In reply to luarvique
My response was too long for the original thread, and I realized that we were speaking from different premeses.



I note that your journal is in Cyrillic, which tells me Russian, Ukranian or something in that region and tradition. You guys have not had a lot of luck in the realm of governance - well, at least not since the Celts were chased westward.

Although I suppose that could also be argued as a reason why y'all still exist. Correlation vs Causation, always a tricky thing.
Bad government comes from people who are making decisions based soley on how government can enrich them - and in some cases so narrowly that they discount the personal costs to them of the implications of making such stupid decisions.

There is nothing inherently unethical in profiting from position - so long as you earn every penny of it. I'm sure you know people who exist and thrive within the system because they understand the system and can be trusted to reliably operate it for their clients.

Consider China. The result of China's experiment with Communism came out exactly as history would suggest, a brief flirtation followed by wholesale rejection. But every single bit that worked has been added into their administration repetoire. China IS their civil service, has been for, what, 2, 3 thousand years? A successful buerocrat is supposed to enrich his family, himself and his nation. In that order. He's JUDGED by his visible success. At least, in some historical periods.

If done honestly, it's not a bad way of evaluating the skill of such an operator. Further, the system itself doesn't strain the honesty or honor of functionaries. That's an important design feature.

What China refers to as Dynasties, other cultures would consider entirely different nations - so the results speak for themselves.

But in China, and in other nations that work, the functionaries behind the scenes; the ones that implement (or fail to implement) political whims and social policies are the ones who define and preserve our various civilizations.

You can learn more about a civilization by going into a government office that deals with routine matters than you can by reading any number of scolarly works written by proponents or opponents.

Is it clean or dingy? Does it work smoothly or well? Do they serve you, or do you have to bribe them to do their job? Are they polite and courtious or rude and arrogant. Are there enough people there to do the work there is, or two few or two many? Is it clear that they understand what the job is, or are they just flipping coins and pretending?

I'm a fan of minimal government, but some things require it, and some aspects of it require judgment calls, which require trained judgement, experience and an understanding of the intent of regulation and to what degree it should flex.

I believe in an irreducable minimum of law is that every single law requires administration and enforcement. The more complex the law, the more of each that it takes; this is expensive, and there are only so many people qualifed to do such work.

Societies that do not understand this tend to not work well. Or really, at all. To the extent they do work, it's in spite of goverenment, not because of it, or because various groups, gangs, families or even revolutionary organizations have sighed, dug down and started to do the job themselves, out of a sense of resigned self-preservation.

I'm not talking at all about the grand scheme of things; I'm talking matters of practical and vital concern; zoning laws, building codes, water supplies, city and regional planning. Deeds, titles, records. Keeping crime down to a dull roar and ensuring the general safety and welfare of citizens. Disease preveention. Resource management. Roads and such, and ensuring that they are maintained so that they don't suddenly fall on taxpayers.

These things are not glamorous, and they are apolitical - they must be done, and done well under any ideology and under any form of government.

Whether it be facism or democracy, the trains must run and run on time, or there is a cascade effect that ends up with a civiliztion at the bottom of the world's totem pole. It simply does not matter what sort of other reforms you have, if those that must implement them are corrupt, incompetant or uneducated.

Good government is expensive, so it's best to have as little of it as possible. That way you can afford the best. And the best should benifit those who pay for it, so the expense should be borne broadly.

Finally, when people interact with it, it should be a good experience, so that they are proud of it and feel they are getting value for their money.

I suggest to you, and to my fellow americans that it's unusual here, and probably there, to come away from a government office feeling like one's tax dollars are well spent. I recall two particularly bad impressions; one at a US consulate in Vancouver, where it was clear that the local security guards were embarrassed to be working in such a dingy, oppressive and UnCanadian environment staffed with such rude, bitter people.

The whole place was designed to intimidate and crush the spirit.

In another case, at the US Canadian border, I was a witness to a fat, rude racist border guard asking an Asian couple who wanted to drive to San Fransico and had some paperwork issue "why they didn't go back where they came from?"

Excuuuse me? And americans wonder why we are disliked. Well, when you pick such people to represent your govenemnt and your civil society, they create a lasting impression, both with citizens and non-citizens.

Create a bad enough impression, and bad things start happening; not due to politics, or idiology; those are simply excuses. It's due to human nature, and the realiztion that there is us, and there is them, and anyone in the government has decided to be "them," not "us."