The slippery slope of bureaucracy? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

An article in todays smh discusses 'the enormous and insidious cost of the bureaucratisation of society' and quotes Jane Jacobs, Dark Age Ahead (2004): ''Central planning, whether by leftists or conservatives, draws too little on local knowledge and creativity, stifles innovations, and is inefficient and costly because it is circuitous.''

Given the healthy number of libertarians and statists who post I thought it interesting to consider peoples thoughts about bureaucracy; is it a good thing or a bad thing? Does it ultimately benefit people or stifle them?

Is it actually a slippery slope to socialism/communism or are libertarians over-reacting?

 

[Iron]

How are you suggesting that the state function otherwise?
And none of this tiresome anarchy pls

 

[murphyad]

Interesting. In modern society the 'bureaucracy' has an overly negative connotation; usually the referral to someone as a bureaucrat can be taken as patronising at the least.

I did read the article, and it makes some fair points. Who wants to fill out 10 pages of paperwork just to use a park for a school fair? In this respect the lamentation of 'red tape' is entirely valid. I think it is depressing that public agencies can in fact prevent the people that they are supposed to serve from being able to use a public space.

However, bureaucracy as an institutional concept is not necessarily a bad thing. History shows that well-organised societies are more capable of prospering and delivering the goods for their citizens; this goes as far back as Ancient Egypt and Rome. However, there is a point at which this organisation can become overbearing (USSR).

Thus bureaucracy can both benefit and stifle people, and the key is to find the 'line in the sand'. Bureaucracy will continue to have a place in society, both in government and in business, though it is important that this place is not outgrown. So I voted 'yes' to the validity of bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean that I think it has the right to endlessly consolidate power.

 

[loquasagacious]

How are you suggesting that the state function otherwise?
And none of this tiresome anarchy pls

I have quite obviously presented a false dichotomy to heighten debate and give a clearer poll. My posistion is that a bureaucracy will more often than not harm the people it tries to help, therefore we should resist it's increasing spread and even roll it back. While anarchists might see that roll-back as being the elimination of the bureaucracy (and indeed the state), I don't. My position is a much reduced bureaucracy/state with a far smaller involvement in our day-to-day lives.

 

[Iron]

My opinion is that all man-made institutions seeking to control day-to-day lives will fail to offer real benifit. Maybe the market is better at gaining consent than the government, but it makes it no more 'good' imo. People will be harmed regardless when they put too much faith in anything of this world

 

[loquasagacious]

My opinion is that all man-made institutions seeking to control day-to-day lives will fail to offer real benifit. Maybe the market is better at gaining consent than the government, but it makes it no more 'good' imo. People will be harmed regardless when they put too much faith in anything of this world

The church is a man-made institution

 

[Iron]

You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
-Christ

 

[loquasagacious]

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.

(16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. (17) And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted. (18) And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

My understanding is the St Peter and St Paul were the big players in the founding of the church and neither of them were Jesus or God - within Catholicism I understand that they would have been acting under instruction. Similar analysis applies to the Great Schism and the Reformation which both established institutions.

 

[Iron]

But Christ never spoke to Luther 'irl' like He did to St Peter - the first Pope. The Catholic Church is the only Church specifically authorized by Christ

 

[Silver Persian]

I think any large organisation is going to work using some kind of bureaucratic logic, whether public or private.

 

[loquasagacious]

But Christ never spoke to Luther 'irl' like He did to St Peter - the first Pope. The Catholic Church is the only Church specifically authorized by Christ

Surely you wouldn't be claiming that Christ needs to speak irl to people for it to matter? That rather seems to defeat the omnipresence/omnipotence argument.... and undermine the legitimacy of the papacy as the voice of God on Earth....

Also even if you believe that Christ spoke irl to St Peter, it was Peter not Jesus who actually established the church as an institution/organisation. At best he interpreted the instructions of Jesus. And Jesus' instructions were not particularly specific in terms of actual organisational arrangements...

 

[loquasagacious]

I think any large organisation is going to work using some kind of bureaucratic logic, whether public or private.

True but should it be embraced and expanded or resisted and minimised. The trend in the corporate world is certainly towards minimisation because of the effeciency/productivity benefits.

 

[Iron]

Surely you wouldn't be claiming that Christ needs to speak irl to people for it to matter? That rather seems to defeat the omnipresence/omnipotence argument.... and undermine the legitimacy of the papacy as the voice of God on Earth....

Also even if you believe that Christ spoke irl to St Peter, it was Peter not Jesus who actually established the church as an institution/organisation. At best he interpreted the instructions of Jesus. And Jesus' instructions were not particularly specific in terms of actual organisational arrangements...

I'm just saying that Christ was a real man who walked this earth ~2000 years ago. Within this time, having gotten to know St Peter, He entrused him specifically to start the Church, which he did in Rome.

Peter was a first-hand witness of the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. No other Church can claim this link.

Christ was clear that they would be guided by Him and the Holy Spirit in this quest to establish His Church.

 

[loquasagacious]

I'm just saying that Christ was a real man who walked this earth ~2000 years ago. Within this time, having gotten to know St Peter, He entrused him specifically to start the Church, which he did in Rome.

Peter was a first-hand witness of the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. No other Church can claim this link.

Christ was clear that they would be guided by Him and the Holy Spirit in this quest to establish His Church.

Noting that I don't accept that Jesus was necasserily a real man, even within Christianity it is Peter who establishes the church, not Jesus. Certainly there is guidance in the bible about the 'spirit' of Christianity however we have no record of Jesus laying out his plan for the Church.

Jesus may have written the mission statement and the values statement but that is about it. He didn't draw org-charts, develop a corporate/business strategy, develop a business plan, establish governance frameworks or anything else. The product, the bible, was largely written by the apostles. The Church was based on the teachings of the bible and the mission statement provided by Jesus, but it's structure, organisation, hierarchy, division of territory, expansion, human resources management, etc etc etc were all developed by people not Jesus. Perhaps people who Christians hold knew Jesus irl and many many many people who did not.

 

[Riet]

Bureacracy and greed are what waste money, whether it be to the unions for 'safety' or developers and councils for consultations and approvals.

 

[Fish Tank]

We need bureaucracy in some form for everything to work. In the article, the regulations for a simple fete were ridiculous, but what really got me was the parking ticket. That's just plain stupid. However, if there were no disclaimers/risk assessments etc, then people will be suing like there's no tomorrow.

If things were more flexible at the lower levels, the bureaucratic system was aimed at helping people, and people in general are not so stupid, then things would be a whole lot better.

 

[Lentern]

An article in todays smh discusses 'the enormous and insidious cost of the bureaucratisation of society' and quotes Jane Jacobs, Dark Age Ahead (2004): ''Central planning, whether by leftists or conservatives, draws too little on local knowledge and creativity, stifles innovations, and is inefficient and costly because it is circuitous.''

Given the healthy number of libertarians and statists who post I thought it interesting to consider peoples thoughts about bureaucracy; is it a good thing or a bad thing? Does it ultimately benefit people or stifle them?

Is it actually a slippery slope to socialism/communism or are libertarians over-reacting?

No its a slippery slope to godless chaotic anarchy. All this red tape is preventing the government exercising its powers properly and people are left to stumble through life without the guidance the average bloke needs to avoid becoming an self destructive nihilistic public nuisance.

 

[Lentern]

I'm just saying that Christ was a real man who walked this earth ~2000 years ago. Within this time, having gotten to know St Peter, He entrused him specifically to start the Church, which he did in Rome.

Peter was a first-hand witness of the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. No other Church can claim this link.

Christ was clear that they would be guided by Him and the Holy Spirit in this quest to establish His Church.

So you say, I have it on good authority Peter never met Jesus. He said so himself, three times.

 

[Cyrus the Great]

hey iron and lentern, keep your fucked up issues in the god thread. thanks