I always want to ask?
Where did westerners think that 'big' government or 'big' institute concepts come from?
Even the 'God' concept in religion is a 'big thing'.
But Chinese civilization doesn't have a religious concept.
'God' is 'Tao' or 'Enlightenment thinking', which is science.

Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. — mentos987

This may be true or not, depending on the leadership, organization, executive decisions and employee satisfaction. I've known corporate departments (computer programming, from an insider) to be quite inefficient, due to department heads desire for promotion or vested interest or incompetence. And I've known civil servants (as an insider) to be conscientious and dedicated.
As well as the other way around.

Therefore, you can't force governmental positions to follow concrete financial results like you do in the private sector. — mentos987

It's true, government ought to make long-term investments in the welfare of people and in infrastructure. However, this not the case when an administration lives and plans from election to election, and when government officials either or reward patrons with government contracts and executive appointments or outsource functions to the private sector (under the guise of efficiency and economy) In my experience, every time something was privatized, the cost rose while service declined.

Any work that will have its full ramifications shown within a decade can be entirely profit driven. — mentos987

Like nursing homes? and youth rehabilitation?

*sigh!*

not the case when an administration lives and plans from election to election, — Vera Mont

This is one of the bad things that needs counteracting, but that is a separate question.

Like nursing homes? and youth rehabilitation? — Vera Mont

No..
Youth rehabilitation + full ramifications shown within a decade => does not add up.
For nursing homes, the results are faster though.
Both of these also goes into the:

work that is morally difficult to handle — mentos987

since both of these handle people that are vulnerable.

Nursing homes need governmental oversight and youth rehabilitation need it even more.

First off, one thing that no one wrote out but that I assume many of you know is this: Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. Governmental positions are "comfy". This is because that their efficiency isn't directly tied to their continued "survival" as it is in a more profit driven workplace. — mentos987

I thought it was competition that made for efficiency in the private sector.

Competition for profit, yes. The profit is what drives it. You would not care that your rival was doing great if they did not also cut into your profits.

Youth rehabilitation + full ramifications shown within a decade => does not add up. — mentos987

Does to the government officials taking the kickbacks and campaign contributions.

Nursing homes need governmental oversight and youth rehabilitation need it even more. — mentos987

Exactly!! Profit for outsourced services comes out of the budget which comes out of the tax revenue. Profit, therefore, can only be had at the expense of service.

Does to the government officials taking the kickbacks and campaign contributions. — Vera Mont

Well, this isn't about the size of the government.

Profit for outsourced services comes out of the budget which comes out of the tax revenue. Profit, therefore, can only be had at the expense of service. — Vera Mont

I believe this is often the case but efficiency matter too, more than you would think. Public sector work is not as efficient (in general).

At a rough estimate, I'd say that the private sector is about 15% more efficient in all they do, without any reduction in quality of the work. Sadly, they like to be even more efficient, and achieve this through reducing quality.

I believe this is often the case but efficiency matter too, more than you would think. — mentos987

In social services, that usually means low overhead - like fewer salaries, no union, shorter staff training, cheaper safety precautions, food quality, laundry, leisure activities and fast turnover. Not ideal for the client/victims.

Public sector work is not as efficient (in general). — mentos987

If that's your conviction, I won't attempt to change it.

If that's your conviction, I won't attempt to change it. — Vera Mont

I have worked in both sectors.

Did an edit in the last post btw.

I can sum it up like this.

Private work is driven by profit.

Public work lack drive.

The problem I see with that is how differently states have been doing so in various government responsibilities. Some have been less democratic and less concerned with citizen's rights than others. Should they really have more power? How do you organize revenue collection and the funding of services? How do you finance the many, many wars? Can you even keep the union going? (States rights have nearly wrecked it once, and there is a very strong movement to change the constitution.... and of course T***p wants to tear it up and declare himself Chancellor or something.) — Vera Mont

I think you could easily expand on any of the issues you raise here, and even go much further! Concerning the idea that different states do things differently, I think that’s part of the draw. Experimentation rather than over-arching uniformity. This, of course, opens the pandora’s box as to different ideas about what “citizen’s rights” means, since your take (or a “New York” take) may very well be different than mine (or a “Idaho” or "Arkansas" take).

Should we be allowed to explore these differences, or is it winner takes all on concepts like justice, freedom, etc. brought down from on high? The old top-down or bottom-up approach. Trade, war, culture, government administration . . . these would all have to be dramatically re-worked or wholly revised. The potential (and even probable) problems of such an undertaking are clear . . . but whether or not it COULD be done is less clear to me. As for the “should it be done”, well, I think that warrants an investigation into the possible advantages of a successful transition towards such a localized power/authority system of administration.


It seems this may be a bigger topic than we can get to here, so I’m planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit. We could debate whether the nation as is still works, or if it should be a federation at all, but I think my proposed thought experiment would have to neglect these questions to maintain focus. If the experiment is seen through though, in theory, we’ll arrive at a much better starting position for those questions (having established alternative options and their potential viability).


Thanks for the ideas!

Experimentation rather than over-arching uniformity. — Elysium House

It's not experimentation. The far right is in lock-step.

This, of course, opens the pandora’s box as to different ideas about what “citizen’s rights” means, since your take (or a “New York” take) may very well be different than mine (or a “Idaho” or "Arkansas" take). — Elysium House

I'm using my notion of democracy, freedom of speech, equality and individual liberty as a guide.

Should we be allowed to explore these differences, or is it winner takes all on concepts like justice, freedom, etc. brought down from on high? — Elysium House

It's winner takes all in elections, many of which are either rigged or corrupted in many instances, and in the US, badly designed in the first place. Obviously, the second part is a matter of opinion, but the first part is well documented.

It seems this may be a bigger topic than we can get to here, so I’m planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit. — Elysium House

Good idea.

I can sum it up like this.

Private work is driven by profit.

Public work lack drive. — mentos987

I have worked in both sectors, here in Australia, and I have spent significant time working with senior executives in banking and law, along with years spent working in media and some television. And advising government on social policy.

There doesn't appear to be much difference in motivation, wastefulness or competence in both sectors from what I can see. Humans sometimes take short cuts, settle for easy, get things wrong and make lazy choices in both sectors. Public work is often driven by immense scrutiny and rigorous KPI's that make the private sector look tame. Private work is often about friendships and alliances that support sloth and complacency. Overall I think both sectors will suck unless they are overseen by leadership dedicated to transparency and continual improvement.

Public work is often driven by immense scrutiny and rigorous KPI's that make the private sector look tame. Private work is often about friendships and alliances that support sloth and complacency. — Tom Storm

These both sounds like bad workplaces, I don’t have experience of such. For me, both private and public has been fine, but public is more relaxed and private has higher tempo and efficiency.

Overall I think both sectors will suck unless they are overseen by leadership dedicated to transparency and continual improvement. — Tom Storm

This may be the truth to my experience too, hard to tell.

:up: Overall I've had good and bad experiences in both.

So far, nobody wanted to make government smaller - at least in the US.

I definitely wouldn't mind just completely getting rid of the US Senate. Having a chamber based on arbitrary borders where a 2/3rds majority is required to do anything is ridiculous and helping to drive the deterioration of the state.

Then the House is way too big. People don't actually discuss anything in large numbers, they just acts as cliques. People can be smart, mobs are dumb. A lot of damage is done by Representatives who come to Washington to play act as "outsiders," doing nothing but protest antics. When you're one of 435 you don't feel responsible for success. I'd say 18 is about as big as you'd want to go on a deliberative body.

Since you need specialized committees, you need more than 18 legislators, but some sort of tiered system could deal with that.

I might also just clear house and get rid of local law enforcement and make it a state/national affair. It'd be worth it if only to abolish police unions.

Is there a correct size for government to be?
How would you determine the right size? By population? By complexity? By economy? — Vera Mont

I would emphasis the importance of history of a society here, which defines also government culture. Past history is something that has made us what we are now and the political situation in the present.

I understand that the question is only about size. Yet minimal government means simply that there has to be institutions that do take care of the things that somewhere else would be done by the government.

Is the country a tiny nation state or a larger confederation or federation with autonomic regions? Autonomy brings in usually a lot more size, but sometimes this might be a very good thing. If the country is small, then centralization works well. In fact, some tiny places like Monaco can quite easily go with the monarch having a very large role: if the citizens can when in need simply have an audience with the monarch, many of themselves will support the monarchy and be against democratic representation. Why would you need democratic representation, when you can meet the leader yourself if you want and he or she really will listen to you?

More specifically:
What is the minimum function and authority that a national government must have? — Vera Mont

This one is simple: to have recognition from it's peers, other sovereign states.

You, Vera, and your friends can claim to establish a country of your own and hence not have to pay taxes or follow the rules of the country you live in. Yet if "Vera Mont's land" would be recognized by the majority of other sovereign countries, your existence might be a pain in the ass for your former country. Or perhaps not, your independence could be used as an example of just how benevolent your former country was when granting your independence along other states. Obviously "Vera Mont's land" ought to have good relations with the country that surrounds it (or hopefully you live on the seashore).

What is the maximum it should be allowed to have? — Vera Mont

More difficult. Perhaps I'd resort to something like Max Weber and say if the citizens are happy with the control, then it's OK.

What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont

That optimality depends quite a lot of the history of the country, the governance culture, the geostrategic situation of the country. Things like that. Not an easy issue to optimize.

I definitely wouldn't mind just completely getting rid of the US Senate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The way it's set up now, I agree. Having an 'upper' or second house to check the work of the legislature is not necessarily a bad idea: it could point out aspects of a bill that had been overlooked, add safeguards, present long-term consequences that may not have been considered. It could perhaps represent regional interests and vulnerabilities - if it were not rigidly partisan. I can imagine a senate made up of retired government officials, civil servants and jurists who have experience in dealing with the practical fallout from legislation, who could maybe prevent future mistakes.

People can be smart, mobs are dumb. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Amen!

I'd say 18 is about as big as you'd want to go on a deliberative body. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hence committees. But 18 for 332 million is asking rather a lot of each representative. If you have small numbers in legislature, you have hopelessly huge numbers in each constituency. Changing it to a tiered system would mean representatives voting for representatives, etc., so the original voter is altogether lost in respective majority votes. I'd much rather have proportional representation at the constituency level and direct representation of each electoral district.
I'm pretty much okay with 435, or even more, if they each actually represented their district, rather than just the segment of it that - by whatever method - voted for the party that took the prize. Especially when there are only two parties to consider, and candidates get their marching orders from the party leadership rather from the voters.

I might also just clear house and get rid of local law enforcement and make it a state/national affair. It'd be worth it if only to abolish police unions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

On that subject, you could get a long, rather involved argument, but that would be a derailment.

I would emphasis the importance of history of a society here, which defines also government culture. — ssu

Ex-colonies have a different situation from long-established nations. New countries like the US, the Republic of Angola and Argentina can start their history from sort-of-scratch. that is, their past comes from the geography and native peoples of the region, plus the colonial power(s) that have taken control, plus the changes brought about by colonial rule, various conflicts, the means and method of achieving independence. On that palimpsest, whichever faction holds the power at the moment of declaring nationhood can write the prologue for that nation's history. None of those things - not the foregoing forms of government, nor the new constitution and legal code - determine the actual size and scope of the new governing structure.

Yet if "Vera Mont's land" would be recognized by the majority of other sovereign countries, your existence might be a pain in the ass for your former country. — ssu

:rofl: We actually designed and had a flag made. Our home business was called Montland.
I doubt it would have created any problems for Canada, since we did not actually secede and there are very few laws we would have refused to abide by - and three of those have been changed in the meanwhile. (I know it was intended as a hypothetical example; just revelling in the aptness of it.)

Perhaps I'd resort to something like Max Weber and say if the citizens are happy with the control, then it's OK. — ssu

Unfortunately, 'the citizens' of most nations are not all of one mind. They tend to divide into factions, some of which are unhappy with whatever the current arrangement happens to be, and those divisions are far too easy for disruptive or self-interested entities to exploit.

No, it's not an easy issue to resolve!

I can imagine a senate made up of retired government officials, civil servants and jurists who have experience in dealing with the practical fallout from legislation, who could maybe prevent future mistakes.

Yes, this would be a great idea. If you had strong (perhaps legislatively mandated) guilds/associations for each large sector of the economy (e.g. health, agriculture, entertainment, etc.) you could put members into that chamber as well so that it isn't all former government employees.

Any sectoral guilds would need to be subdivided into independent organizations for labor/management (maybe also one for middle management). Then, each sector would send their representatives, which would always be evenly split between labor and management reps (middle management is nice as a tie breaker). Such reps wouldn't be popularly elected, but the labor and MM reps would be elected by millions of workers across a huge swath of the population, so close enough.

But 18 for 332 million is asking rather a lot of each representative. If you have small numbers in legislature, you have hopelessly huge numbers in each constituency.

Maybe, but that's already the case. Right now it's 1:770,000, on average, more like 1:1,000,000 in some places. This precludes anything like the "knowledge of how people feel" that local politicians might get.

A very solid majority of Americans don't even know who their representatives are, and this is true even among those who voted in the prior election. If there weren't so many, people would have a much easier time keeping track of who actually represented them.

Plus larger districts would make Gerrymandering virtually impossible, while also making it far less likely that people who are extremely far away from the national median voter get into office.

To be honest, I don't think there is much value in representatives "representing" their constituents. In practice, they have never actually done this, and it's unclear if it would even be a good thing to have a state run "according to popular opinion." Direct democracy isn't just a bad idea because it would require too many elections.

The big benefit of elections are that they keep leaders accountable. Mess up enough and someone else gets a turn.

I'm less and less convinced that democracy is a good in and of itself. If my hypothetical fantasy nation could look like Denmark, but have its leaders picked by some technocratic processes, or it could look like Ecuador, but have free and fair popular elections, I know which one I'd pick. And which one I'd rather live in too.

Edit: City councilors with ward representation often really do try to "represent" their wards. The results aren't good though. You get bad decision making because people are worried about what is good for the part and not the whole, and it ends up hurting everyone. 9 times out of 10 an at-large-council appointing a professional manager is going to function better than a popularly elected mayor dealing with ward councilors.

Such reps wouldn't be popularly elected, but the labor and MM reps would be elected by millions of workers across a huge swath of the population, so close enough. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Elected by the membership of their respective guilds/occupations? I could go for that idea! Just as justices are selected by their professional organization (in countries not hell-bent on politicizing and monetizing everything they can lay hands on)

To be honest, I don't think there is much value in representatives "representing" their constituents. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Then what should they represents, and why bother having elections at all?

and it's unclear if it would even be a good thing to have a state run "according to popular opinion." Direct democracy isn't just a bad idea because it would require too many elections. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, you're against democracy? Assuming Lord Vetinari is unavailable, what form of governance makes a better alternative?

The big benefit of elections are that they keep leaders accountable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To whom? By what means? Public opinion often turns against an incumbent, not because he's screwed up, but because he hasn't, and they're bored with uneventful governance and can be riled up to demand a change. Meanwhile, some slogans find so much approval among a noisy segment of the population, or an influential media platform, that whoever spouts them keeps getting support, even if he tells transparent lies, obtains large loans by false pretenses, cheats on his taxes, reneges on contracts, throws his friends under buses, stiffs his lawyers, gropes beauty contestants, threatens journalist and jurists, badmouths foreign leaders, betrays allies, intimidates election officials, pardons felons and incites a mob to storm the Capitol.

f my hypothetical fantasy nation could look like Denmark, but have its leaders picked by some technocratic processes — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd prefer a UN of small, tribal/regional units run by AI. But I doubt we can have either.