Anomaly UK wrote a couple of weeks ago the kind of post I always want to write, but never do. It's really good, and it touches many points that should be obvious to any interested in public policy. For example, on employment:
That isn't wrong — within the libertarian framework it's completely true. But I've left the framework behind. Political power will be gained and held by people who believe that gaining and holding power are always a first-order consideration. I hope for a government whose hold on power is so solid that it does not depend on interfering in the market for labour, but that is not relevant to any present government or any feasible near-future one. Welfare is here to stay (even if based on private charity rather than the state, it would still have market-distorting effects), and unemployment will therefore always need to be addressed.
This is so true it's painful. It should be branded on steel on every libertarian's thigh. Politics is not about policy, it's about power. And power is about patronage. It has been so since at least Roman times, who gaves us the words Patron and Client. Well it happens that the powers that be today have the widest and deepest clientela of human history, one that goes starts in government, goes through the civil service, big business, the academia, the media, and then directly to the underclass, bypassing the people who actually bother to work. Game players call the sex-starved betas Average Frustrated Chumps, AFC. Well you might call those bypassed by the government patronage the OWC, Overworked White Chumps.
The point is that government doesn't intervene in the economy because it's evil and loves fucking around with people. The government meddles because it has to. All human organisations are ultimately about self-preservation. Governments too, they just have more resources. The government is wrecking the labor market, is wrecking education, is wrecking the legal and tax system. If we just reformed any of these, any country would become way more efficient overnight. But it's not going to happen. Because it would endanger it.
See Anomaly on education:
Well, the education system. It's not that it's failing to teach people "what they need to get jobs". Rather, the purposeless and ineffective attempts to control unacademic children are actively teaching them not to work. Being forced to do schoolwork is a fairly crappy training for doing real work, but today the bottom stratum aren't even getting that training. The result is they're unemployable, not for lack of skill so much as lack of socialisation. It may be only a few percent, but the risk to the employer of getting one of them, and the costs if you do, push a large swathe of the lower classes out of employability.
The education system doesn't need to be improved, it just needs to be in large part abolished. Actually doing useful work, for the family or for someone else, is not only a better preparation for being a useful adult than our schools are, it's probably a good deal more personally satisfying and rewarding as well. The norm should be for people to be in full-time employment by the age of 16, and 13 or 14 is probably a good idea in a lot of cases.
All very true. But government can't and won't get its paws out of the education system. Public education is the perfect propaganda mechanism. And the government needs it for its survival. Imagine that education is privatised and totally liberalised, schools can teach what they will. Who is to stop the market into consolidating? Say 30% of schools go libertarian and teach the morals of not paying your taxes? Or say Bill Gates spent his money in building a school network that taught the virtues of charity and blasted the government for not doing more about it.
Japan, before the war, had a huge problem with its education system, which in the same way as today is full of liberals, was full of fascists preaching the virtue of killing for the emperor. The government in that day was your run-of-the-mill racket of corrupt country politicians and pork barrel. Educated soldiers found it proper to go on a killing spree until the government yielded power to the army. Also see what Roman laissez-faire policy on religion did to them.
Once it was established empirically that people do as they are told, and that consistent repetition of the message is sufficient to have the populace at large believe something, it became obvious that government has to control education and the media if it is to survive. Which means it must add all education and media workers to the patronage network.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500"] it was easier back then[/caption]
As I wrote before, politics today is intrinsically unstable, as agitation using modern technology is very easy. See my first quote of Anomaly: Political power will be gained and held by people who believe that gaining and holding power are always a first-order consideration. Well it follows that the incumbent's first-order consideration is to stop other like-minded people from taking that power from them. For 100 years the socialist movement was a pain in the ass for all governments around the world. People who believe that gaining and holding power are always a first-order consideration, i.e. professional agitators went around inciting the workforce to disobey their governments and take power. The USSR had them all well funded and ready to do its bidding. The way government reacted was by intervening in the job market, creating artificial job security and artificially high pay, plus the whole welfare system. The alternative was takeover by the mob. Sovereignty counts for shit when the people refuse to obey you.
Then the agitators switched to incite blacks and women. Government then reacted by giving them artificial jobs and inserting them too in the patronage network. Why didn't they resist?, you ask. Why should they? They had money to spare. And they don't have arguments to fight it, anyway. The civic religion is equality, one person, one vote. Who's to say that women shouldn't be CEOs? Or that blacks shouldn't head NASA? Science? Science doesn't vote. Any patronage network is happily willing to add more members to its support base, as it makes it stronger. See how fast fags have been let in. Of course a horizontal patronage network including 50%+ of society, which we call socialism, only works until the money runs out. Which is quickly doing.
Education and labor would work much better if we let the market clear, but we can't let that happen. Even if the Antiversity took over, it would have to tightly control education, justice administration and the labor market, if only to keep liberals out of it.
Of course if 19th century technology makes agitation much easier, and sovereignty weaker, 21st century technology is quickly fighting back. China is leading the fight against "public" opinion, but it's not being easy. If surveillance and online profiling keeps growing at the present rate, we might see very soon a government whose hold on power is so solid that it does not depend on interfering in the market for labour. But do we really want that? I wonder. It can't be worse than what we have now, can it?