4 ms·
Interestingly Frank Herbert wrote about the hidden value of slow and measured bureaucratic processes. His essential argument was that a slow bureaucracy has tim
by moshun 2y ago
Interestingly Frank Herbert wrote about the hidden value of slow and measured bureaucratic processes. His essential argument was that a slow bureaucracy has time to review not just the letter of laws and policies, but the impact that they will have after enacted which may not be part of the conversation to get them passed. The story he writes on this is borderline satirical with a government agent called a saboteur, whose sole job is to slow down and muck up an incredibly efficient future government which is able to pass laws which have sweeping impact across the nation in hours, and in some cases seconds.
While most of us corporate drones often laugh at the speed of government, considering the lightning fast decision-making often made in the world’s top companies, that book always made me think about the fact that government operations often have far more riding on them than any private enterprise ever will. So maybe that time is being spent more effectively than you assume.
Personally, this whole scenario makes me very wary. Though I understand the complexities of the infrastructure we’re discussing here, I’d be super nervous to have my Internet lifeline to the rest of the world governed directly by Elon Musk.
- bpodgursky 2y agoOK but they aren't deliberating. They're just delaying implementation until April for no particular reason.
- radu_floricica 2y agoThat's an argument for a small government. Private entities are both much faster than current governments, and more careful with their money. And when they fail, you basically get free infrastructure (as part of the bankruptcy process) instead of a black hole in which public money keeps getting sunk. Reading the rest of the comments in this thread it seems like the original decision was at the very least sane: you need major investment in telecom infrastructure, and to facilitate this the government offered a monopoly to incentivize said investment. Makes sense, at face value. Problem is that technology advanced, and now a centralized solution is worse than the state of the art (Starlink). So instead of the infrastructure provider living or dying on merit, you have regulations sustaining it artificially, and no incentive to have them upgrade or become more efficient.
- watwut 2y agoCountry with no or failing public school or no or failing public Healthcare looks just like a failed state. And about none of them has overall good conditions, except for the richest.
- derbOac 2y agoI'm not sure private entities are more careful with their money. More importantly, it's their money, it doesn't necessarily flow back to the public. The danger is in monopoly. Then you're left with no choice and also no vote. At least with public infrastructure you have a vote. The situation in the Falklands sounds like a mess, and I'm not faulting anyone for using Starlink in those circumstances. But I suspect if the island becomes dependent on Starlink they will find themselves with other problems later. These private-public arguments are misguided IMHO because the real issue is choice versus monopoly. Public services provide choice to those who might not have it otherwise, and give a nonmonetary mechanism for feedback. But they can become monopolies as well. Private services can provide options but when they become monopolies you have no options for feedback other than to withdraw from the service, which sometimes isn't a real option. Also, the moneys aren't necessarily redistributed back to the community, which can be an opportunity cost.