Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The non-interference society; judgement in haste?
Message-ID: <1069@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 17:46:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1069
Posted: Wed Aug 22 17:46:21 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 18:51:41 EDT
References: <179@looking.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 52

From Brad Templeton
====
        1) Governments are not managed appropriately.  Unlike companies,
           which are managed for personal profit, Government officials
           strive for personal POWER.  Now I trust far more somebody who
           is out to trade for my money than somebody who is out for power
           over me.

           If you don't know that this is the goal of the politician, in
           almost pure and simple terms, you've never been inside politics.
====
1)(a) Not all governments are mismanaged.  The "management" provided
by a government depends not so much on its politicians as on its
Civil Service.  Under Pearson, Canada had a fine Civil Service. More
recently, it has been overmanaged and overcontrolled and underpaid
so that the people whose motivation is other than service to the
country (and there are people with that as their primary motive) tend
to leave public service.  With a Civil Service demoralized from within
by overregulation, and from without by unfair sniping, it is no
surprise that we now have a mismanaging government.

(b) The power motivation of politicians is GOOD, not bad, because it
provides a different set of ethical objectives to the private money
motive or the businessmen.  Add to that the sincere public service
motive of many politicians and public servants, and you have great
possibilities for cooperative benefits.

===========
2) [MMT numbering]
It's my impression that if anything, governments are MORE shortsighted than
individuals.  Individual freedom promotes individuality.  Both for what is
good and for what is bad.  If we outlaw the physical crimes, the good
easily outweighs the bad.  There's enough evidence to say it's worth a try,
at the very least.
===========
Yes, governments don't want to do things that interfere with their
chances at the next election, and still less do they want to do something
that will lead to good times after the opposition wins the next election.
That argument comes down heavily on the side of minimal government
involvement in affairs.  But it isn't a sufficient argument when
balanced against all the other factors mentioned in other notes.

I don't think you can say individual freedom hasn't been given a try,
or isn't being now.  There are all sorts of unnecessary and annoying
regulations and stupid paperwork (part of the result of the demoralization
of the Civil Service), but basically you can do more or less what you
want, possibly more than you could in a totally "free" society.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt