5 ms·

Fair enough. WW1 spawned things like DORA in the UK, for example. Edit: And WW2 saw another massive increase of the "state", so not sure war does generally shr

Fair enough. WW1 spawned things like DORA in the UK, for example. Edit: And WW2 saw another massive increase of the "state", so not sure war does generally shrink administrative systems.

inglor_cz 4y ago
If you lose the war decisively, you have a chance to rebuild the state from scratch, including the legal system. As a winner, though, you face the task of trying to shrink an administrative system that just won a war.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Obvious examples are Germany and Japan after WW2.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Another interesting point is Switzerland after 1848. They had a very small-scale civil war which made them rethink their political structure. Or the Austrian empire in 1866, which lost a major war against Prussia and was forced to reform itself into a dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Which was somewhat more competitive and liberal than its predecessor and if it avoided other wars, it might in some form survive until today.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Neither Germany or Japan stand out as being societies with minimal bureaucracy and unnecessary/intrusive regulation. Singapore (as a state that had to rebuild considerably after war) is arguably an even more extreme example.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      The point is that any such bureaucracy is recently formed and not a legacy of pre-1945 statutes.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Perhaps but war was posited of a method of "clearing the books" and allowing significant reform. If that were true you'd expect such societies to be less weighed down by bureaucracy than others that had no such opportunity.
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        Clearing of books has no bearing whatsover on subsequent re-writing of them. However if the present legislative burden is excessively oppressive, a war, revolution, or reconstitution might address same. Your argument is a non sequitur.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Germany and Japan have had reputations as being somewhat bureaucractic for decades though, which says to me war had no lasting impact, if any at all. I.e. a very expensive way to achieve nothing.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      They were post-WW2. The German Miracle in particular came about when Germany went full free market as a way to recover from the economy being burned to the ground. This boom lasted until 1970 when the socialists were voted into power, and on came the taxes and hamstringing. The Japanese economy immediately after WW2 was run by American leftist academics, who refused to allow big business to operate. The economy flatlined. Until that was rescinded, and the Japanese free market economic boom began and ran up into the 80s.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        That sounds very much like a conveniently right-wing potted history. I'd be willing to bet the truth is rather more subtle*. Either way, they were both examples of economies that only got off the ground because of massive government spending. (*) a quick read of a wikipedia article about the Japanese economic miracle - which undoubtedly you'll consider leftist propaganda - certainly confirms this. At best relaxing anti-monopoly laws was an example of legislation reform that helped further boost the already impressive recovery that had occurred during the 50s.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Um, where did Germany get "massive government spending"? If you say "the Marshall Plan", look up the MP on wikipedia. Germany did get MP money, but far less than Britain and France did. The latter two did not have a "British Miracle" or "French Miracle".
        wizofaus 4y ago
        I didn't claim the spending was the prime cause of any "miracle", but it's fairly certain it wouldn't have happened without it. France and the UK did have impressive recoveries too, that would have been impossible without the MP etc. FWIW I would actually expect the fact that because the priority at the time was economic recovery before everything else, red tape wasn't allowed to get in the way to the degree it often seems to once prosperity had been restored. I'd even say that's probably a reasonable trade off, though it certainly doesn't justify governments letting growing businesses get away with whatever they feel like. Nobody likes bureaucracy or red tape, but almost always it's what we end up with as a result of repeated cases of corporate behaviour that's widely agreed to be unacceptable.

Fair enough. WW1 spawned things like DORA in the UK, for example. Edit: And WW2 saw another massive increase of the "state", so not sure war does generally shrink administrative systems.

inglor_cz 4y ago

If you lose the war decisively, you have a chance to rebuild the state from scratch, including the legal system. As a winner, though, you face the task of trying to shrink an administrative system that just won a war.

WalterBright 4y ago
Obvious examples are Germany and Japan after WW2.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Another interesting point is Switzerland after 1848. They had a very small-scale civil war which made them rethink their political structure. Or the Austrian empire in 1866, which lost a major war against Prussia and was forced to reform itself into a dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Which was somewhat more competitive and liberal than its predecessor and if it avoided other wars, it might in some form survive until today.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Neither Germany or Japan stand out as being societies with minimal bureaucracy and unnecessary/intrusive regulation. Singapore (as a state that had to rebuild considerably after war) is arguably an even more extreme example.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    The point is that any such bureaucracy is recently formed and not a legacy of pre-1945 statutes.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Perhaps but war was posited of a method of "clearing the books" and allowing significant reform. If that were true you'd expect such societies to be less weighed down by bureaucracy than others that had no such opportunity.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        Clearing of books has no bearing whatsover on subsequent re-writing of them. However if the present legislative burden is excessively oppressive, a war, revolution, or reconstitution might address same. Your argument is a non sequitur.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Germany and Japan have had reputations as being somewhat bureaucractic for decades though, which says to me war had no lasting impact, if any at all. I.e. a very expensive way to achieve nothing.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    They were post-WW2. The German Miracle in particular came about when Germany went full free market as a way to recover from the economy being burned to the ground. This boom lasted until 1970 when the socialists were voted into power, and on came the taxes and hamstringing. The Japanese economy immediately after WW2 was run by American leftist academics, who refused to allow big business to operate. The economy flatlined. Until that was rescinded, and the Japanese free market economic boom began and ran up into the 80s.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      That sounds very much like a conveniently right-wing potted history. I'd be willing to bet the truth is rather more subtle*. Either way, they were both examples of economies that only got off the ground because of massive government spending. (*) a quick read of a wikipedia article about the Japanese economic miracle - which undoubtedly you'll consider leftist propaganda - certainly confirms this. At best relaxing anti-monopoly laws was an example of legislation reform that helped further boost the already impressive recovery that had occurred during the 50s.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Um, where did Germany get "massive government spending"? If you say "the Marshall Plan", look up the MP on wikipedia. Germany did get MP money, but far less than Britain and France did. The latter two did not have a "British Miracle" or "French Miracle".
        wizofaus 4y ago
        I didn't claim the spending was the prime cause of any "miracle", but it's fairly certain it wouldn't have happened without it. France and the UK did have impressive recoveries too, that would have been impossible without the MP etc. FWIW I would actually expect the fact that because the priority at the time was economic recovery before everything else, red tape wasn't allowed to get in the way to the degree it often seems to once prosperity had been restored. I'd even say that's probably a reasonable trade off, though it certainly doesn't justify governments letting growing businesses get away with whatever they feel like. Nobody likes bureaucracy or red tape, but almost always it's what we end up with as a result of repeated cases of corporate behaviour that's widely agreed to be unacceptable.