Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
At 08:50 5/02/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 12:34:19AM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
The basic point, really, is that organizational complexity grows with the size of the organization, at a greater than linear rate. This is because organizational complexity is a function of interactions between members of the organization, which is at least n-squared. (However, when you consider that alliances form and can interact, the true complexity grows at a much faster rate.)
You seem to be taken with making all sorts of bare, unsupported claims, obviously with the intention of explaining (for example) away what was apparently an INTENTIONAL increase in the size of Federal government between (say) 1932 and today. To read your paragraph above, its increase in size was simply the unavoidable consequence of nature's laws or something akin to it. Maybe a product of number theory, or the Fibbonacci sequence, exponential increase, or something like that. Which would, if true, remove just about all the blame from those who were in control of the situation. BULLSHIT! Chances are good that at least 75% of the size of the US Federal government today is due to spending that wasn't considered the proper Constitutional function of the government before 1930, and certainly not before 1900 or so. (Large peacetime military, Socialist Insecurity, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on national debt caused by deficit spending that occurred due to funding these previous atrocities, etc.)
But NONE of this is truly needed. I have a solution to that problem.
Jim, have you considered the interaction between religious beliefs and AP? You apparently don't have direct knowledge of this, but after a certain level of economic security has been reached economics becomes a much less important as a motivator [Maslow].
Other people have blown this claim away, so I don't think I need bounce the rubble further. However, I wonder why you think that people will not resent the theft of their property simply because they've reached "a certain level of economic security."? Frankly, it sounds like yet another of your "let's justify the government through specious arguments" exercises. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Mon, May 05, 1997 at 08:32:17AM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
At 08:50 5/02/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 12:34:19AM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
The basic point, really, is that organizational complexity grows with the size of the organization, at a greater than linear rate. This is because organizational complexity is a function of interactions between members of the organization, which is at least n-squared. (However, when you consider that alliances form and can interact, the true complexity grows at a much faster rate.)
You seem to be taken with making all sorts of bare, unsupported claims,
I didn't bother to support that claim because it is trivially obvious. For your benefit: In *any* organization of size n there are obviously n squared one to one personal relationships possible. This is just mathematics. (Oh, to be really precise, n^2 - n, since the relationship with yourself doesn't count). However, any two people may form an alliance that may have to be considered as a unit, likewise any three people, up to any group of size n-1. Clearly, any large group must impose some structure to function as a group, otherwise the communication complexity is overwhelming. A frequent organization is a hierarchy, or tree structure, and the standard rule of thumb is that a manager should have around 7 direct subordinates. This is all so basic...certainly it's kind of fluffy, because all social sciences seem kind of fluffy. But the increase in complexity with organization size is observationally obvious, as well. Compare big business to small business. Compare Boy Scouts with your local street gang.
obviously with the intention of explaining (for example) away what was apparently an INTENTIONAL increase in the size of Federal government between (say) 1932 and today.
To read your paragraph above, its increase in size was simply the unavoidable consequence of nature's laws or something akin to it. Maybe a product of number theory, or the Fibbonacci sequence, exponential increase, or something like that. Which would, if true, remove just about all the blame from those who were in control of the situation.
BULLSHIT!
I'm not into the blame game, in general -- you know the old saying about not assuming malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation? Blame is a waste of time, in general. The only thing worth considering is how to make things better, and sometimes I wonder about that.
Chances are good that at least 75% of the size of the US Federal government today is due to spending that wasn't considered the proper Constitutional function of the government before 1930, and certainly not before 1900 or so. (Large peacetime military, Socialist Insecurity, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on national debt caused by deficit spending that occurred due to funding these previous atrocities, etc.)
So what? One mans attempt to do social good is another man's atrocity, apparently, just as one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. Any real government has to deal with the fact that people have different opinions. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
participants (2)
-
jimbell@pacifier.com
-
Kent Crispin