Posted: Fri 20 Aug 2010 13:51 Post subject: Bureaucracy
[rant]
I wonder how far Bureaucracy will go before the system collapses.
If you don't know what I mean, look at contracts/agreements/commercials: The most important text is usually made the smallest, advertisements are coming close to blatantly lieing, are getting as close to subliminal messaging as they possible can without actually using subliminal messages. (Bright sunlight/happy & healthy family/smiling people/a party, whatever will give the subconscious impression that product X = happiness)
I've been reading up on a cult, which, supposedly (I have only just started to look up the information on them, has found ways to legalize most of it's actions (although still being critisized) by using the best lawyers available and using endless amounts lawsuits as not a means to win but rather as a means to stall and demoralize anyone who opposes them. The cult I'm talking about is called Scientology, and the information I've had on them so far is probably biased but mostly true as far as I can tell. (Maybe any of you knows more?)
The information given gives the impression that it is pretty easy for a (rich) cult to do whatever they please so long as they have the money/recourses/people for it. Using lawsuits and spreading lies about those who oppose you in order to weaken them untill they give up.
This and the decreasing trust in the capabilities of the governmental system (generally). I think that's because nowadays politicians don't have time to run the country: All their time is taken up by trying to retain their position, being politically correct and not taking (nor being forgiven for taking) a riskier decision.
Ill explain more later, I have to go sleep now
[/rant]
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 1091 Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
Posted: Fri 20 Aug 2010 16:00 Post subject: Re: Bureaucracy
dragonflame wrote:
I wonder how far Bureaucracy will go before the system collapses.
Some degree of bureaucracy is essential for any form of government above the tribal level. Past that, it's all a matter of how much is too much.
Quote:
If you don't know what I mean, look at contracts/agreements/commercials: The most important text is usually made the smallest, advertisements are coming close to blatantly lieing, are getting as close to subliminal messaging as they possible can without actually using subliminal messages. (Bright sunlight/happy & healthy family/smiling people/a party, whatever will give the subconscious impression that product X = happiness)
I don't see what this has to do with bureaucracy, though it is a decent one-paragraph summary of marketing tactics. Besides, would you expect a company to put out a dark, gloomy commercial?
Quote:
I've been reading up on a cult, which, supposedly (I have only just started to look up the information on them, has found ways to legalize most of it's actions (although still being critisized) by using the best lawyers available and using endless amounts lawsuits as not a means to win but rather as a means to stall and demoralize anyone who opposes them. The cult I'm talking about is called Scientology, and the information I've had on them so far is probably biased but mostly true as far as I can tell. (Maybe any of you knows more?)
This is getting close to dealing with bureaucracy, or maybe a somewhat broken legal system. However, while they are very good at using lawsuits to go after their critics, many of the laws they base their suits on are ones which really shouldn't be eliminated (libel, defamation, releasing confidential documents, etc). And however they (ab)use those laws, there's no real way to stop it, without inflicting major unintended consequences as a result.
Quote:
The information given gives the impression that it is pretty easy for a (rich) cult to do whatever they please so long as they have the money/recourses/people for it. Using lawsuits and spreading lies about those who oppose you in order to weaken them untill they give up.
It's not just "cults". Any wealthy organization can do the same. I remember a case against...Wal-Mart, I think, brought by the government over unsafe working conditions, and they spent many times what the fine would have been to fight the fine. If they can force regulators to feel like cases like that are a waste of resources, they are less likely to pursue the company in the future.
Quote:
This and the decreasing trust in the capabilities of the governmental system (generally). I think that's because nowadays politicians don't have time to run the country: All their time is taken up by trying to retain their position, being politically correct and not taking (nor being forgiven for taking) a riskier decision.
I think that's a rather simplistic view of the government, but it may well be a common sentiment. I don't really have the time to write up a full rebuttal, but "political correctness" has pretty much gone out the window in the current federal government, and risky decisions have always been difficult at best, because a solid majority (60 votes in the Senate) needs to sign on to a proposal to just get it to the floor for a final vote. _________________ To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha
Posted: Sat 21 Aug 2010 9:02 Post subject: Re: Bureaucracy
It was a bit of an ill-constructed post, I was sleepy at the time =P.
Ragnarok wrote:
dragonflame wrote:
I wonder how far Bureaucracy will go before the system collapses.
Some degree of bureaucracy is essential for any form of government above the tribal level. Past that, it's all a matter of how much is too much.
I understand that bureaucracy is needed to an extent, what I meant was the excessive overdoing of it nowadays.
Ragnarok wrote:
dragonflame wrote:
If you don't know what I mean, look at contracts/agreements/commercials: The most important text is usually made the smallest, advertisements are coming close to blatantly lieing, are getting as close to subliminal messaging as they possible can without actually using subliminal messages. (Bright sunlight/happy & healthy family/smiling people/a party, whatever will give the subconscious impression that product X = happiness)
I don't see what this has to do with bureaucracy, though it is a decent one-paragraph summary of marketing tactics. Besides, would you expect a company to put out a dark, gloomy commercial?
I agree that I have no answer to the question of how to promote your product without using these kind of tactics to some minimal extent, but it is going very far.
I.E.: An ad promoting product X, which, if bought, comes with some shiny child toy, broadcasted at children-oriented channels and the sorts. Since children have less experience with life and advertisements than adults (in general), the purpose of product X coming with the shiny toy is to make the children nag their parents to buy the product. (I remember nagging my parents to do the same :P)
Or something likes the latest kind of Coca Cola and Axe commercials: Some guy uses their product, and gets laid. Simple message. "As it should be" > : )
(Implied sexuality/near nudity, but I guess it's okay to put it on here since anyone with a TV can see these kinds of commercials during the day and Youtube allows it.) It's got more to do with the mentality nowadays and not with bureaucracy but I ranted (and am ranting) about it anyways.
Ragnarok wrote:
dragonflame wrote:
I've been reading up on a cult, which, supposedly (I have only just started to look up the information on them, has found ways to legalize most of it's actions (although still being critisized) by using the best lawyers available and using endless amounts lawsuits as not a means to win but rather as a means to stall and demoralize anyone who opposes them. The cult I'm talking about is called Scientology, and the information I've had on them so far is probably biased but mostly true as far as I can tell. (Maybe any of you knows more?)
This is getting close to dealing with bureaucracy, or maybe a somewhat broken legal system. However, while they are very good at using lawsuits to go after their critics, many of the laws they base their suits on are ones which really shouldn't be eliminated (libel, defamation, releasing confidential documents, etc). And however they (ab)use those laws, there's no real way to stop it, without inflicting major unintended consequences as a result.
I didn't intend to make it look like I wanted the laws they base their lawsuits on to be removed/altered, but I did want to point out that to someone very powerful the current law system doesn't always cut it.
Ragnarok wrote:
dragonflame wrote:
This and the decreasing trust in the capabilities of the governmental system (generally). I think that's because nowadays politicians don't have time to run the country: All their time is taken up by trying to retain their position, being politically correct and not taking (nor being forgiven for taking) a riskier decision.
I think that's a rather simplistic view of the government, but it may well be a common sentiment. I don't really have the time to write up a full rebuttal, but "political correctness" has pretty much gone out the window in the current federal government, and risky decisions have always been difficult at best, because a solid majority (60 votes in the Senate) needs to sign on to a proposal to just get it to the floor for a final vote.
I didn't mean to make it sound like this was my only view on politics and politicians. Problems aside, those people are probably doing a better job at it than I would. What I meant to say was that it has become harder for a politician to make the wiser decision instead of the more popular one (among their country's people - the voters).
Also, during campaigns, the promises made are probably a bit too much - I'd prefer a more realistic politician, but he/she probably wouldn't be voted for as he/she wouldn't make all those promises to make everything go right while also lowering taxes and caring about the environment.
I remember watching a political debate on TV (I'm Dutch by the way, so that would be the Dutch government) where there were a number of people asking 1 person questions about her party's plans. I have never, ever, seen somebody so extremely proficient in speaking as though answering a question but still dodging the question and not answering it. After about half an hour of watching and listening I (and thus the people asking the politician questions) hadn't heard a single straightforward answer.
Now this doesn't neccesarily represent the bureaucracy in other countries, but it serves as an example of what I mean.
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 1091 Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
Posted: Sat 21 Aug 2010 10:38 Post subject: Re: Bureaucracy
dragonflame wrote:
I remember watching a political debate on TV (I'm Dutch by the way, so that would be the Dutch government) where there were a number of people asking 1 person questions about her party's plans. I have never, ever, seen somebody so extremely proficient in speaking as though answering a question but still dodging the question and not answering it. After about half an hour of watching and listening I (and thus the people asking the politician questions) hadn't heard a single straightforward answer.
That's almost every politician's response to a question they're not prepared for, or don't want to answer. That's why I really like the few US newspeople who actually push for an answer instead of nodding and moving on. It's also why I don't care about official debates, because the "you have 30 seconds to respond" format is pathetic at actually getting any information out.
Back on topic, I had a polysci course a little while back, that was entirely focused on this issue of bureaucracy, and it's a very difficult issue. One of the largest complaints about bureaucracies is that they are very restrictive, slow, people at the bottom have no leeway to make decisions, etc... but what's the alternative? The more "freedom" that you give them, the greater the chance of making errors, or doing things that they really shouldn't, etc, and the people in charge would be in an even worse state then. You can mitigate the negatives of both to some extent, but it's ultimately a no-win scenario. _________________ To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
That's almost every politician's response to a question they're not prepared for, or don't want to answer. That's why I really like the few US newspeople who actually push for an answer instead of nodding and moving on. It's also why I don't care about official debates, because the "you have 30 seconds to respond" format is pathetic at actually getting any information out.