| View previous topic :: View next topic |
GrouchoMarxthespot
|
|
 |
|
| Nonsense. Our Revered Leader (even I have one) has told us that day will arrive on 11th June 2019. |
And is he the Messiah, or just a very naughty boy?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The reason that Politics is the 'Last Frontier' is because of the difficulty of solving political problems. Actually the problems are not difficult, they are impossible. That is what makes a problem 'political' -- it requires solving (otherwise nobdy would bother) but it cannot be solved (otherwise it would have been solved at some lower, earlier stage).
This is the first AE contribution to Politics, to remnd everybody that while they personally happen to know the answer to a given political problem, they actually don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Political problems are artificial problems.
Every area into which the state expands becomes, as a result, a permanent problem. Absent the state, no one notices these "problems" at all and civil society tends to work them out optimally.
And that is the key to the problem of state expansion: Optimal solutions are not perfect solutions. The state promises perfection in exchange for its being given control. Unfortunately, what it delivers is not only imperfect but also sub-optimal. Unfortunately, once the problem becomes political, the problem becomes everlasting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
See! Ishmael is sure he knows the answer. And not just to a given political problem ... all political problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GrouchoMarxthespot
|
|
|
|
| Optimal solutions are not perfect solutions |
Which is why many people prefer a state solution, imperfect though it might be.
State solutions are amenable to alteration, since their control is impermanent.
And you have chaos.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Substitue 'private' for 'state' and this statement is just as accurate (or inaccurate). It never ceases to amaze me how peole can make technical claims with absolute assurance that nobody, absolutely nobody, has ever or will ever come close to be able to compute. Go on, Groucho, tell us your statistical source. Or are you going to say, "Oh well, that's just my opinion and I'm sticking with it."
And so you have. Ever since your adolescence. Try, at the very least, to advance on your teenage youthfulness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GrouchoMarxthespot
|
|
|
|
| Ever since your adolescence. Try, at the very least, to advance on your teenage youthfulness |
Actually I came it quite late, (not youthfulness obviously).
But you are quite right - it is a matter of preference, not science, although as a matter of observation (remember my bus driving credentials), the old local authority bus companies of the pre Thatcher de-regulation, did pretty well on route services, (not statistical I know Harpo), and , interestingly, did a lot of R+D into chassis development.
Small beer, I know, to a radical like you, but a detailed observation
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
No, Groucho, it's anecdotal evidence and it's anecdotal evidence submitted by an already biased observer. So you are conceding that the basis for your statement that state control makes this a) amenable to alteration because b) it is impermanent because of something or other 'on the buses'.
Somewhat slender perhaps but, as luck would have it, I am an authority on British buses and I can assure you that the precise reverse was the case for the period 1825-2011 (lumping in municipalisation with state control). However I do not conclude from the fact that private control was always (frighteningly) impermanent and constantly innovatory that private is therefore better than state when it comes to the buses. As Chou-en-lai was wont to say, after 186 years of evidence, it's still too early to say.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GrouchoMarxthespot
|
|
|
|
| it's anecdotal evidence and it's anecdotal evidence submitted by an already biased observer |
Well spotted.
There's a lot of it about.
| as luck would have it, I am an authority on British buses |
This is indeed lucky.
The lumping together of Municipal and State control is probably important. My own favourite bus company is the North Western Road Car Company - private of course, and based in Stockport in Charles Street, but also a part of a wider organisation that was part of the Municipal landscape.
I need to look some stuff up, especially on the Bristol LoDekker, and the Atkinson single deckers, but I am pretty certain that there was a lot of post war R+D done - on the basis of Municipally planned bus networks, which provided the economic stability to support R+D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GrouchoMarxthespot
|
|
|
|
| As Chou-en-lai was wont to say, after 186 years of evidence, it's still too early to say |
Of course he suffered the immeasureable disadvantage of not having stood in front of the Essoldo Cinema on a wet Wednesday afternoon in the early sixties, whilst surveying the delights of Stockport Bus Station laid out before him in Mersey Square.
His answer might have been quite different had he not been so unfortunate, the poor man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
These musings are all very well but either give us a rational reason for your beliefs or admit they are essentially religious. Jocularity is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| GrouchoMarxthespot wrote: | | And you have chaos. |
Bullshit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
What Ishmael means, Groucho, is that you have to produce one example of chaos happening in the 3,583 examples* we have thus far from every quarter of the world and every age in history when the state got out of a particular activity.
[Just between ourselves, if he's cute, Groucho will be able to produce 3,583 such examples because people who believe in state control--and it's not always left-wingers, for much of history state control has been a right-wing demand--always claim "chaos" has ensued when they really mean a bit of temporary dislocation that follows any radical re-organisation.]
* I have not included the Chilean phosphate industry for obvious reasons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
We have a big roundabout near us that has carefully timed (they have been constantly tweaked over the years) traffic lights. Naturally, it gets congested. The other week the lights all failed and of course this lack of regulation was a recipe for disaster. Except, as you have by now guessed, the congestion cleared and the system worked very well. Until the council fixed up some temporary lights, bless 'em.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | The other week the lights all failed and of course this lack of regulation was a recipe for disaster. Except, as you have by now guessed, the congestion cleared and the system worked very well. |
In fact, this report is not mere anecdotal evidence. Many municipalities in the United States have begun to experiment with removing stop lights and have found both that accidents tend to decrease and traffic congestion tends to improve.
So how do we end up with traffic lights in the first place?
Well someone has an accident. Someone gets killed. Perhaps a small child. A demand is made that "something be done" and something is. brand new traffic lights are installed. But no one monitors whether this actually improves the situation. Future accidents are attributed exclusively on the drivers because, after all, everything has now been done.
This is how the busy-bodies and asshole-inspectors worm their way into our lives -- by promising perfection through control where freedom produces only what is optimal (which is always less than perfect). The state doesn't produce perfection either of course - just promises it -- but, once its controls are in place, they are almost impossible to eliminate -- and you can count on some jackass always shouting "chaos" should anyone humbly suggest otherwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
