Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
At 22:43 5/01/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 1997 at 08:24:27PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
I feel confident that a statistical analysis of various countries' governments would reveal a wide scatter in the relationship between population and government size. One of the main factors in this scatter is simply the amount that government has decided to butt into activities that could (and should) be privatized. Another is the amount that the government steals from one group in order to reliably receive the votes of some other group.
Population size would end up being a very poor determinant of government size.
Yes, there would be scatter, but it is not important.
The only reason "it is not important" is that this scatter is what demolishes your view of the world.
Population size is *obviously* a strong determinant of government size.
But probably not even close to the largest determinant.
So, having clearly established that larger countries will on balance have larger governments, we can then just look at organizational dynamics. *Any* large organization requires more infrastructure to function. *Any* large organization will develop bureaucracy. This is true for governments, this is true for businesses, this is true for schools, this is true for militias. A big city police department will have many different precints, with multiple layers of management, a small town will have a chief of police and a few deputies.
But NONE of this is truly needed. I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 12:34:19AM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
At 22:43 5/01/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 1997 at 08:24:27PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:
I feel confident that a statistical analysis of various countries' governments would reveal a wide scatter in the relationship between population and government size. One of the main factors in this scatter is simply the amount that government has decided to butt into activities that could (and should) be privatized. Another is the amount that the government steals from one group in order to reliably receive the votes of some other group.
Population size would end up being a very poor determinant of government size.
Yes, there would be scatter, but it is not important.
The only reason "it is not important" is that this scatter is what demolishes your view of the world.
Jim, I made a two line off-the-cuff generalization about a case that *could* be argued -- a tiny, infinitesimal mote in my world view. So don't go overboard with the hyperbole, OK? Remember that since my world view includes numbers, Godel's theorem requires that it is incomplete or inconsistent, as is yours. Regardless of how our world views may change, they will continue to include numbers, and so will remain inconsistent or incomplete. And incompleteness and inconsistency are global properties of a system...
Population size is *obviously* a strong determinant of government size.
But probably not even close to the largest determinant.
It simply doesn't matter. The important point is that governments *are* much larger in much larger countries. We are speaking in gross, general terms here -- we haven't controlled for type of government, whether the military is included -- a whole host of factors are left as free variables, and yes, even modulo those variables, there is lots of scatter. But in 1800 there were about 5 million people in the US. Now there are close to 300 million. 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.) (Another confounding factor is growth in complexity of technology and human knowledge.) [...]
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]. -- 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
Kent Crispin wrote:
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].
Bullshit: Donald Trump. Leona Helmsley, The Kennedy Clan, etc. I would say that with economics, the _more_ you have the more it motivates your life.
On Mon, May 05, 1997 at 12:31:12AM -0500, snow wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
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].
Bullshit:
Donald Trump. Leona Helmsley, The Kennedy Clan, etc.
I would say that with economics, the _more_ you have the more it motivates your life.
And of course, Tim May, and John Gillmore. "Economics" was a poor choice of word on my part, and you make a good point. However, IMO all three examples you give are clearly more motivated by power and gamesmanship than they are by economics. The Kennedys, especially, long ago switched to politics. In general, past a certain level of wealth people remain in the game because they enjoy playing it, not because they need the money. Prior to that level they seek money because they believe they need it. Some people find it hard to make that transition, and continue to believe they need money long after all objective reasons have disappeared. -- 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
At 11:25 PM -0800 5/4/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 1997 at 12:31:12AM -0500, snow wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
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].
Bullshit:
Donald Trump. Leona Helmsley, The Kennedy Clan, etc.
I would say that with economics, the _more_ you have the more it motivates your life.
And of course, Tim May, and John Gillmore.
Indeed, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is very much in line with what I see all around me (and with Nietzsche's "will to power," of course). The fact that I have spent many hours a day for almost 5 years on this and related mailing lists, for which I've received not a dime of financial benefit, ought to make clear that some things are more important than making more money. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (4)
-
jimbell＠pacifier.com -
Kent Crispin -
snow -
Tim May