Calling a bureaucrat by its name

This post is just restating Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, but in way too many words and with a bit more of a polemic bent that makes it slightly less accurate than it could have been.

The trick is separating "people there to drive an organization's goals forward" (or 'innovator') and "people there to advance the power of the organization" (or 'bureaucrat'). You need to protect the first group of people from the second group of people- the more protected they are, the more productive your nation... to a point. There have been many attempts at this- this is the key insight behind Marxist thought, after all (the fact that it ends in complete ideological capture 100% of the time is positive proof that the optimal amount of "parasitic load" on a society is not zero, and that you actually need competent leaders else you get taken over by unremovable, unaccountable grifters).

Recent examples of this class's parasitic excess and non-accountability are left as an exercise for the reader.

Of course, the post is also wrong in another way: these parasites actually do have a weakness. They get fed to a conquering society by the productive if they perceive the parasitic load the enemy would impose on them is less than the one imposed by the domestic parasites. The fact that societies capable of conquering any Western nation are in short supply doesn't change the fact that, historically (and even still today, in some parts of the world) this is how it has always been.

Every bad or ultimately invalid ideology or philosophy that appeals to anyone, necessarily has some sort of bits of rationality here & there to hang all their other arguments on to do that appealing.

When a conservative or libertarian wants to sell the idea of deregulation, there are legitimate examples of disfunctional regulation to point to.

When a neoliberal statist wants to sell the idea of abolishing guns or home schooling or cryptography or anonymous cash, there are legitimate examples of individuals misusing their individual agency to harm others.

Those examples are real, and any sane person should agree those specific stories are bad outcomes, but that does not mean they actually support the argument or that the larger argument or philosophy is valid.

It's wrong that Bill Maher can't build a shed. That does not mean that therefor the entire concept of building codes, zoning, epa regulations, etc are wrong and life would be on the whole better and saner without them.

I think the bits of truth in this article are like that.

[1] https://mises.org/library/bureaucracy

It's fascinating that the article inspired some people to flag it.

> It's wrong that Bill Maher can't build a shed. That does not mean that therefor the entire concept of building codes, zoning, epa regulations, etc are wrong and life would be on the whole better and saner without them.

I do not interpret the OP arguing for the abolishment of the bureaucratic class & regulations. I think such talk is akin to art or architecture...people see beauty in things that they desire to move toward & an aversion against what they want to move away from...so the "art" or discussion skews toward a painting of a world free(r) from bureaucratic rules.

To your earlier point about taking ideas/philosophies too far...the article seems to imply that bureaucratic class is pushing for TOTAL bureaucratic control over the lives of everyone. That they want to take as much money & agency from everyone else...and I agree. Despite the work of innovators around the world, why are things so messed up? Why are there so many poor people? Why are resource rich countries full of starving people? Why are the profits of the commodities sold by these resource rich countries not distributed into the hands of the people?

That being said, there are many rules in the building codes, zoning, epa regulations that overtly or covertly diminish the quality of life of people. Some jurisdictions allow one to buy some cheap land, live in camper while building an alternative structure on it to save money...and many don't. It is also difficult to find small plots of land not run by an HOA which have their own building codes, such as a minimum square footage/footprint & style of the house. These sort of laws do nothing to improve the quality of life of people. They do cause housing to be more unaffordable & buffer the rentier class.

The EPA & some state environmental agencies enforce rules, in ways that are often counter-productive to restoring environments. Oregon has put people in jail for building a pond, which is used to capture water in a permaculture setting (slow, sink, spread). Florida has until recently banned home gardens for many people. The fires in Lahaina was made worse by poor water & land management. Upstream water rights are sold as long-term contracts to large corporations. Lahaina once had canals & the land was full of native agriculture & water management...not anymore.

Nobody is arguing to remove all regulation, but the over-regulation, taxation, & a cultural mandarin class imposes their vision on the rest us. They work for & facilitate the transfer of wealth from the have nots to the haves. Over regulation stifles innovation & promotes the interests of bureaucrats & their funders who grow wealthy even when they are a net loss to the rest of society (which they often are). People in many other countries are given the freedom to build & live in ways not allowed in the US...and find success & happiness with their effort. Why are we so restricted here in ways that have nothing to do with safety or the environment? The language used to justify actions & rules may sound plausible, but it's the implementation & the effects that really matter.