[FRIAM] on government

[glen]

Not so wacko to me. I agree with most of it (not sure of the factual claims, of course). I disagree wholeheartedly with the "next to zero accountability". I agree that, say, Biden has trouble holding some low level EPA nerd accountable. But other low level nerds *do* hold her accountable, as does her mid-level boss and whatever professional society she might be in.

As Marcus indirectly pointed out, there's distributed versus centralized governing. While most of us on this list probably find ourselves advocating for distributed processes and being skeptical of centralized government, that's some kind of bias. We often take for granted, say, the federal highways, rail, clean water, firefighters, building codes, hundreds of thousands of laws, etc. And those are all relatively centralized things. Without them, the majority of us (on this list) would be dead. So our arguments for distributed government are expressions of elite privilege propped up by our hundreds of thousands of laws and quietly competent worker bees.

But there's a legitimate complaint when the system builds up so much infrastructure that it leans in the wrong way (e.g. racism - AKA systemic racism). Figuring out how to buttress that leaning tower without razing the whole thing is hard work ... work that can only be done by people who *see* the system and commit to doing the work. Most of us are lazy and would rather eat bonbons on the couch ranting at the TV.

On 8/27/24 09:09, Prof David West wrote:
> Wacko opinion to follow. Read at your own risk.
> 
> glen asked, "What does it mean to govern?"
> 
> In the US, governance was apportioned three ways, legislative, administrative, and judicial spheres as well as across Federal and State/Local entities. Woodrow Wilson (in an effort to remake the administrative after the system in Prussia) is often credited with instigating a sea change that increasingly consolidates governance solely in the Federal administrative realm.
> 
> The Federal Legislature abdicated its role when the effort required to acquire and maintain political office became all consuming and left no time to actually legislate, except in name only. Vague and expansive laws were passed with all of the details left to administrative agencies via a rule-making process.
> 
> The number of Federal laws, including felonious offenses increase from roughly 100 pre-Wilson to over 50,000 today. (It has been argued that the average U.S. Citizen is guilty of committing 1-3 felonies per day without any awareness of doing so.) Administrative agencies have their own deputized, gun carrying, enforcement divisions. Administrative agencies appoint their own hearing officers (judiciary) who have final authority. Before Chevron was overturned, those same agencies determination of "science" behind those rules could not be challenged.
> 
> The idea, probably never realized, of an 'objective' judiciary is a farce because judges, at the Federal level, are appointed by politicians. I am not aware of any point in U.S. history where some group of partisans felt the Supreme Court was biased against them.
> 
> The elected/appointed level of the Administrative sphere at nothing more than figureheads preoccupied with the same kinds of concerns as legislatures—how to get (re)elected and leverage office into personal wealth and prestige.
> 
> So, to govern, is to quietly, invisibly, go about doing your job as you, personally, define that job to be. With next to zero accountability.
> 
> All the rest is bread and circuses.
> 
> davew
> 

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ