That's not quite right. There are a number of fairly minor, reasonable, and common sense reforms that would make the federal bureaucracy much, much better. I've been adding to a long list for a long time. It's just that preserving the option for "bureaucrats behaving badly" is a feature, not a bug, for those who expect bad behaviors will…
That's not quite right. There are a number of fairly minor, reasonable, and common sense reforms that would make the federal bureaucracy much, much better. I've been adding to a long list for a long time. It's just that preserving the option for "bureaucrats behaving badly" is a feature, not a bug, for those who expect bad behaviors will be in their favor 95% of the time, "Rules for thee, not for me, lol!" So that means that any attempt to make bureacracy better affects one party more than the other and is necessarily and inevitable a high stakes political issue inviting political fights that must be won by any means necessary. There is thus no possibility of bipartisan agreement, consensus, or compromise on any possible reforms, so our system of goverment literally cannot get better, though it can and will continue to get worse.
The inference I draw from this is that every set of rules must sometimes be disregarded for an important purpose, if not abandoned. Because if you take the opposite position, sooner or later your rules will be gamed.
That's not quite right. There are a number of fairly minor, reasonable, and common sense reforms that would make the federal bureaucracy much, much better. I've been adding to a long list for a long time. It's just that preserving the option for "bureaucrats behaving badly" is a feature, not a bug, for those who expect bad behaviors will be in their favor 95% of the time, "Rules for thee, not for me, lol!" So that means that any attempt to make bureacracy better affects one party more than the other and is necessarily and inevitable a high stakes political issue inviting political fights that must be won by any means necessary. There is thus no possibility of bipartisan agreement, consensus, or compromise on any possible reforms, so our system of goverment literally cannot get better, though it can and will continue to get worse.
And those "fairly minor, reasonable, and common sense reforms that would make the federal bureaucracy much, much better" are ?
I'd love to see the whole long list.
You'll have to wait, but not too long. They are fodder for an essay I'm working on.
:)
The inference I draw from this is that every set of rules must sometimes be disregarded for an important purpose, if not abandoned. Because if you take the opposite position, sooner or later your rules will be gamed.
I don’t think you realize that you both disagreed and agreed with Yancey’s simple “cannot be reformed”. I’d be interested in a clarification.
On second thought, I think your position is clear; you just should have agreed at the beginning. What do you say?