yangusbeef Wrote:
...A fair point, revolving door politics can't be avoided...

...I will note that some bureaucracies are completely independent of direct congressional appointments, so keeping Congress in check is a different story...

...The bureaucracies, at least the ones that are painfully harmful or could be harmful, need to be cut. The people in those bureaucracies will have to bite the bullet of course, but as is the bitterness of life...

I still stand by my point; your last resort rhetoric is ineffective.


And that is your right. To quote Voltaire: "Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'au bout pour que vous puissiez le dire". However I fail to see which of my previous writings could be treated as basically being "last resort rhetoric".

On the contrary your repeated reiteration that the only way to fix bureaucracies that are considered harmful is by having them cut, slashed and burnt run counter to the various alternate options available - like the ones jotted down on my previous posts. Alternatives I should add which the public could utilise to address prevailing bureaucratic issues that institutions might be facing - namely through reforms and overhauls aimed at streamlining and better clarifying administrative processes. Or to simplify: So as to further mitigate the "cost-effects" (loopholes, under/over-funding, favouritism) whilst maintaining (or increasing) the quality and/or frequency of the services provided (a mostly standard practice in any first-rate organisation unimpeded by nepotism/cronyism, whether it be private or public sector).

yangusbeef Wrote:
But then one must wonder why even have the politics at all, if it is a "ticking-time-bomb".


Nature and by extension human behaviour, as well as the institutions influenced by it are in a sense always ticking away. Rather it is the way with which be use our limited time to better ourselves and our societies that drives individuals towards causes. Causes which underneath any person's façade lies that foreboding instinct that whatever perseverance they may perform towards their desires will be akin to that of a speck of grain when looked upon under the machinations of time. By extension any act we make is in effect an act of futility. Yet despite it all, human beings from whatever stage of our history have always shown an inescapable knack for instituting changes, whether for better or worse. The only alternative would be to give up and stagnate, so in essence politics can be seen as the arena with which to determine which form of futility should society engineer itself towards.

yangusbeef Wrote:
..It revolves around the president, but as I have hopefully aforementioned there is no such thing as direct control...


Of course. Rather as you quite unfortunately seemed to miscomprehended, I've only ever previously advocated for "more direct control". Your statement could also be used to describe to others the fact that the United States is not "a perfect union". However even such aim cannot override the fundamental clause that it is the task of any dutiful citizen of the United States to drive their country towards "a more perfect union".

yangusbeef Wrote:
...Remember these are individuals, not collectives, and they will seek their own self-interest, even with their own self espoused "virtuous" values...


If one were to view human interactions throughout society, one would observe that the nearly all people living in a community conform to certain expectations (particularly in behaviour, appearance and disposition); particularly when amongst others. Casually exemplifying narrow self-interest or any other unacceptable discomformity to just a single stranger beckons the risk of one losing face; and no matter where one may reside - the threat of humiliation as well as losing the trust of others is always something that is instinctually avoided.

Regulation whether economic, political, social or even psychological is simply a natural aspect of human social dynamics. It is only natural from my perspective that the view that the behaviour of any whether they possess greater authority, wealth or responsibility or even lack either of three should be treated critically - and that is something one should expect from any individual. Of course "totally regulating" human behaviour or that of any other species is an impossible endeavour. It does not mean however that humans do not engage in it. Rather it is a necessary tool with which even the basic building block of any society (i.e. family) uses to maintain social cohesion.

It is therefore not only logical, but perfectly feasible capability for the rest of society to hold public officials and institutions to greater account. As you have pointed out simply making transparent any misdemeanour's or other actions which run counter to the public interest does not guarantee that steps will be taken (on the part of the public) to prosecute or further prevent such wrongdoings from taking place. It is only sensible that government power should be curtailed not so much from reducing its overall authority or responsibilities, but rather engendering and placing greater responsibility (particularly the creation of policy and and the maintenance of oversight) and say towards individual voters.

As one of my oft-favourite quotations state: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Hence it is in my firm belief that taking away responsibility from the top pyramids of society and placing it further towards its greater mass is vital not only in directing entire countries, economies and communities towards improvement - but the means with which to make a more prosperous, egalitarian and freer society.