You and I, and most everyone else we meet, operate in the "entrepreneurial" style of management. We live our lives that way, balancing our budgets, buying what we can afford or facing the consequences when the credit cards come due, and so on. This is something we understand, it is normal.
So ponder this phrase: "The Perverse Incentives of Bureaucracy"
Bureaucratic management does not work that way. Bureaucracy is inherently so different from what you and I understand that bureaucratic actions seem perverse, even insane, from the outside.
The incredible waste cited in this article is an inevitable result of bureaucracy, and it could not be any other way. The one and only way to counteract this is to reduce bureaucracy. Get government out of everything.
I recommend the short and devastating book by Ludwig von Mises, "Bureaucracy", available gratis at Mises.org:
I'm all for choice, but my solution, of which I try to act on everyday would be this. Every individual, on their own accord ought to pragmatically participate as little as possible with involuntary protection rackets. And of course, first and foremost, honor the non-aggression principle, or whatever name you want to give the golden rule.
The protection rackets are just a manifestation of the problem. Can you blame protection rackets on the fact that Netflix users don't want the option to choose where their fees go? It's not that Netflix users are immoral or that they love aggression... it's that they just don't understand the benefit of using their fees to communicate their valuation of the content. That's the root of the problem. Rothbard understood this. He did an excellent job of explaining the problem of not knowing people's valuations. Unfortunately, he got the solution really wrong (abolishing Netflix)... which distracted from his explanation of the problem.
I joined this site because I thought that it was like Reddit but with spending rather than voting. I was wrong. Can we blame the protection rackets? Of course not. It's simply because people don't understand the importance of using their money to communicate their valuation of the content. Obviously we can vote for content that we like. But that's democracy. Just like with protection rackets, democracy is simply a manifestation of people not understanding the importance of valuation.
I should have reread and rephrased my reply before positing. I do not have a formal background in economics, so please forgive me if I use incorrect terminology or if I ever appear to be stand on a crumbling foundation, but I will try my best to understand and be understood. I do not believe there is one solution for this problem or any other that emerges from the convoluted actions of human behavior.
I absolutely agree that people ought to be sending proper market signals to service providers (no matter how benevolent or ruthless the SPs are), just in case they happen to give a shit what their customers (or slaves) think. Luckily it's unlikely Netflix or Steemit will ever train a gun to my chest and demand anything, so I at least have the opportunity to peacefully opt out of their services without fear. I'm not given the option of opting out when it comes to governance; the current occupying forces deny it.
I choose little to no participation in involuntary protection rackets, because of the lack of this choice. I agree that many of societies woes are rooted in the fact that often people do not properly relay important economic information to those they receive (voluntary or involuntary) services from.
Considering just how complex and dangerous the plantation is, I make my decisions concerning it on a case by case basis. And concerning the morality of the matter, when confronted with enslavement, I will choose to opt out as often as I can stand to bear the violence of their reactions.
Again, you're absolutely right that service providers need to be made aware of how their patrons view and value their services by the very dollars they spend, but if I can refuse payment and participation from a violent monopoly altogether, I will do so, and I will find another way to send them just as bold an assessment of value.
Thanks for the fun and thought-provoking commentary, @xerographica!
Yes, people should send proper market signals. But people don't want the opportunity to do so because they don't understand the importance of doing so. If you can help people understand the importance of using their Netflix fees to communicate their valuation of content... then it will be a lot easier for them to understand the importance of using their tax dollars to communicate their valuation of public goods. And once people can choose where their taxes go... if the government trains a gun to your chest and demands something.... then it will be because your neighbors are paying the government to do so. So you would be able to clearly see that the problem isn't the government... it's your neighbors.
Am I certain that your neighbors will be willing to use their taxes to pay the government to point a gun at your chest? If I was, then I would be a socialist. That's what socialism is. It's the assumption of people's valuations. I don't assume people's valuations. I don't assume Netflix users' valuation of content. I would not be willing to bet that horror movies would receive X% of the pie and romantic comedies would receive Y% of the pie and documentaries would receive Z% of the pie. If I can't predict how Netflix users are going to allocate their fees then I certainly can't predict how taxpayers are going to allocate their taxes.
In economic terms... right now we don't know the demand for coercion. We know the demand for donuts, and sneakers, and laptops.... but we don't know the demand for coercion. The demand for coercion is not known.... it is assumed. Again, that's socialism. So far all you know... the actual demand for coercion is vanishingly small. Or it could be pretty large. But in any case, in order to make an informed decision.... you have to have accurate information. And right now you don't have accurate information because people don't understand the importance of accurate value signals.
Maybe, if we put our heads together, we could persuade Steem of the importance of accurate value signals. Once we got the ball rolling... it would be unstoppable. Sooner rather than later... people could choose where their taxes go and we'd see the true demand for coercion.
@xerographica, you're right in saying we live under socialist rule. I'm going to have to leave the discussion for now at this though. My personal choice is to resist taxation, so long as I don't have an immediate, violent threat over my head, and I'm really not interested in top-down solutions for individuals' freedoms. I'm more inclined to put forth energy in the department of evolving hearts and minds beyond the chains of obedience, hence my original stance for abstaining from involvement in protection rackets that do not allow choice of service.
I have not had an experience as such yet but i am only 14 years old so it wont matter because i will have no say in it as my country sucks,it is south africa btw
This is just another result of bureaucracy.
You and I, and most everyone else we meet, operate in the "entrepreneurial" style of management. We live our lives that way, balancing our budgets, buying what we can afford or facing the consequences when the credit cards come due, and so on. This is something we understand, it is normal.
So ponder this phrase: "The Perverse Incentives of Bureaucracy"
Bureaucratic management does not work that way. Bureaucracy is inherently so different from what you and I understand that bureaucratic actions seem perverse, even insane, from the outside.
The incredible waste cited in this article is an inevitable result of bureaucracy, and it could not be any other way. The one and only way to counteract this is to reduce bureaucracy. Get government out of everything.
I recommend the short and devastating book by Ludwig von Mises, "Bureaucracy", available gratis at Mises.org:
https://mises.org/library/bureaucracy
My solution is to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism). What's your solution?
I'm all for choice, but my solution, of which I try to act on everyday would be this. Every individual, on their own accord ought to pragmatically participate as little as possible with involuntary protection rackets. And of course, first and foremost, honor the non-aggression principle, or whatever name you want to give the golden rule.
The protection rackets are just a manifestation of the problem. Can you blame protection rackets on the fact that Netflix users don't want the option to choose where their fees go? It's not that Netflix users are immoral or that they love aggression... it's that they just don't understand the benefit of using their fees to communicate their valuation of the content. That's the root of the problem. Rothbard understood this. He did an excellent job of explaining the problem of not knowing people's valuations. Unfortunately, he got the solution really wrong (abolishing Netflix)... which distracted from his explanation of the problem.
I joined this site because I thought that it was like Reddit but with spending rather than voting. I was wrong. Can we blame the protection rackets? Of course not. It's simply because people don't understand the importance of using their money to communicate their valuation of the content. Obviously we can vote for content that we like. But that's democracy. Just like with protection rackets, democracy is simply a manifestation of people not understanding the importance of valuation.
I should have reread and rephrased my reply before positing. I do not have a formal background in economics, so please forgive me if I use incorrect terminology or if I ever appear to be stand on a crumbling foundation, but I will try my best to understand and be understood. I do not believe there is one solution for this problem or any other that emerges from the convoluted actions of human behavior.
I absolutely agree that people ought to be sending proper market signals to service providers (no matter how benevolent or ruthless the SPs are), just in case they happen to give a shit what their customers (or slaves) think. Luckily it's unlikely Netflix or Steemit will ever train a gun to my chest and demand anything, so I at least have the opportunity to peacefully opt out of their services without fear. I'm not given the option of opting out when it comes to governance; the current occupying forces deny it.
I choose little to no participation in involuntary protection rackets, because of the lack of this choice. I agree that many of societies woes are rooted in the fact that often people do not properly relay important economic information to those they receive (voluntary or involuntary) services from.
Considering just how complex and dangerous the plantation is, I make my decisions concerning it on a case by case basis. And concerning the morality of the matter, when confronted with enslavement, I will choose to opt out as often as I can stand to bear the violence of their reactions.
Again, you're absolutely right that service providers need to be made aware of how their patrons view and value their services by the very dollars they spend, but if I can refuse payment and participation from a violent monopoly altogether, I will do so, and I will find another way to send them just as bold an assessment of value.
Thanks for the fun and thought-provoking commentary, @xerographica!
Yes, people should send proper market signals. But people don't want the opportunity to do so because they don't understand the importance of doing so. If you can help people understand the importance of using their Netflix fees to communicate their valuation of content... then it will be a lot easier for them to understand the importance of using their tax dollars to communicate their valuation of public goods. And once people can choose where their taxes go... if the government trains a gun to your chest and demands something.... then it will be because your neighbors are paying the government to do so. So you would be able to clearly see that the problem isn't the government... it's your neighbors.
Am I certain that your neighbors will be willing to use their taxes to pay the government to point a gun at your chest? If I was, then I would be a socialist. That's what socialism is. It's the assumption of people's valuations. I don't assume people's valuations. I don't assume Netflix users' valuation of content. I would not be willing to bet that horror movies would receive X% of the pie and romantic comedies would receive Y% of the pie and documentaries would receive Z% of the pie. If I can't predict how Netflix users are going to allocate their fees then I certainly can't predict how taxpayers are going to allocate their taxes.
In economic terms... right now we don't know the demand for coercion. We know the demand for donuts, and sneakers, and laptops.... but we don't know the demand for coercion. The demand for coercion is not known.... it is assumed. Again, that's socialism. So far all you know... the actual demand for coercion is vanishingly small. Or it could be pretty large. But in any case, in order to make an informed decision.... you have to have accurate information. And right now you don't have accurate information because people don't understand the importance of accurate value signals.
Maybe, if we put our heads together, we could persuade Steem of the importance of accurate value signals. Once we got the ball rolling... it would be unstoppable. Sooner rather than later... people could choose where their taxes go and we'd see the true demand for coercion.
@xerographica, you're right in saying we live under socialist rule. I'm going to have to leave the discussion for now at this though. My personal choice is to resist taxation, so long as I don't have an immediate, violent threat over my head, and I'm really not interested in top-down solutions for individuals' freedoms. I'm more inclined to put forth energy in the department of evolving hearts and minds beyond the chains of obedience, hence my original stance for abstaining from involvement in protection rackets that do not allow choice of service.
the goddamn military industrial complex again xD
I have not had an experience as such yet but i am only 14 years old so it wont matter because i will have no say in it as my country sucks,it is south africa btw