4 ms·

Excellent article. Now the only question is, what to do about it?. It's depressing that (edit: the book) was published in 1984, and yet the mainstream doesn't s

by arohner 18y ago

Excellent article. Now the only question is, what to do about it?. It's depressing that (edit: the book) was published in 1984, and yet the mainstream doesn't seem to have learned from it.

time_management 18y ago
I missed the date, and honestly thought it had been written recently in response to the 2008 crisis. (Edit: never mind; the blog post was. Apologies for misunderstanding you.)
mattchew 18y ago
You can hope for a popular backlash against big government and associated interest groups. This happens from time to time, and sometimes the interest groups get pushed back somewhat as a result. I think this is unlikely in the U.S. any time soon. Most people are not really outraged (any more) about the trillion+ bailout to Wall Street. Most people would say that we need to funnel even more money into health care and education than we already do--that is how successful those two interest groups are. You can also hope for increased productivity and economic growth. Competent interest groups won't stop trying to shape the system to favor themselves and call it progress, but you can have real progress at the same time. But I doubt there is a real, permanent solution to the basic problem of interest groups getting control over the systems of a society and eventually dragging it down. It is just the way the world works.
dangoldin 18y ago
Yea. I became a big fan of Olson when someone else on this forum brought him up - I never heard of him before then. I've been thinking about the issue and it just seems that the only people who can make a change are the ones who benefit from keeping things the way they are. I think it would be difficult to improve things gradually and you'd need something more urgent - maybe this crisis will lead to that, who knows.
jacoblyles 18y ago
Seastead governments, having fewer barriers on exit for their citizens, will face better incentives to govern for the social good. In more general terms: the interesting suggestions require rethinking how governments are organized, not just passing some suite of legislation in our current democracies. Of course, it may turn out that technological progress generates new wealth faster than government can waste it, and we all turn out alright in the end, just not as well-off as we could have been.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  "Seastead governments, having fewer barriers on exit for their citizens, will face better incentives to govern for the social good." If individuals do not own their own seasteads, barriers to exit may be higher on some seasteads. "Of course, it may turn out that technological progress generates new wealth faster than government can waste it" This has been the case so far in most places. It remains to be seen whether it will continue that way. :)
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    >"If individuals do not own their own seasteads, barriers to exit may be higher on some seasteads." Yes. Patri hopes for modularity, but there is no guarantee that a huge monolithic seastead won't be cheaper and more appealing to potential residents. Still, I am in favor of trying new things. One of them might turn out to be a good idea. Having 95% of the world covered by liberal democracies nearly identical in governing structure does not appeal to me, as I am not sold on the optimality of liberal democracy.
biohacker42 18y ago
Thatcher. I'm only half joking. The sad pattern is that because of special interests, inefficiencies grow to a point where you have something like a revolution. Then there's revolutionary reform and the cycle starts again, I can think of Britain and Sweden off the top of my head. Two states that were big and bloated, slimmed down and then started bloating again.

by arohner 18y ago

Excellent article. Now the only question is, what to do about it?. It's depressing that (edit: the book) was published in 1984, and yet the mainstream doesn't seem to have learned from it.

time_management 18y ago

I missed the date, and honestly thought it had been written recently in response to the 2008 crisis. (Edit: never mind; the blog post was. Apologies for misunderstanding you.)

mattchew 18y ago

You can hope for a popular backlash against big government and associated interest groups. This happens from time to time, and sometimes the interest groups get pushed back somewhat as a result. I think this is unlikely in the U.S. any time soon. Most people are not really outraged (any more) about the trillion+ bailout to Wall Street. Most people would say that we need to funnel even more money into health care and education than we already do--that is how successful those two interest groups are. You can also hope for increased productivity and economic growth. Competent interest groups won't stop trying to shape the system to favor themselves and call it progress, but you can have real progress at the same time. But I doubt there is a real, permanent solution to the basic problem of interest groups getting control over the systems of a society and eventually dragging it down. It is just the way the world works.

dangoldin 18y ago

Yea. I became a big fan of Olson when someone else on this forum brought him up - I never heard of him before then. I've been thinking about the issue and it just seems that the only people who can make a change are the ones who benefit from keeping things the way they are. I think it would be difficult to improve things gradually and you'd need something more urgent - maybe this crisis will lead to that, who knows.

jacoblyles 18y ago

Seastead governments, having fewer barriers on exit for their citizens, will face better incentives to govern for the social good. In more general terms: the interesting suggestions require rethinking how governments are organized, not just passing some suite of legislation in our current democracies. Of course, it may turn out that technological progress generates new wealth faster than government can waste it, and we all turn out alright in the end, just not as well-off as we could have been.

randallsquared 18y ago
"Seastead governments, having fewer barriers on exit for their citizens, will face better incentives to govern for the social good." If individuals do not own their own seasteads, barriers to exit may be higher on some seasteads. "Of course, it may turn out that technological progress generates new wealth faster than government can waste it" This has been the case so far in most places. It remains to be seen whether it will continue that way. :)
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  >"If individuals do not own their own seasteads, barriers to exit may be higher on some seasteads." Yes. Patri hopes for modularity, but there is no guarantee that a huge monolithic seastead won't be cheaper and more appealing to potential residents. Still, I am in favor of trying new things. One of them might turn out to be a good idea. Having 95% of the world covered by liberal democracies nearly identical in governing structure does not appeal to me, as I am not sold on the optimality of liberal democracy.

biohacker42 18y ago

Thatcher. I'm only half joking. The sad pattern is that because of special interests, inefficiencies grow to a point where you have something like a revolution. Then there's revolutionary reform and the cycle starts again, I can think of Britain and Sweden off the top of my head. Two states that were big and bloated, slimmed down and then started bloating again.