[ExI] government corruption, was: RE: Social Mobility and Bioconservatism

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 23/02/2009 5.26, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:

> Yes, but the point is corporations aim to maximise profits and bring
> about beneficial effects only incidentally,

I can depend on people doing something selfish. This is how people act 
in the 99% of their time. They don't need to force themselves to act 
selfishly. This imply that the secondary beneficial effects are 
available 99% of the time. They gain directly any time they do their 
selfish acts (like selling me food) and I gain indirectly any time they 
do it.

I can not depend on people doing something selfless, not for the 
majority of their time, not for nothing. And I can suspect that the main 
goals of the people serving in the governments is not less selfish than 
the goals serving in corporations (usually is have a job, earn enough to 
have a family, etc.).

> while government and other
> non-profit organisations have the beneficial effect as their primary
> aim and incidentally may fail due to corruption or inefficiency.

The reality is that corruption (from the tiniest things to the biggest 
one) is an always present threat, because people is wired to do what is 
best for them and not for others. Do you think government's employees 
are always motivated to do the best for the taxpayers? Or for their 
bosses? Or for themselves?

How is a government's employee different from a corporation's employee?
How is the government's bosses are different from a corporation's boss?

 > In
> the final analysis, we should have the system that does the most good,
> not the system that best fits a favoured ideology.

The problem is that you suppose that the system that can do the most 
good is the system that _declare_ to have it as its first aim and not 
the system that have is as a secondary effect.

The statists / socialists / liberals have this insane interests in the 
"declared" goals and totally disregard the "demonstrated" goals, in the 
"declared" effects and not in the "demonstrated" effects.


> That was the
> problem with communism: they refused to change even when it became
> obvious that the population was unhappy and the economy was falling
> further and further behind.

This is because the government / the party know better than private 
people what is good, what is the right way to do things.
You are for freedom or for socialism, there is not in-between; there is 
only socialists with weak stomach that are unable / unwilling to do what 
they believe, but will not stop someone doing it for them.

> I can see the same thing happening with a
> radical pro-free market regime holding on to ideology regardless of
> the effect it has on the people or the economy.

Radical pro free-markets will never ever contest your freedom to freely 
associate with others and live in a communist / socialist / fascist / 
islamic way if violence is banned.

But, if your way of life don't work and make a pauper of you and your 
friends, it is only your problem. It is up to you to change how you live 
and we have no obligation to prevent you to harm yourself.

Mirco