Bureaucrats breed more bureaucrats. A system manned by university graduates, with ever higher levels of accreditation, believes that such a type of learning is socially useful. The Mandarin believes his role to be central in society. The state will manage society, and he and his class will manage the state. Other forms of learning are useful, but inferior. Since the Mandarin also controls the state schools, he will wish to gear the whole system to the generation of more like him.
This may seem counterintuitive. Why have more competition? Why not, like the original Mandarins of Imperial China, select only the best and brightest for higher education? Because the modern Mandarin lives in a democratic society. Such obvious selectivity would be damned as elitist. Mass high school and university education has the added benefit of reinforcing the bureaucratic system. This goes beyond the crude propaganda used in the schools, which really works only on those too young to challenge it, but to the very methods being employed.
The academically uninclined, even though still intelligent, youth acquires a grudging admiration for the academically talented. He begins, and the whole system reinforces this notion, that only this type of aptitude truly matters. His own talents, which might be every bit as useful to himself and society as any other, he begins to regard as inferior. Reluctantly, sometimes bitterly, he begins to defer to the “smart kids.” He has been prepared for a society in which the academic student has become the intellectualized bureaucrat. It will be easier for him to defer to the bureaucrat, whom he regards, if only subconsciously, as his superior.
Publius, “The Education Machine”, Gods of the Copybook Headings, 2010-09-02
September 3, 2010
QotD: Another key ingredient to ever-growing bureaucracy
September 2, 2010
Feeling old
Yesterday, I had to go down to the MTO office (“DMV” for our American friends) to renew my driver’s licence and get the 2011 plate sticker for the Quotemobile. It was a pretty ordinary lineup for the middle of the day, with perhaps a dozen people ahead of me. When I got to the wicket, however, the clerk looked to be all of maybe 14. Absolutely the youngest person I’ve ever encountered in a place like that who wasn’t holding hands with mommy or daddy.
He was definitely in the right place: he’d already mastered the bureaucratic mumble, the never-make-eye-contact-with-the-client, and the dull, listless attitude. Other than his age, he looked like he’d been doing the job for decades . . . and hated it.
I felt quite sorry for him.
August 31, 2010
August 27, 2010
Uncertain economic conditions mean weak growth
As I’ve argued before, the economy won’t start to really recover until the political situation stabilizes. In an article from earlier this year, Robert Higgs makes this point very well:
The explosion of the federal government’s size, scope, and power since the middle of 2008 has created enormous uncertainties in the minds of investors. New taxes and higher rates of old taxes; potentially large burdens of compliance with new energy regulations and mandatory health-care expenses; new, intrinsically arbitrary government oversight of so-called systemic risks associated with any type of business — all of these unsettling possibilities and others of substantial significance must give pause to anyone considering a long-term investment, because any one of them has the potential to turn what seems to be a profitable investment into a big loser. In short, investors now face regime uncertainty to an extent that few have experienced in this country — to find anything comparable, one must go back to the 1930s and 1940s, when the menacing clouds of the New Deal and World War II darkened the economic horizon.
Unless the government acts soon to resolve the looming uncertainties about the half-dozen greatest threats of policy harm to business, investors will remain for the most part on the sideline, protecting their wealth in cash hoards and low-risk, low-return, short-term investments and consuming wealth that might otherwise have been invested. If this situation continues for several years longer, the U.S. economy may well suffer its second “lost decade” for much the same reason that it suffered its first during the 1930s.
Unfortunately, the incentives for politicians are biased toward meddling, so don’t anticipate a slowing down of political “fixes” any time soon. If the US mid-term elections later this year return a “gridlocked” government, the economy might start to adapt to the current conditions and only then will any significant growth begin to take place. Given a relatively static political situation, businesses can at least make some plans based on their regulatory/legislative conditions as they are. Until some kind of stability is established, no businessperson in their right mind will take on major new plans: entrenching your existing business is far safer, while trying to do something radically different incurs too much risk. Risk, that is, over and above the “ordinary” risk of expansion, launching new products, or entering new markets.
August 26, 2010
If you like Eminent Domain, you’ll love Montgomery’s version
Christina Walsh reports on an Alabama city’s even-more-tyrannical-than-eminent-domain law:
Imagine you come home from work one day to a notice on your front door that you have 45 days to demolish your house, or the city will do it for you. Oh, and you’re paying for it.
This is happening right now in Montgomery, Ala., and here is how it works: The city decides it doesn’t like your property for one reason or another, so it declares it a “public nuisance.” It mails you a notice that you have 45 days to demolish your property, at your expense, or the city will do it for you (and, of course, bill you).
Your tab with the city will constitute a lien on your property, and if you don’t pay it within 30 days (or pay your installments on time; if you owe over $10,000, you can work out a deal to pay back the city for destroying your home over a period of time, with interest), the city can sell your now-vacant land to the highest bidder.
H/T to Institute For Justice for the link.
August 25, 2010
QotD: Amnesty International decries human rights situation in . . . Canada?
According to some media reports, Amnesty International’s new secretary general, Salil Shetty, has accused the Canadian government of a “serious worsening” of human rights in Canada. He cited a “shrinking of democratic spaces” in Canada, and organizations that have lost their funding for asking “inconvenient questions.”
“You expect more from Canadians . . . I think there is a growing gap between the values and the track record of Canada historically and the actions of the current government, which is deeply concerning.”
It reads like a Liberal Party press release, doesn’t it?
So what, exactly, has Mr. Shetty so upset about that he’s decided to slam Canada rather than, for instance, Iran?
Why, it’s the fact that Ottawa hasn’t sought the repatriation of young Omar Khadr from his detention in Guantanamo Bay. Which is a rather curious thing to criticize, since “the values and the track record” of the previous Liberal government is entirely consistent with what the Conservatives are currently doing.
Adrian MacNair, “Canada, noted human rights pariah state”, National Post, 2010-08-25
August 24, 2010
“One of the few thrills of working as a bylaw enforcement officer is making people cry”
Ezra Levant looks at the bylaw enforcement regime in Clarington, just east of Toronto:
It’s not a lemonade crime wave that the brave city elders of Clarington are combating. It’s the menace of backyard barbecues.
Peter Jaworski has been holding backyard barbecues at his parents’ property there for 10 years. It’s a house in the country on 40 secluded acres. Once a year, Peter invites a few dozen of his friends to spend the weekend eating his mom’s cooking and camping next to the swimming hole. I’ve been there: it’s one part family reunion, one part picnic and one part political talk.
So clearly, the Jaworski family must be stopped.
First came the health department. They poked and prodded, and even took water samples. No one has ever got sick at a Jaworski barbecue — the opposite; everyone comes for the food — but the government ordered that no home cooking would be allowed. The Jaworskis complied with these costly and ridiculous demands, catering the whole weekend and serving only bottled water, at great cost.
But bureaucrats travel in packs. A local bylaw enforcement officer waited until the barbecue itself, and marched right onto the property — no search warrant needed! — and started peppering the guests with questions.
He wasn’t a health officer; he was a bylaw officer. Yet he demanded to know what the guests had for lunch. In the name of the law!
Armed with this devastating information, the officer charged Peter’s parents with running an illegal “commercial conference centre,” which carries a fine of up to $50,000. The officer, a burly, tattooed, six-foot-something man, told Peter’s mom to “be very careful.” She burst into tears.
Why do people get this insane idea that they should be able to do what they want on their own property? If we wanted that to happen, we wouldn’t appoint bylaw officers and arm them with bylaws to quash your fun and destroy your ability to enjoy your own property!
This scourge of backyard entertainment must be defeated, and Clarington is leading the way!
August 23, 2010
QotD: Peak Culture
The height of their society peaked in 1969. They used militarism and socialism to put two guys on the Moon, they trotted out their public-private partnership (Concorde) to build exclusive supersonic transport for the rich. Max Faget and some other brilliant engineers designed a space shuttle fleet of ten vehicles capable of hundreds of flights a year to make access to low Earth orbit cheap and routine. And the Advanced Research Projects Agency had some geeks create an inter-networking protocol that could survive a nuclear war.
Obviously, they shot their wad, as it were, and no longer put guys on the Moon. They no longer fly supersonic transports. Their space shuttle is going to stop flying soon, if it hasn’t already. Those geeky guys went on to develop open source cryptography, open source software, and totally private economic transactions. The future we’re creating is going to be very, dramatically different. It is going to be decentralised to a fare thee well.
Right now, today, two people anywhere in the world *can* have a totally private economic exchange that cannot be detected by anyone else. And since it cannot be detected, it cannot be regulated, it cannot be prohibited, and it cannot be taxed. Even inflation cannot tax it, if the exchange is denominated in some money like silver or gold. Which means that those who dream of ruling the world sowed the seeds of their own damnation?
Jim Davidson, “Peak Culture”, Libertarian Enterprise, 2010-08-22
August 11, 2010
QotD: Treating politicians correctly
First off, every Congressman should be treated like a known member of the Mafia — we know the person is a criminal and we just don’t have the evidence yet though we’ll be working on it. Every Congressmen should have FBI agents assigned to tail him and report on everything he is doing. Everything a Congressman does and says should be recorded and made publicly available as well. As a trade-off to being some idiot spending trillions of our dollars, you have absolutely no expectation of privacy while in office. If you can’t deal, don’t be in Congress. And because these people create the laws, it should apply even more so to them. If they are ever convicted of anything, they automatically should get their sentence doubled.
Right now Congress gets this idea they are better than us when really they’re just idiots who meddle in things while other people actually do all the useful work in this country. It’s time we treated them like lesser people with less rights and more suspicion. Then maybe they’ll know their place.
Frank J. Fleming, “We Need to Treat Congress More Like Crooks”, IMAO, 2010-08-11
August 7, 2010
August 5, 2010
Examining DNA testing from the client’s point of view
Mary Carmichael is writing a multi-part series about DNA testing:
On July 22, Congress held a hearing on direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, services that analyze your DNA and interpret the results in exchange for a few hundred bucks — no doctor necessary. The hearing could have been a thoughtful national conversation about science, business, and ethics. Alas, it devolved instead into a series of gotcha moments, starring a General Accounting Office sting operation that came off like a cross between the ACORN videos and the world’s worst ad for snake oil.
Time and again, on tape, an undercover agent called up an unidentified testing company and asked an ill-informed question. (“Is it OK if I stop taking my cholesterol meds and instead take the nutritional supplements you sell? If I can manage to get hold of my fiancé’s saliva without him knowing, will you run it through your machines so I can surprise him with the ‘gift’ of his own data?”) And time and again, the phone rep sank to the occasion and made the company look awful. (Sure, lay off the pills and take our supplements! Of course we’ll analyze your fiancé’s spit without his permission even though that’s illegal, unethical, and weird!)
I listened to the tape several times the day it was released, despairing at the way people were taking advantage of gullible, albeit fictional consumers, which was clearly how the congressmen who held the hearing wanted me to react. Then I started to worry about something else. How much time did I even have left to decide whether I was going to take a test myself? Even before the hearing, the FDA had announced its plans to regulate all DTC genetic tests, possibly so heavily as to keep them off the market; the hearing was just the sort of thing that could push it to move faster. What if, by the time I finally decided if I wanted one of these tests, I couldn’t buy one anymore? My credit card was sitting next to my laptop. I did something that in retrospect seems a bit rash. There’s a DNA-collection kit on my desk now, taunting me — because although I bought the thing, I still can’t decide whether I actually want to use it.
The sheer volume of misinformation on DNA testing — combined with public belief in the amazing accuracy of DNA testing (probably induced by watching too many crime investigation TV shows) — leaves the legitimate companies in an awkward situation. The actual DNA self-tests don’t tell you what you might expect, and can tell you things you don’t want to know. Politicians jumping in now (at the prompting of bureaucrats who want more power to regulate) will only make the situation more confused.
H/T to BoingBoing for the link.
August 4, 2010
Canada’s (lack of) abortion rules
Apparently lots of Canadians think that the country’s laws are far more restrictive of abortion than they really are:
Two-thirds of Canadians do not know that Canada has no abortion law, according to a new poll that indicates Canadians are woefully misinformed about a landmark ruling in the country’s history.
The poll, which asked 1,022 Canadian adults about their understanding of the country’s abortion regulations, found that just 22% of Canadians correctly identified a woman’s right to an abortion with no governmental restrictions. Canada has not had legislated abortion rules since 1988, making the country an “absolute outlier” on the issue, according to a medical ethicist.
“There’s really only a very small number of Canadians that correctly identify the current situation in Canada,” says pollster Jaideep Mukerji, who worked on the Angus-Reid poll, which was released on Tuesday. “That could be problematic.”
This was highlighted over the last couple of months, with the government and opposition wrangling over Stephen Harper’s initiative to increase funding for maternal health in the developing world. Because opinions widely differ over what the law covers in Canada, it was easy for the opposition to portray Harper’s plan as being ideological rather than humanitarian due to the exclusion of abortion.
Canadians don’t want to re-open the debate, although most appear to want more restrictions in place.
August 3, 2010
Your elected representatives demand tokens of your respect
You may have elected them (someone had to), but you must show deference and respect at all times:
Sources reported this week that the city council of Elmhurst, Ill., had asked its attorney to research various definitions of “disorderly conduct,” in the course of considering possible changes to rules of decorum in city council meetings. The move was prompted by an incident in June in which a frustrated citizen rolled her eyes and audibly sighed during a meeting, and was promptly ejected from the chamber.
Reportedly, Darlene Helsop had hoped to speak to the finance committee about its plan to hire a state lobbyist, but wasn’t given the opportunity to do so. She sighed and rolled her eyes, to the great irritation of committee chairman Stephen Hipskind. “Making faces behind the mayor’s back is disruptive, in my opinion,” he said, and he ordered Helsop to leave. To their credit, other council members objected and two left, ending the meeting for lack of a quorum. But the council still seems to have asked its attorney to look into the legal ramifications of a rule that would encompass eye-rolling and (presumably) face-making.
So remember, serfs citizens, show respect to your owners leaders . . . or else!
July 29, 2010
QotD: You can’t beat the media
Stephen Harper is feeling some of that effect from the millions he put into “infrastructure” projects as part of Canada’s own stimulus plan. You will recall that Ottawa solicited proposals from local governments before handing over the money. Inevitably, a goodly number turned out to be . . . shall we say . . . not entirely crucial, leading to articles like this, pointing out that — oh dear — taxpayers were financing bocce courts via deficit spending. Not to mention sending money to rich people in good neighbourhoods! Even funding for the arts — which Harper was previously criticized for providing too little of — was thrown back in his face as a cheap attempt to correct his earlier gaffe. (If he hadn’t corrected the gaffe, of course, it could have been portrayed as a “continuing snub.” Don’t try to beat the media folks, you can’t win.)
So what’s the lesson here? Politicians should ignore the experts and do what makes people happy, even if it’s unlikely to have much long-term benefit? Politicians should never expect the public to appreciate their efforts unless there’s some kind of individual payoff? Politicians should stay out of the economy, because no one is ever satisfied anyway?
Pick any one of those. Just don’t run for president or prime minister if you want to be popular.
Kelly McParland, “Obama could save America and lose the election”, National Post, 2010-07-29
