Efficiency in government is a lie told by people who want government to serve the smallest number of (rich) people possible and no one else.
-
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Yes, that is what they are currently *doing*. That is not what we signed up for. (I will agree you can read that in the US's founding docs.)
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
-
@johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Because in business, efficiency per se is used to refer to lowest cost without regard to actually creating a good product. The goal is to create a minimally acceptable product to create profit for shareholders.
But that's not the goal in government, despite the current/regressive fad. Many of us (people on Earth) have forgotten that the government's goal is to protect its citizens. From each other, penury, exploitation, external aggression, all that.
This is because, desired output is different for different people, and the costs accrue to different people.
In a government by the people—democracy—the government is supposed to arrive at a negotiated compromise between all parties. An almost impossible task in a complex system.
In government by the rich and powerful, such as in a large corporation or an oligarchy, it's a much simpler task, maximize wealth and power for the few.
-
@graydon @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
"Specify outcomes and reward effectiveness" is precisely what I mean when I say efficiency as an additional benefit of good process is a good thing.
Cost efficiency and outcome (what I call service) efficiency are an example of designing for efficiency rather than for outcome or effectiveness.
TBH, it reminds me of when I used to consult with startups and I would ask "why this product?" and the founders would say "because we want to be billionaires".
That's what the Faust legend is about.
Selling your soul to the devil, for Earthly power and wealth.
-
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
Not a useful aphorism because it trivializes the important question "is it fit for purpose?"
With that definition, the answer is always "yes".
Better (more useful) to ask "Whose purpose?"
Cicero said Lucius Cassius was famous for asking "cui bono?"—who benefits?.
-
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
What a system does it what it was subverted to do. -
@DejahEntendu @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft What a system does is what it is for.
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
What a system does is what it was subverted to do by those with the power to subvert. That's what checks and balances are intended to stop. Which is why allowing gerrymandering, for instance, is evil. It is using the power of a ruling party to subvert the voice of the people.
-
@cybervegan @johnzajac @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
What a system does it what it was subverted to do.@DejahEntendu @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
No. The engineering principle of POSIWID (purpose of a system is what it does) is intended to help people understand that "reform" of a system is impossible. A system can either be used or removed, but it cannot be "reformed".
If you "reform" a system to the point where it has a different outcome entirely, you're simply replacing the system with another whose purpose is...the new outcome.
-
@DejahEntendu @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
No. The engineering principle of POSIWID (purpose of a system is what it does) is intended to help people understand that "reform" of a system is impossible. A system can either be used or removed, but it cannot be "reformed".
If you "reform" a system to the point where it has a different outcome entirely, you're simply replacing the system with another whose purpose is...the new outcome.
@johnzajac @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Engineering is not politics. The principle applies to a certain degree insofar as sometimes tearing it down and starting over is the only option to repair/reform. But, in poliotics, new laws are a reformation. Unless, of course, you're using reform as to make again and not as improve. -
@johnzajac @cybervegan @EricLawton @bonaventuresoft
Engineering is not politics. The principle applies to a certain degree insofar as sometimes tearing it down and starting over is the only option to repair/reform. But, in poliotics, new laws are a reformation. Unless, of course, you're using reform as to make again and not as improve.Exactly.
The US government does different things from before Trump. Largely because it's purpose has changed.
POSIWID is useful in pointing out that it's purpose is not as written in the constitution, but the purpose for the people in power, and for other groups of people, can be understood separately and its actual function analysed in terms of its effectiveness in fulfilling those purposes.
@johnzajac @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft -
Exactly.
The US government does different things from before Trump. Largely because it's purpose has changed.
POSIWID is useful in pointing out that it's purpose is not as written in the constitution, but the purpose for the people in power, and for other groups of people, can be understood separately and its actual function analysed in terms of its effectiveness in fulfilling those purposes.
@johnzajac @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
It may be that what we call "reform" today - e.g. "shuffling around the deck chairs to try and confuse people into thinking something's changed - and what we called "reform" in previous eras of US government are substantially different things.
In this era, esp u40s are (rightly) skeptical of anyone who claims to be a "reformer".
But the implosion/surborning of language has been one of the great betrayals of the modern age, so...
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
It may be that what we call "reform" today - e.g. "shuffling around the deck chairs to try and confuse people into thinking something's changed - and what we called "reform" in previous eras of US government are substantially different things.
In this era, esp u40s are (rightly) skeptical of anyone who claims to be a "reformer".
But the implosion/surborning of language has been one of the great betrayals of the modern age, so...
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
While I'm not a fan of exporting industry terms to the public sphere ("don't make perfect the enemy of good" being a stellar example of how dangerous it can be) I do think the concept behind POSIWID is extremely *useful* in an unjust political environment that is both systems-heavy and systems-deferential.
When someone says, for example, that "our incarceration system is broken", it ignores the historical and practical *purpose*...
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
While I'm not a fan of exporting industry terms to the public sphere ("don't make perfect the enemy of good" being a stellar example of how dangerous it can be) I do think the concept behind POSIWID is extremely *useful* in an unjust political environment that is both systems-heavy and systems-deferential.
When someone says, for example, that "our incarceration system is broken", it ignores the historical and practical *purpose*...
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
...of that system: to recreate an environment in which slavery can be re-instituted without resistance from most white Americans. After all, the 14th Amendment was really clear that if you wanna, you can enslave prisoners (lol lmao).
Californians in 2024, of all people and times, are like "we're curious about this enslaving prisoners thing, and would like to keep it open as an option".
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
...of that system: to recreate an environment in which slavery can be re-instituted without resistance from most white Americans. After all, the 14th Amendment was really clear that if you wanna, you can enslave prisoners (lol lmao).
Californians in 2024, of all people and times, are like "we're curious about this enslaving prisoners thing, and would like to keep it open as an option".
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
Is it a coincidence that enforcement is much more extensive (and corrupt) in Black communities, or the prison population is disproportionately Black? Is it "broken" that access to good legal counsel requires money, but Black Americans have been systematically cut off from generational wealth building *as a matter of govt policy* for the last 150 years?
Or is it the purpose of the system?
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
Is it a coincidence that enforcement is much more extensive (and corrupt) in Black communities, or the prison population is disproportionately Black? Is it "broken" that access to good legal counsel requires money, but Black Americans have been systematically cut off from generational wealth building *as a matter of govt policy* for the last 150 years?
Or is it the purpose of the system?
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
POSIWID forces us to think about systems critically, both their purpose, their outcomes, and their *very existence*.
That's why I make an exception to applying it to political and social systems under which we live.
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
It may be that what we call "reform" today - e.g. "shuffling around the deck chairs to try and confuse people into thinking something's changed - and what we called "reform" in previous eras of US government are substantially different things.
In this era, esp u40s are (rightly) skeptical of anyone who claims to be a "reformer".
But the implosion/surborning of language has been one of the great betrayals of the modern age, so...
@johnzajac @EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
Anarchism has always had a consistent understanding of what governmental reform is. In this understanding, it is not a significantly different activity now and in previous eras, just as Trump's actions are not significantly different from past US Presidents'.
The state should not exist. It can not be reformed.
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
Is it a coincidence that enforcement is much more extensive (and corrupt) in Black communities, or the prison population is disproportionately Black? Is it "broken" that access to good legal counsel requires money, but Black Americans have been systematically cut off from generational wealth building *as a matter of govt policy* for the last 150 years?
Or is it the purpose of the system?
It's the purpose of the system for the oligarchs who have captured it.
-
It's the purpose of the system for the oligarchs who have captured it.
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
It's been the purpose of the system for 150 years. At what point do we stop trying to pretend it was "captured" or it's "broken" and just accept that its purpose has always been thus, and we know this because of what it does and has done, and that it needs to be burned to the point where the atoms separate from one another and it drifts into the cosmos as elemental hydrogen?
I'm tired of giving the depraved system the benefit of the doubt
-
@johnzajac @EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
Anarchism has always had a consistent understanding of what governmental reform is. In this understanding, it is not a significantly different activity now and in previous eras, just as Trump's actions are not significantly different from past US Presidents'.
The state should not exist. It can not be reformed.
I agree.
The challenge is to construct a non-hierarchical system that is robust against attempts to rebuild hierarchies.
Most revolutions fail to do this, because they substitute a different hierarchy. Napoleon, Stalin and Trump are only a few examples.
-
@EricLawton @DejahEntendu @cybervegan @bonaventuresoft
It's been the purpose of the system for 150 years. At what point do we stop trying to pretend it was "captured" or it's "broken" and just accept that its purpose has always been thus, and we know this because of what it does and has done, and that it needs to be burned to the point where the atoms separate from one another and it drifts into the cosmos as elemental hydrogen?
I'm tired of giving the depraved system the benefit of the doubt
@johnzajac @EricLawton @DejahEntendu @bonaventuresoft And not just in the USA
-
I agree.
The challenge is to construct a non-hierarchical system that is robust against attempts to rebuild hierarchies.
Most revolutions fail to do this, because they substitute a different hierarchy. Napoleon, Stalin and Trump are only a few examples.
@EricLawton @richpuchalsky @johnzajac @DejahEntendu @bonaventuresoft It's not a thing you can do just once... It has to be maintained and constantly adjusted, refined and recentred. There will always be ways to improve and there will always be times when it goes off in the "wrong" direction.
