the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[Advocate]

I ain't seein' how that's so.

Since criminals and the immoral aren’t blunted by the current level of government, clearly the current level is insufficient and we need more! QED.

Whatever the level of government by sorts of Mafia, that government is insufficient.

No government that lines its own pockets , or legislates to empower itself, is a sufficient government. I wish to God there was an honest government somewhere in his world.

Check the family level first. You'll find plenty. Then check local government. You'll find a few. Then check state government. Forget it.

[Advocate]

define safe in a way both the country boy and the city dweller would recognize and agree with

That's pretty easy. Any good philosopher can deconstruct. "Freedom from unexpected/unnecessary disruption or interference."

That's a first draft, obviously, but minor semantic points aside, everyone would recognize and agree with it to the extent that's possible. That definition is sufficient to provide a feeling of safety in all beings.

[Advocate]

You have to produce the particulars all by yourself.

Skep, I have to call bullshit on you. Henry asked for an example. You didn’t provide one. Instead, you simply indicated that Henry was on his own. How rude of you to deflect Henry’s request for help.

You should have given an example from your own experience or from an imagined situation. It’s possible that Henry wanted a concrete example so that he could understand how to pull an example out of his own experiences. Or it could have been something else altogether.

Henry, I’m not trying to speak for you or fight your fight. This guy pissed me off, so that’s why I’m speaking out.

And I have to call bullshit on your bullshit.

My original comment contained a link to the WIkipedia page for the principal-agent problem. It has high-level context AND a bunch of examples/scenarios with different social dynamics, plus tons of references.

Either way, he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise when you can't hold your "proxies" accountable.

This is literally the second paragraph in the article:

Common examples of this relationship include corporate management (agent) and shareholders (principal), elected officials (agent) and citizens (principal), or brokers (agent) and markets (buyers and sellers, principals).[2] Consider a legal client (the principal) wondering whether their lawyer (the agent) is recommending protracted legal proceedings because it is truly necessary for the client's well being, or because it will generate income for the lawyer. In fact the problem can arise in almost any context where one party is being paid by another to do something where the agent has a small or nonexistent share in the outcome, whether in formal employment or a negotiated deal such as paying for household jobs or car repairs.

Did you not the read the article?
Did you not read the examples?
Did you not type "principal-agent problem" in Google?
Is this not sufficient introduction to the general idea so that you can identify relevant examples in your own context?

Since you had plenty of opportunity to acquire the information that you wanted without needing anything from me your "outrage" is a tad misplaced and entitled, no?

You still haven't read tiny.cc/TheWholeStory, so shuddap.

[RCSaunders]

That definition is sufficient to provide a feeling of safety in all beings.
[/quote
Well, as long as everyone, feels safe, that's all that matters.

Not likely in this age of paranoia.

[RCSaunders]

99% of people who fail fail aren't fools who made bad decisions.

You are right about that. 100% of people who fail are fools who made bad decisions.

[RCSaunders]

... society cannot fulfill it's primary purpose.

Society has no purpose, only individual human beings have purposes.

[Advocate]

... society cannot fulfill it's primary purpose.

Society has no purpose, only individual human beings have purposes.

People don't band together to form a society for nothing. It has a purpose.

[henry quirk]

define safe in a way both the country boy and the city dweller would recognize and agree with

That's pretty easy. Any good philosopher can deconstruct. "Freedom from unexpected/unnecessary disruption or interference."

That's a first draft, obviously, but minor semantic points aside, everyone would recognize and agree with it to the extent that's possible. That definition is sufficient to provide a feeling of safety in all beings.

That works: it covers the bases without discountin' individual notions of disruption & interference and without dictatin' how to be safe.

[henry quirk]

save yourself: support liberty

Liberty is best created in the context of a fascist over-state that controls general issues, as only an efficiently functioning government of scale can. Freedom is the freedom to do what is possible without harming the freedom of others. Government must balance those freedoms and harms. Efficiency doesn't mean sending anyone to the showers, it means eugenics (which is not inherently negative - it can be done by attrition), resource management (especially land), and delegating every authority which it is not Necessaryily controled at a high level to be effective.

Yeah, I'll pass.Your efficient lil state: already livin' in one. Not carin' for it particularly.

[henry quirk]

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."

Universal Taxonomy - levels of kinds of power
<soft (general)>

convincing
•emotional - convince that it will make a better world
•psychological - convince that it's a good idea with common sense
•factual - insist on technical correctness

influencing
•cultural - game society
•economic - influence the direction of market choices, with sanctions for non-compliance
•bureaucratic - rig the system toward certain results

requiring
•legal - require compliance under threat of force
•physical - physical enforcement of compliance
•criminal - forced psychological change under direct supervision

preventing
•direct prevention - forced physical change or imprisonment
•removal - banishment
•existential - death

<hard (individual)>

Governments should prepare the hardest level they believe is sufficient for each particular case and then retreat toward only what is necessary :because they will always initially err on the side of control.

No. Governments ought to be small, mostly impotent on any level beyond the local, and well under heel.

[Advocate]

save yourself: support liberty

Liberty is best created in the context of a fascist over-state that controls general issues, as only an efficiently functioning government of scale can. Freedom is the freedom to do what is possible without harming the freedom of others. Government must balance those freedoms and harms. Efficiency doesn't mean sending anyone to the showers, it means eugenics (which is not inherently negative - it can be done by attrition), resource management (especially land), and delegating every authority which it is not Necessaryily controled at a high level to be effective.

Yeah, I'll pass.Your efficient lil state: already livin' in one. Not carin' for it particularly.

You think any government today is anything like efficient? How quaint.

[henry quirk]

Liberty is best created in the context of a fascist over-state that controls general issues, as only an efficiently functioning government of scale can. Freedom is the freedom to do what is possible without harming the freedom of others. Government must balance those freedoms and harms. Efficiency doesn't mean sending anyone to the showers, it means eugenics (which is not inherently negative - it can be done by attrition), resource management (especially land), and delegating every authority which it is not Necessaryily controled at a high level to be effective.

Yeah, I'll pass.Your efficient lil state: already livin' in one. Not carin' for it particularly.

You think any government today is anything like efficient? How quaint.

it's called sarcasm

[Skepdick]

Benevolent dictatorship is the least immoral, but it's also the most risky. :/

Risk is the only quantifier of future-harm.

So it's immoral.

[Skepdick]

You don't understand the difference between "people" and "the people"?!

I do.

In the former people actually own stuff.

In the latter "the people" don't actually own anything. The state (which is largely unaccountable to "the people") does.

[Skepdick]

Second, the price you pay, the way you present it, is utterly decoupled from what you get, which is morally absurd. We don't all benefit equally from society, not even close.

But you do benefit.

Which is significantly better than not benefitting at all.

Equality is a micro, not macro concern.