You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

pragmatist comments on Politics Discussion Thread August 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: OrphanWilde 01 August 2012 03:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (166)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pragmatist 02 August 2012 01:17:28AM 5 points [-]

Or as Jerry Pournelle put it in his iron law of buerocracy

Why should I believe this is a law? Could you give me a theoretical or empirical argument supporting its universal validity?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 August 2012 08:46:33PM 1 point [-]

Theoretical argument: Those who spend time working on the actual goals of the organization, have less time to spend on the political and signaling games over who gets into positions of power.

Also, here are two examples from Pournelle's blog: 1 2. And one of my favorite examples comes form this TJ Rogers speech, (also seriously read the whole thing).

Now think for a moment about something less complex: the* tobacco leaf*. Today, the U.S. government spends tens of millions of dollars through the Office of the Surgeon General to warn Americans about the dangers of smoking. At the same time, through loan guarantees and occasional direct grants from the Department of Agriculture, it has spent tens of millions of dollars to subsidize tobacco farmers.

Comment author: pragmatist 03 August 2012 08:53:39AM *  2 points [-]

Thanks, I'll read through that speech when I have the time. The example you quote doesn't seem to be an instance of the law, though. The Office of the Surgeon General and the Dept. of Agriculture aren't run by the same people, so the fact that they support conflicting policies isn't really evidence that the people running them aren't working for the goals for their respective organizations. The organizations might just have conflicting goals. It's also unclear to me how the two examples on Pournelle's blog (especially the second) are good evidence for the law. Pournelle seems to be interpreting the law to mean something like "Bureaucracies do wasteful and counterproductive things", but that's not what the law says.

More broadly though, Pournelle's law seems to assume that working to further the goals of the organization and working for the organization itself are always incompatible. That's plausible in the example he gave, involving education, but I don't think it's generally true. Often a very effective way to further the goals of a bureaucratic organization is to bolster the political clout and prestige of the organization itself.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 August 2012 07:35:43PM *  1 point [-]

The Office of the Surgeon General and the Dept. of Agriculture aren't run by the same people,

Depending on how far up the chain you go. Also FiftyTwo was trying to argue that the people providing health services will include future tax revenue in the set of things they seek to maximize.

Often a very effective way to further the goals of a bureaucratic organization is to bolster the political clout and prestige of the organization itself.

True, assuming you ever actually get around to furthering your goals. Unfortunately, if you optimize your organization too much for obtaining political clout and prestige it will be hard to shift to accomplishing your goals.