Thoughts On Efficiency
Darwin writes in an email:
It’s funny to me that you totally distrust government to do anything effectively, but trust the individuals in the governement to tell the truth and not be bribed way more than I do, whereas I think politicians lie and take bribes and get influenced by lobbyists all the time, but I still trust the government as a tool for positive change. I wonder why that is.
You are much more skeptical of people than I am. That’s why you want government. To assuage your skepticism.
In regards to expressing its coercion I want the government to be effective otherwise the more ineffective the better. However I would be more inclined to use the word inefficient when characterizing governments. Efficient political systems use the state’s monopoly on coercion to kill lots of people. Mao, Hitler, Stalin are the 20th centuries greatest hits and they all had efficient governments. My iconoclastic personality pretty much guarantees my death in an efficient government.
Our inefficient government is precisely why I don’t worry about things like bribes. Surely bribes might influence legislation in the short term, but over the long period if their truly is no political support for the legislation there is no way that legislation will persist. But you see that’s the key. Without popular support legislation can’t survive. I think you, among most people have tendency to ignore the political support of legislation you deem as bad so you think that legislation has passed simply because of ‘bribes’. It turns out many people were in favor of that legislation you just don’t actively look for those that disagree with your view so your not aware of them.
I would like to note, that in general I favor policies that make government more inefficient.
-
I give broad support to the second amendment. This helps to redistribute the power to the citizens making government more inefficient.
I oppose finance reform when that reforms most obvious outcome is to help protect those already in office. By making it more difficult to stay in office, the more inefficient government becomes.
The constitutional rights should be equally applied to all individuals. Certain groups enjoy efficiencies by having the state silence certain kinds of criticism. This facilities the expression of their viewpoint over others.
In all three points you have argued against these things. You support gun control. You support the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform. You support the 9th circuit protecting homosexuals from Christian criticism. The most damming of the three is the first one. You willingly give the government more efficient means to flex its coercive power just to reduce gun violence. Perceived problems like homosexuals need defense from Christians, guns can kill people, corporations care only about their share holders, rich people don’t need all their wealth, poor people need to be given infrastructure and lobbyists corrupt legislators are met with demands of making government more efficient to manage these problems.
One contemporary example of a more efficient government is Venezuela. For the sake of the poor common man, Chavez is one political figure who has embraced the notion of making government more efficient. He has taken over the private oil companies to make sure evil corporate profits are returned to the people instead of channeled into the pockets of rich fat cats. To protect free speech he has granted extra rights to his political party by shutting down news stations that are critical of his parties’ policies. He has indicated the elimination of term limits to insure he has enough time to implement all the policies needed to help the poor.
I have no doubt that once a critical mass in efficiency is obtained Chavez will begin the wholesale slaughter of dissenting citizens. An efficient government is inherently untrustworthy.
Personally, I like my government inefficient. The harder it is for politicians to force their will, the less likely I’ve been murdered.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
God I love it when you mischaracterize your opponent’s position. It’s like winning an argument while talking to yourself.
“I give broad support to the second amendment. This helps to redistribute the power to the citizens making government more inefficient. ”
Every time we’ve talked about gun control, I’ve said that the only argument that comes anywhere close to making me change my posiion is the argument that citizens need to be armed against their government, but that in the end I don’t think handguns are much us against F-47’s and Bradley tanks. I only get fired up in the gun-control arguments when you claim that everyone having a gun will make people safer in day-to-day life (against criminals etc).
“I oppose finance reform when that reforms most obvious outcome is to help protect those already in office. By making it more difficult to stay in office, the more inefficient government becomes.”
Are you on crack? The current corrupt campaign-financing system is one of the biggest factors allowing those in office to stay there forever. It’s way easier to get contributions and aid from corporations if you’re curently able to pass legislation that helps them make money, than if you’re just promising to do it sometime in the future if you somehow manage to win the election.
“The constitutional rights should be equally applied to all individuals. Certain groups enjoy efficiencies by having the state silence certain kinds of criticism. This facilities the expression of their viewpoint over others… You support the 9th circuit protecting homosexuals from Christian criticism”
If there were a highschool where 90% of the student body was gay and there had been fights breaking out between gay students and straight-rights actvists and then a gay kid wore a shirt that said ‘Kill the Heteros’, I’d say that shirt should be removed as well. I think that being able to attend your mandatory public schooling without fear of being injured or killed IS a right that should “be equally applied to all individuals.”
I think you’re confusing governmental efficiency with governmental power and a lack of checks and balances. Yes it’s true that using the military against your citizens often leads to high efficiency, but that doesn’t mean that the only way to obtain efficiency is to use the military against your citizens. Maybe this is why you’re less outraged than I am when the executive and military branches try to infringe on our liberrties and circumvent constitutional checks and balances: I want an efficient government that follows it’s own laws, and you’re not afraid of anything the government does as long as it does it poorly.
Honestly I think the difference between our positions is that you have great faith in our system to produce net positive results over the long haul, and you don’t care that much about specific local problems. You don’t care that much about a few gay kids feeling threatened or being beaten in school, you don’t care that much about a few kids accidentally shooting themselves with their parent’s guns; you don’t care taht much about a few corrupt officilas taking campaign contributions in exchange for passing laws that hurt their constituents. It seems like you feel that we have a really good system that will do good over time, and all-in-all it’s not worth the risk of upsetting that in order to help a few people or fix a few injustices.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Sorry for mischaracterizing your position.
1. Do you support gun control?
2. Do you support the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform?
3. Do you support giving extra rights to minority groups as a means to protect them?.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:38 am
1. Yes.
2. I haven’t read the bill.
3. No.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:54 am
1. Exactly
2. Please read this and answer the question.
3. I would say your answer to 3 is contradictory with this passage:
“If there were a highschool where 90% of the student body was gay and there had been fights breaking out between gay students and straight-rights actvists and then a gay kid wore a shirt that said ‘Kill the Heteros’, I’d say that shirt should be removed as well. I think that being able to attend your mandatory public schooling without fear of being injured or killed IS a right that should “be equally applied to all individuals.”
I can guarantee im wrong.