You're on the right track, but you fall for a common error. The issue is almost never competing political parties. The divide is between those who favor big government versus those who would reduce government. For reasons I hope would be obvious, the bureaucrat will tend to support continued or expanded funding and power of his agency.
You're on the right track, but you fall for a common error. The issue is almost never competing political parties. The divide is between those who favor big government versus those who would reduce government. For reasons I hope would be obvious, the bureaucrat will tend to support continued or expanded funding and power of his agency.
In theory, most government positions were given protection against being at the mercy of the executive branch, to reduce the downsides of the patronage or spoils system. But that immunity only protects against political partisanship; it does nothing to address the problems of groups seeking to keep or expand their powers. For example, the problem of regulatory capture by Big Pharma or campaign contributions are independent of political party in power.
Realistically, it may be impossible to completely defend against these various issues, but there are probably ways to minimize it. But as I've pointed out, reform would be the very last thing those in power would ever approve of.
If you think reform is needed you are not understanding the concept. The concept has already been implemented and it did work. In Taiwan. They are able to keep the CCP out of their government using radical transparency ever since the 2014 sunflower revolution. Have you heard of it? Check it out. Think this idea through a little. It is not easy to grasp right away and you are forming surface level arguments. The government isn't involved here barely at all. Just the people. All we need to do is convince the people.
Sunflower revolution starts about 1/3 of the way into this short piece. :
You make some good points but I have a difficult time having a discussion with someone who chooses as a handle "Satan's Doorknob." I mean, really?
I'm having a debate within myself as to whether I should even respond to people on the threads who are so cowardly that they come up with handles to disguise their identifies.
You're on the right track, but you fall for a common error. The issue is almost never competing political parties. The divide is between those who favor big government versus those who would reduce government. For reasons I hope would be obvious, the bureaucrat will tend to support continued or expanded funding and power of his agency.
In theory, most government positions were given protection against being at the mercy of the executive branch, to reduce the downsides of the patronage or spoils system. But that immunity only protects against political partisanship; it does nothing to address the problems of groups seeking to keep or expand their powers. For example, the problem of regulatory capture by Big Pharma or campaign contributions are independent of political party in power.
Realistically, it may be impossible to completely defend against these various issues, but there are probably ways to minimize it. But as I've pointed out, reform would be the very last thing those in power would ever approve of.
If you think reform is needed you are not understanding the concept. The concept has already been implemented and it did work. In Taiwan. They are able to keep the CCP out of their government using radical transparency ever since the 2014 sunflower revolution. Have you heard of it? Check it out. Think this idea through a little. It is not easy to grasp right away and you are forming surface level arguments. The government isn't involved here barely at all. Just the people. All we need to do is convince the people.
Sunflower revolution starts about 1/3 of the way into this short piece. :
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/the-case-for-building-a-new-open
Hey, Rationalist, do you think Satan is going to let this person open their doorknob to be able to read sense?
You are an optimist.
I don’t know who you are Naomi but your sense of humor is vibing with me. Thanks for that.
I'm not sure who the I am either but my real first name is Naomi.
You make some good points but I have a difficult time having a discussion with someone who chooses as a handle "Satan's Doorknob." I mean, really?
I'm having a debate within myself as to whether I should even respond to people on the threads who are so cowardly that they come up with handles to disguise their identifies.
Lol