Entry 2154, on 2021-09-28 at 13:32:47 (Rating 4, Politics)
If you read this blog you will be very well aware of how much despise bureaucracy. Let me clarify that statement a bit before I go on.
According to the Oxford English dictionary, bureaucracy is either "a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives" or "excessively complicated administrative procedures".
Clearly the two are linked, but it is primarily the second definition I am going to discuss here. The big problem with this definition is, of course, the word "excessively". What is excessive to me might be correct to someone else. So a rule which I see as unnecessary because it stops me working or living efficiently might be seen as being necessary and reasonable to someone else.
I think we all know about the types of situations I'm talking about though. I mean rules which mean I have to spend $100 of administration time to buy an item worth $10, or rules which stop developers building new houses in the middle of a housing crisis, or rules which are designed to increase safety but do the opposite because people so frustrated with them they need to use unsafe work-arounds.
I recently read an article - which seemed to be quite well researched - on this subject, and it listed several rules that bureaucrats use to maintain their power. These sounded disturbingly familiar, so I thought I should list and discuss them here.
So here are the rules...
Rule 1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
I immediately thought of several problems which are either inflated beyond their true hazard level, or really don't exist at all, and which were used as a part of a system to maintain power.
The first is obviously COVID. Yes, I know it is a real problem and requires some sort of response, but it's the extent of the problem and the level of response deemed necessary which concern me. For example, we have had to endure months of lockdowns here in New Zealand because one region of the country had a minor outbreak. We have had no community cases in the South Island of New Zealand for about a year, yet we are still forced into varying levels of lockdown, and although I concede the current level is fairly mild, it is also unnecessary.
The current government regime here in New Zealand, lead by the hideous Jacinda Ardern, thrives on "crisis management". Note that the management does little beyond restricting our freedoms and borrowing vast amounts of money to cover the damage done, but I guess you could say it is no worse than most other forms of management.
Rule 2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
As I said above, Ardern thrives on crises, and although she has no real clue what to do about them, she bumbles around in a very supportive away which many people like, so the more significant the crisis, the better she does.
Rule 2a: Force 11th-hour decisions, threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition's opportunity to review and critique.
At this point I'm starting to get the feeling that Ardern might have read this list and decided to act on it! This is exactly what she does. She makes decisions at the last minute and grandstands while making them. She threatens further loss of freedoms if people don't behave. And she stops effective opposition questioning of her decisions.
Rule 3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
The current government has primarily used and exaggerated existing crises for their own benefit, but there are undoubtedly problems they have created just to pursue their agenda. For example, the current mindless hysteria over racism and colonialism is just a fake narrative used to had out power and privilege to minority groups. It insidious and extremely dishonest.
Rule 4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Again, this fits the current government to perfection. They claimed they would be the most open government ever but constantly refuse to reveal information, they control the media for their own benefit to the extent of handing out millions in what might uncharitably be called bribes, and the PM in particular is excellent at avoiding answering questions even in the unlikely event that a difficult one is aimed at her.
Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
Again, this fits Ardern to perfection. She denies obvious facts; for example that we went hard and early with our response to COVID when everyone knows we left it too late, then panicked by enforcing draconian rules. She delays by creating committees and advisors to study a problem instead of fixing it. She spins everything with her message of positivity which is really the opposite, and she often makes statements which are simply untrue.
Rule 5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Are you beginning to see my point now? Again this fits the current government to perfection. They create an exaggerated story, prevent people from doing anything about it, then expect the adulation of the people when they come in and offer a solution themselves.
Rule 6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one's political opponents.
By now the reader should know that the government is likely to fit in with this rule, so who are the vested groups involved? The obvious examples are "minority groups", especially Maori, and institutions likely to be amenable to leftist doctrine, like the media. And yes, they are getting lots of handouts funded by the taxpayer.
Rule 7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, "The emperor has no clothes."
This government has a definite preference for shutting down discussion on subjects they are uncomfortable with. There is always some justification for this, although it is usually hugely exaggerated, but that tendency to shut down free speech is very obvious.
Some of the subjects we "aren't allowed to talk about" are: problems with vaccines (note, I am not anti-vaccine - I have had the first COVID vaccine shot myself - but I would like to see the real concerns some people have handled more fairly); criticism of the activities of some parts of the Muslim community in New Zealand, and whether that religion is inherently more violent or oppressive; and whether special privileges for Maori are justified.
The government's proposed "anti hate speech" legislation is highly problematic, and I think it indicates a general wish to suppress unpopular opinions; surely a very dangerous sign of a government which is ut of control.
So you can see that the rules are exactly what Ardern and her cronies are using to maintain their power and inflict their highly problematic ideologies on the country. They are the ultimate bureaucrats. That is not necessarily anything bad in itself, but it is a real warning sign of how we are being manipulated.
Comment 1 (6862) by Anonymous on 2021-09-28 at 16:11:34:
Sigh... why do you think the South Island hasn't seen any delta cases? Could it be that Auckland (the source of the infection) was locked down quickly? Really, you need to have this explained to you?
Comment 2 (6863) by OJB on 2021-09-28 at 17:48:57:
OK, I didn't say that some form of control wasn't necessary, just that this simplistic, and very disruptive model which we have had forced on us was unnecessary. The Auckland outbreak could have been controlled without having the South Island in lockdown for weeks.
The original justification for the actions taken was to eliminate the virus. That hasn't worked, and many people doubted that it could from the start. So that's a fail, to some extent at least.
I know medical experts want all sorts of controls imposed on us, and that is fair enough as far as it goes. But there are aspects to this beyond the medical components, and experts in one area cannot be relied on to make broad policy decisions.
Comment 3 (6864) by Anonymous on 2021-09-29 at 12:34:20:
"The Auckland outbreak could have been controlled without having the South Island in lockdown for weeks." Locking down the South Island for weeks had nothing to do with eliminating the outbreak in Auckland - it was about minimising the risk of (possible) spread to other parts of the country.
"That hasn't worked" (lockdowns). Really? Until Delta, we had enjoyed over 200 days without a community case - I'd say that has worked really quite well, wouldn't you? Take a look at the deaths in other countries before saying that the strategy hasn't worked to this point. Take a look at the ICU bed usage rates compared to other countries.
Delta has proven to be much tougher, and in some ways is a new disease. You keep saying that lockdowns aren't a solution going forward, well believe it or not, the Government is saying the same thing so what's your point?
Medical experts aren't making policy, they are making recommendations to the Government who have a mandate to make policy and law. Of course, if Simon Bridges (or David Seymore for that matter) were running the Government last year, the borders would have been opened up far earlier (their stated preference) and I think we can easily imagine what sort of state we would be in now.
Comment 4 (6865) by OJB on 2021-09-29 at 14:24:15:
That's my point: it was an unnecessary restriction. Maybe we could have been at level 3 for a week or two, but after that with no cases, just forget lockdowns. But it's second nature to this sort of government to impose central control over people's lives, while removing our freedoms.
I was talking about the current lockdowns. Delta is different, and from the start it seemed to me that it was elimination was impractical. Looks like I was right.
The government is listening to their own "pet" experts while ignoring everyone else. And if we listened to Seymour we would have had properly managed restrictions before Ardern finally got around to "going hard and early" (good joke) so long term restrictions might have been less necessary.
Comment 5 (6866) by OJB on 2021-09-29 at 14:25:54:
And another point too, you seem to be concentrating on the government's response to COVID, which wasn't really the point of this blog post. Do you see how well this government's actions fit in with the rules of bureaucracy? It seemed very striking to me.
Comment 6 (6867) by Anonymous on 2021-09-29 at 14:41:29:
Don/t really agree with what you are saying, despite your continue responses. I guess when you have a fixed view, you can massage any "evidence" to fit your theory...
While some of your points may have merit, I just don't see the point or anything constructive in what you say.
Comment 7 (6868) by Anonymous on 2021-09-29 at 16:47:35:
OK, some feedback on the broader post...
Rule 1: Rubbish.
Rule 2: Rubbish.
Rule 3
Yep, kind of agree with you on this one. Minorities of various types have a disproportionate control of the narrative.
Rule 4.
Nope - nothing special about this Government. Key's Government was the absolute master of this, and given a chanhgcw, David Seymore would be the same. It's the game politicians play. You're delusional if you are trying to suggest it's a construct of the left, or Ardern herself.
Rule 4a: See rule 4a. Nothing to see here.
Rule 5: "Are you beginning to see my point now?" No, but I certainly understand your pattern. Accuse the left of / Ardern of being horrible for various reasons while suggesting (by lack of objective/.balanced views) that the right / Seymore would never stoop that low. Offer little evidence or specific examples of this, keep it general, but overwhelmingly negative.
Rule 6: How are the "Media" supported by the taxpayer? Any examples other than RNZ or TVNZ, or are they the "Media" now?
Rule 7.
Where to start. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say we are not allowed to talk about some topics - perhaps related to Rule 3 (in this case I think it is unfortunately correct)?
In terms of vaccination criticism, surely you understand the issue right? If 99% of medical professionals consider vaccines great and 1% consider them dangerous, the 1% should get 1% of airtime. Seems to be happening from my perspective. What's your point. Do you think hey should get equal coverage?
Comment 8 (6869) by OJB on 2021-09-29 at 20:17:13:
1 and 2. Well, "rubbish" doesn't really give me enough to evaluate your criticism, and clearly I don't think it is, so there's not much more I can add.
3. Thanks for agreeing on this.
4. I agree that many of my criticisms of Ardern's administration also apply to Key's. I didn't vote for either, and there's a lot of similarity between Key and Ardern: both are master BS artists!
4a. If you think there is nothing in regards to "deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie" then you really aren't paying attention. Again, not unique to this government, but they are arguably the worst int his regard.
5. The need to help people is more a leftist narrative. The right, and especially libertarians, tend to prefer small government and self-reliance.
6. Have you not seen that almost every media organisation is getting support payments (which might uncharitably be called bribes) from the government?
7. I did give specific examples of speech which is highly discouraged, and potentially illegal if the "hate speech" laws are passed. And I am pro-vaccines, but hiding the problems with vaccines is counter-productive.
Comment 9 (6870) by OJB on 2021-09-29 at 20:24:42:
In response to comment 6: I agree that this is a negative post, and might be seen as not being "constructive", but I think it is important to point out problems with politicians and parties when I see them. I also tend to write about things which I find interesting from my reading, and this article on bureaucracy just totally matched my perceptions of the current government.
Comment 10 (6871) by Anonymous on 2021-09-30 at 09:03:05:
"Have you not seen that almost every media organisation is getting support payments" Do you mean the wage subsidy that is available to all companies with impaired revenue? Curious that you would single out media companies as being somehow different.
Comment 11 (6872) by OJB on 2021-09-30 at 09:52:58:
I was under the impression that it went beyond that... could be wrong. If I am, the same argument applies to government funding of media such as RNZ and TVNZ. I know that applies to other governments as well. Note that I am not saying that every government doesn't exploit some of these rules - of course they do - just saying it is particularly obvious in the case of this one. Note that my criticism of Labour shouldn't imply that I don't have issues with other parties as well, and note that I have never voted National.
Comment 12 (6873) by OJB on 2021-09-30 at 10:27:09:
Ah yes, here it is. It's the "Public Interest Journalism" fund which is the issue. Specifically designed to spread government - especially pro-Maori - propaganda. At least, that's one possible interpretation! :)
Comment 13 (6874) by Anonymous on 2021-09-30 at 16:50:18:
Another interpretation is that it is designed to support ideas and formats that are not commercially viable. Either way, I'm not necessarily interested in "possible interpretations" - there will be a multitude of those.
Comment 14 (6875) by OJB on 2021-09-30 at 17:43:47:
Well all political actions must be interpreted to some extent, and I think it is fairly clear that the restrictions and requirements around this one have very political motivations. You might not see that, maybe because you don't want to?
Comment 15 (6876) by Anonymous on 2021-10-01 at 09:22:22:
No, I think the reason I'm not interested in these views is that there isn't any evidence attached to them - just anecdote and commentary. Without evidence, it just becomes another viewpoint that may or may not have any substance.
Comment 16 (6877) by OJB on 2021-10-01 at 10:13:58:
The government is offering money to media companies to present particular views which are supportive of their political agenda. What more proof do you need? At the very least, can you not agree that it is not a good precedent?
Comment 17 (6878) by Anonymous on 2021-10-01 at 15:38:05:
"views which are supportive of their political agenda" That isn't evidence, it's your slanted, distorted take on a fact.
Comment 18 (6879) by OJB on 2021-10-01 at 20:14:02:
Well, I think that any funding which is based on the commitment to making material which supports a demographic which is well known to be very supportive of Labour is open to being criticised as having some political bias. Can you not see how this is a "bad look" at the very least?
Comment 19 (6947) by Derek Ramsey on 2021-11-03 at 19:41:11:
OJB said: "...requires some sort of response..."
Nope, COVID did not require a response. Places like Sweden, Florida, and South Dakota did just fine (relative to everyone else) without government interference. The basic principle of limited government is to do nothing unless there is a compelling and obligating reason to interfere (i.e. there is no other choice and a solution exists). Bureaucracy ultimately makes things worse than doing nothing (e.g. extra deaths in LTC facilities).
Here are my rules of bureaucracy (published on Twitter):
0th: It may take time to reveal itself, but bureaucracy will distort, invert, and make things worse. It is evil untruth.
1st: For every bureaucratic system, there exists a superior non-bureaucratic alternative.
2nd: People will demand more bureaucracy (e.g. to fix bureaucracy).
3rd: Bureaucracy grows. Over time, weaker forms replace stronger and small forms replace larger. Bureaucratic systems replace non-bureaucratic systems.
4th: Bureaucracy decouples responsibility and thinking from actions.
5th: Bureaucracy cannot be fixed, it can only be replaced.
Your rules explicate my core Zeroth Law: Bureaucracy at its core is evil, it encourages the problems it allegedly exists to solve (through the means you shared). It is inferior (1st Law), propaganda driven (2nd Law), parasitical (3rd Law), unaccountable and irrational (4th Law), and irredeemable (5th Law).
Comment 20 (6948) by OJB on 2021-11-03 at 19:41:33:
Yeah, some very interesting rules there. I particularly like number 4; I think that is the core to it. People don't want to think, and they definitely don't want to accept responsibiity for errors, so they create crazy rules. If you follow the rules, no matter how bad the outcome, you can't be blamed, can you? I also think rule 3 is an unfortunate fact in most cases, although following rule 5, maybe the whole thing can be reset, given enough willingness to do so. Not sure if there is any proof of rule 1, although I suspect it is true. Not sure about 2 either, depending on who the "people" are. BTW, I approve of starting the rules at 0!
Comment 21 (6949) by Derek Ramsey on 2021-11-03 at 19:42:11:
Even vaccine development was done faster (but not as fast as it could!) because the bureaucratic overhead was temporarily reduced. Nevertheless, bureaucracy has continued to implicitly and explicitly prevent hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, hyper-immune plasma, and other potential therapies. It also explicitly fails to recognize natural immunity as equal to (or better than) vaccination “immunity”.
You forgot one rule: profit from the conflict. Power is fine, but money is good too. Conflicts of interest abound, including the WHO, CDC, the researchers, etc.
Comment 22 (6950) by OJB on 2021-11-03 at 19:42:35:
BTW, I think COVID did require some response. It is a real disease, and we should expect more hopsitilisations because of it. Maybe the repsonse whould have been increasing hospital capabilities, or just recommendations about avoiding spread. The draconian lockdowns, etc I think were too much, but some response was needed.
Comment 23 (6951) by Derek Ramsey on 2021-11-04 at 08:49:44:
I say this as someone currently recovering from a breakout covid infection: yes, there existed superior covid responses that could have saved lives, but none of them could have been (or were!) implemented by governments or other bureaucracies.
The reason you are somewhat skeptical of rule #1 is because you (like most people) think bureaucracies can actually in reality implement those solutions (rule #2). But a bureaucracy cannot implement non-bureaucratic solutions. Yes, positive responses to COVID were probably ‘required’, but they can’t be implemented by bureaucracies. What actually gets implemented will always be something worse.
In Pennsylvania, overweight transgender Health Director Levine moved their own family member out of long term care facility just prior to instituting policies that cost long term care resident lives. Rather than being prosecuted, Biden was elected and Levine was promoted to a federal executive cabinet position, ultimately being given the position of “four-star admiral in Public Health Service”, a purely bureaucratic virtual signal, if I ever heard of one.
Comment 24 (6952) by OJB on 2021-11-04 at 08:53:36:
I am very much on your side, believe me. I am no fan of bureaucracies, having been the victim of many bureaucratic policies and decisions. However, we need to consider the alternatives. If governments, councils, boards, and other groups are all bureaucracies, how should we manage society to avoid them?
I know this is somewhat trite, but maybe it is like democracy. To paraphrase Churchill: bureaucracy is the worst form or organisation, apart form all the rest!
Comment 25 (6953) by OJB on 2021-11-04 at 08:53:49:
And also: I hate political correctness and virtue signalling, so I totally accept your last point. I’m not sure what the link between bureaucracy and political correctness is though. PC seems something exhibited by both bureaucracies and individuals.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE
