate their own activities without the income tax & reduce intervention and watch many societal ill including poverty, violence, drug use, & disease decrease. > Because my understanding of many "early" governments is that they were predicated on standing armies, particularly those governments that used them to protect commerce and/or expand their territory. The USA did not have a professional army. Most governments, before conscription & the draft, had a small, if any, professional army. > Medicaid/Medicare, SNAP, etc. and other quality-of-life programs If these programs worked, why are there so many people who depend on these programs in poor health? Why are unhealthy practices, such as the food pyramid, foisted on the public, encouraging obesity? No, large government programs completely miss the mark & merely act as vehicles to create profit for large pharmaceutical, insurance, & tech companies, at the expense to the public. Just because somebody is insured does not mean they are following an optimal lifestyle of health. There are many doctors who dislike the paperwork caused by Obamacare, because paperwork distracts from caring for their patient. The "voting booth", or now mail in voting without ids, is probably the sickest joke. The notion of Democracy, where 51% have tyranny over the losing 49% does not represent most people in the county, as most people do not even vote & the choices are between bad & worse. The only way to escape the madness of this growing government intrusion is to escape to less governed states & nations (currently occurring) & watch the bloated governments collapse under their own weight & greed, while creating systems that work for us, not the top-heavy self-serving technocracy/bureaucracy. The government is going down it's typical autopoetic path & will have a major collapse of some type, probably within this decade. Good luck!

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
briantakita 6y ago
> You are doing the exact hand-waving I’ve specifically requested you avoid “meh... let people sort it out “ is not a sound policy unless you are an anarchist. So I can’t tell if you really don’t have any real insight or are just struggling to communicate them. Without concrete examples or evidence, most of this reads like an Ayn Rand book report. Your problem is you have black & white thinking. Your response my claim that there are broken feedback loops, that taxes are too high, & there is an autopoetic tendency for psychopathy to set into big government systems including mass genocide is "government good", "you must be anarchist". Your religion of statism blinds you to obvious points that I have already clearly stated. It's you who has a comprehension problem due to your religion. You do seem like you have a semblance in your intelligence, despite your sophistry. It's too bad you are blinded to certain obvious realities due to your ideology.
- bumby 6y ago
  You still deflect and refused to answer a number of specific questions. You also continuously err into assuming you know my position. I’m asking questions to try and get clarity into your ideas rather than making those assumptions. Yet, you refuse to answer them and seem more interested in getting on a soap box rather than having an actual dialog. I’ll try to give an actual example so you can see what I mean. You bring up the inability to improve health outcomes with specific government programs. I ask you how you would propose to fix that and your answer is “shrink the government and let people choose.” That’s a superficial sound bite and not a real answer. I was hoping for something like 1) Reduce price controls by reducing Medicare and Medicaid 2) To avoid those left out who would previously have been covered, create a health savings program for each individual 3) Expand the HSA benefits to those gainfully employed to reduce tax burdens 4) Create clear quality metrics to objectively measure various health insurance providers and clear, standardized, transparent guidelines to measure health providers to be eligible This would reduce government to a role of oversight while reducing tax burdens on income. It would also allow individuals to make their own decisions about providers while allow the free market to innovate. It would alleviate some of the information transparency issues. Instead, all you can advocate is: Get rid of government + { hand wave + magic } = better outcomes The latter comes across as a sophomoric understanding of the actual problem. Not unlike your overly simplified model of what you seem to think you can assume about my personal position. You’ve probably had some success in the past your word salad veiling approach without showing much concrete understanding but it’s failed to convince me

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

briantakita 6y ago

> You are doing the exact hand-waving I’ve specifically requested you avoid “meh... let people sort it out “ is not a sound policy unless you are an anarchist. So I can’t tell if you really don’t have any real insight or are just struggling to communicate them. Without concrete examples or evidence, most of this reads like an Ayn Rand book report. Your problem is you have black & white thinking. Your response my claim that there are broken feedback loops, that taxes are too high, & there is an autopoetic tendency for psychopathy to set into big government systems including mass genocide is "government good", "you must be anarchist". Your religion of statism blinds you to obvious points that I have already clearly stated. It's you who has a comprehension problem due to your religion. You do seem like you have a semblance in your intelligence, despite your sophistry. It's too bad you are blinded to certain obvious realities due to your ideology.

bumby 6y ago
You still deflect and refused to answer a number of specific questions. You also continuously err into assuming you know my position. I’m asking questions to try and get clarity into your ideas rather than making those assumptions. Yet, you refuse to answer them and seem more interested in getting on a soap box rather than having an actual dialog. I’ll try to give an actual example so you can see what I mean. You bring up the inability to improve health outcomes with specific government programs. I ask you how you would propose to fix that and your answer is “shrink the government and let people choose.” That’s a superficial sound bite and not a real answer. I was hoping for something like 1) Reduce price controls by reducing Medicare and Medicaid 2) To avoid those left out who would previously have been covered, create a health savings program for each individual 3) Expand the HSA benefits to those gainfully employed to reduce tax burdens 4) Create clear quality metrics to objectively measure various health insurance providers and clear, standardized, transparent guidelines to measure health providers to be eligible This would reduce government to a role of oversight while reducing tax burdens on income. It would also allow individuals to make their own decisions about providers while allow the free market to innovate. It would alleviate some of the information transparency issues. Instead, all you can advocate is: Get rid of government + { hand wave + magic } = better outcomes The latter comes across as a sophomoric understanding of the actual problem. Not unlike your overly simplified model of what you seem to think you can assume about my personal position. You’ve probably had some success in the past your word salad veiling approach without showing much concrete understanding but it’s failed to convince me