4 ms·

Then let’s fight corruption, let’s fight to spend those budgets on educating our populace and having amazing public services. Let’s stop dithering about taxes a

Then let’s fight corruption, let’s fight to spend those budgets on educating our populace and having amazing public services. Let’s stop dithering about taxes and create a system of government that punishes corruption and is policed by a wholly different institution. It’s ridiculous to expect any institution that polices itself to not fall into corruption over time.

brigandish 3y ago
The only way to fight corruption is to have a small enough government that it can be a) understood b) watched, and c) isn't too powerful. Much like the systems many on HN work with, if you can't keep a good chunk in your head at once and understand what it might be doing on the border with the bit you can't, then it's probably too big or you start having to give trust to others to understand it and handle it for you. If we want voters to be able to watch and meaningfully impact the government then it must be much, much smaller than any current developed nation's government is.
- voidwtf 3y ago
  It has to scale to the population and functions that it serves. I’m not saying the current form(s) of government are doing it right or that they should be as big as they are. I don’t appreciate the simplistic rallying cry of “small government” that I hear all too often as if it’s some panacea. The average person can barely remember longer than a 7 digit number. I don’t expect everybody to understand every part of government at once. Understanding the larger bodies and functions of the branches of government sure. But understanding why the DOT has a purchasing agent, or why the local building department has electricians and structural engineers on staff, that’s beyond far too many people.
  - brigandish 3y ago
    As you point out, that it needs to scale does not mean that it should be exponentially bigger than it was. In fact, economies of scale are supposed to be a thing in the commercial world but, for some reason, they can't occur in government…
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  There is no government small enough to for the average ignoramus to "watch" or understand in any meaningful way and our population and indeed people at large are absolutely shockingly stupid and informed about little beyond their hobbies and professions. Look at for instance medicine. Medicine is vastly too complicated for average folks to "watch" or understand. We don't simplify medicine or appoint more ignorant boobs to decide what drugs are useful in between episodes of survivor we have a professional system which qualifies experts and helps us select individuals who actually know things to produce guidelines, useful decisions, and regulation. There is no difference between that and civil engineering or astronomy. Government isn't merely another discipline it is the coordination of a multitude of disciplines which the electorate are equally incompetent at. A government an idiot who can't follow complex plots on TV shows can understand its functionally incapable of delivering a useful product to allow one to run a 23T GDP country of 338M people and its not a useful goal.
  - brigandish 3y ago
    If we take the bell curve as at least somewhat true then at least half of the population should not be cast as ignoramuses, at least in possibility. Regardless, even if it were only the top 2% that could understand a small enough government in a meaningful way, that would be better than a government too large to be understood by no one in any meaningful way. It is not a black and white situation. I also don't see why experts would be cast out from a smaller government. That, to me, seems like the product of more black and white thinking in pursuit of some fallacious nirvana that can only be used to dismiss the idea that a much smaller government might be better and possible.

brigandish 3y ago

The only way to fight corruption is to have a small enough government that it can be a) understood b) watched, and c) isn't too powerful. Much like the systems many on HN work with, if you can't keep a good chunk in your head at once and understand what it might be doing on the border with the bit you can't, then it's probably too big or you start having to give trust to others to understand it and handle it for you. If we want voters to be able to watch and meaningfully impact the government then it must be much, much smaller than any current developed nation's government is.

voidwtf 3y ago
It has to scale to the population and functions that it serves. I’m not saying the current form(s) of government are doing it right or that they should be as big as they are. I don’t appreciate the simplistic rallying cry of “small government” that I hear all too often as if it’s some panacea. The average person can barely remember longer than a 7 digit number. I don’t expect everybody to understand every part of government at once. Understanding the larger bodies and functions of the branches of government sure. But understanding why the DOT has a purchasing agent, or why the local building department has electricians and structural engineers on staff, that’s beyond far too many people.
- brigandish 3y ago
  As you point out, that it needs to scale does not mean that it should be exponentially bigger than it was. In fact, economies of scale are supposed to be a thing in the commercial world but, for some reason, they can't occur in government…
michaelmrose 3y ago
There is no government small enough to for the average ignoramus to "watch" or understand in any meaningful way and our population and indeed people at large are absolutely shockingly stupid and informed about little beyond their hobbies and professions. Look at for instance medicine. Medicine is vastly too complicated for average folks to "watch" or understand. We don't simplify medicine or appoint more ignorant boobs to decide what drugs are useful in between episodes of survivor we have a professional system which qualifies experts and helps us select individuals who actually know things to produce guidelines, useful decisions, and regulation. There is no difference between that and civil engineering or astronomy. Government isn't merely another discipline it is the coordination of a multitude of disciplines which the electorate are equally incompetent at. A government an idiot who can't follow complex plots on TV shows can understand its functionally incapable of delivering a useful product to allow one to run a 23T GDP country of 338M people and its not a useful goal.
- brigandish 3y ago
  If we take the bell curve as at least somewhat true then at least half of the population should not be cast as ignoramuses, at least in possibility. Regardless, even if it were only the top 2% that could understand a small enough government in a meaningful way, that would be better than a government too large to be understood by no one in any meaningful way. It is not a black and white situation. I also don't see why experts would be cast out from a smaller government. That, to me, seems like the product of more black and white thinking in pursuit of some fallacious nirvana that can only be used to dismiss the idea that a much smaller government might be better and possible.