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

[Stathis Papaioannou]

2009/2/26 painlord2k at libero.it <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.

In general, yes. It is possible for both parties to be satisfied even
though both parties act selfishly.

> 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.).

A communally funded enterprise is there for the benefit of its
members. This is how people feel about a public hospital, for example:
it's ours, we paid for it, and it had better give us good value for
money and good service.

>> 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?

Employees and management are always trying to do the best for
themselves, whether in public or private. The difference between the
two is that the ultimate directive from the shareholders of a
corporation is to make as much money as possible, while the ultimate
directive from the voters is to provide as good a service as possible
for as little outlay as possible. Simplistically, the public service
should be better and more efficient. In practice, the question is
whether the essential laziness and selfishness of employees and
management can be better tamed in the private enterprise than the
public one. Sometimes the answer is "yes", and sometimes the answer is
"no". It depends on the particular service and government we are
talking about.

>> 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.

No, I have stated repeatedly that I am a pragmatist in these matters.
The best system is the system that works the best.

>> 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 this is what the free marketeers have done in many countries with
right wing dictatorships. Their argument goes, people can't be trusted
with democracy because they band together into unions or vote for
socialist policies, perverting the workings of the free market. So the
only way to ensure continuing economic freedom is to do away with
political freedom.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou