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