Downsizing corporations is as important as downsizing government. But, as to how it is done, I think this question is much deeper than it seems. In fact, I think the whole concept of the corporation needs to be rethought.

Not only is the economy dominated by corporations too big to permit anything resembling a free market to exist, they are treated as immortal virtual persons who are legally required be ruthless, greedy, devoid of conscience, and, well, utterly psychopathic. Indeed, they are structured in just the right way to form the perfect natural habitat of human psychopaths.

This is a very, very important issue, because it drives at the root of why privatization so often goes so horribly wrong — why so many attempts at reform give rise to greater evils than they drive out.

It is an issue that applies to all types of organizations: governments, churches, corporations, unions, trusts, foundations, associations … all of them.

Make a list of characteristics that define the psychopath:

1. Glibness, superficial charm and habitual lying.
2. Emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy.
3. Cunning, devious and manipulative behaviour.
4. Lack of remorse or guilt for actions that harm others.
5. Grandiosity and exaggerated sense of self-worth.

This is the exact set of characteristics that will maximize a person’s success in any of these organizations.

This is why we are in the mess we are in, and why every effort to extricate ourselves from it only gets us in deeper.

This is the problem we must solve.

Xanthippa says:

Any thoughts you might have on this or advice you could offer me would be greatly appreciated!

YES–!! Now you are talking my language!

Xanthippa says:

So, it is not just as easy a task as it sounds. Done the wrong way, it will make things worse, not better.

Well, if you add together federal, provincial and municipal governments, Canada is now hovering near the 45% mark — down from over 60% in the early 90’s. And, in fact it turns out that most of the countries in the world are distributed in a relatively narrow band between about 40% to 60%. However, I seem to recall a quote due to Washington, or Jefferson, or someone like that, to the effect that “a government which spends more than a tenth part of the wealth created by its people is necessarily corrupt.”

The fact that we were able to back off from government spending in excess of 60% of GNP tells me that we are not (yet) at the point of no return. The fact that we haven’t gone far below 50% tells me it is high time to pick up the pace.

And, okay, the factor of 20 I mentioned was an overstatement. But we need to shrink government at all levels by a factor of at least 5.

Starting now.

Xanthippa says:

Then, of course, if we get the government to stop sticking its nose into places it does not belong (can you say the HRCs?), it would not hurt at all!

Yes, there would be more than a little kvetching from some quarters. But I think you would be surprised at how fast people can grow up if there is no other option. Like kids whose tantrum stops like flicking a switch as soon as they realize it won’t get them anywhere.

People act like spoiled children because then can. And I think the general public is a lot less stupid than they are made out to be. We are often presented with a story about some exceptionally stupid or squalid twit, and we are invited to conclude (wrongly) that this is typical and therefore the nanny state is necessary.

But the problem you point out is real. And the longer we wait, the worse it gets. So the sooner we dismantle the nanny state, the less painful it will be. Indeed, there may come a time when it is too late, but I don’t think that time has arrived. Yet.

For now, I think people would rise to the occasion.

Xanthippa says:

Remember, even serfdom started out with working on the landlord’s ‘stuff’ 2-3 days a month…..and ended with sun-rise to sun-set, 6 days a week… When the ‘economy-growers’ – not just those with ‘a job’, but those with a non-government-driven-income, but private sector people who actually make/create ‘stuff’ – loose the ability for their voice to count, bad things follow for their society!

Yes. We are thinking along the same lines: scale is the crucial issue. When it comes to government, the smaller its budget, the less harm it can do and the less tempting it is to corrupt it. In the private sector, a large number of small, simple, independent entities are more difficult to co-opt than a small number of large, complex, intertwined entities.

So what we need are structural changes that inhibit the accumulation of large fortunes that outlive their creators, and enforce strict separation of church, state, business, charity, and so on.

Indeed, this way of thinking implies sweeping legislative and regulatory reform, but the end result would be far less invasive and restrictive than what we have today, and far more conducive to the flourishing of true capitalism and democracy.

Xanthippa says:

Okay, it’s not as easy as I’ve made it out to be. But neither is it as tough as you’ve made it out to be. The bureaucracy can be whittled down to size, and it must be.

But we’ve let ourselves get caught up in a side issue. The topic of your post is the danger posed by the religious right, and on that we completely agree: the rightards are as dangerous as the leftards. And to that list, I add the islamatards, the jewtards, the greentards, and all the other ‘tards. They are all just different flavours of the same danger.

All of those factions pose a threat to freedom, irrespective of their position on the left/right scale. They all present fatally flawed package deals, but these package deals are not flawed by accident. They are carefully crafted to manipulate and control the masses of true believers (the ‘tards) while consolidating power and wealth in the hands of the elite.

But the people are getting wise to it, and they are tired of being taken for ‘tards. They only seem oblivious because they see no way out. If someone were to come along and present them with a deal that is not fatally flawed, he could give them a way out, and all that pent-up frustration would propel him to power with a mandate to actually fix what’s wrong with this place. Dismantling the bureaucracy is only a small part of it.

What is really required is to place strict limits on the size and mutual influence of organizations of all kinds, be they religious, political, commercial, or whatever. We need organizations. But when they get too big and to intertwined they become so detrimental to individual freedom that they threaten the survival of the whole society.

Xanthipa says:

Though, human nature being what it is, it will be difficult to retain both individuality and accountability when dealing with large numbers of people.

People whose jobs are useless cannot afford to strike, because all they will accomplish is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their jobs are indeed useless. By providing that proof, they only make it that much easier to issue their termination notices.

People who cause problems with the few remaining bureaucratic functions are guilty of misconduct — or worse — and will be dealt with accordingly. At minimum, they will be immediately terminated with cause, and therefore without severance pay.

If they intentionally interfere with truly essential services, they create a state of emergency. All they accomplish thereby is to activate emergency powers, the exercise of which will land them in prison.

To take over the pecking order, you take on the toughest contenders first. That is a given, just like in the schoolyard. Thus the first wave of layoffs includes all the senior levels in every department. After all, you are downsizing by a factor of 20 to 1. Such senior people are far overqualified, and clearly no longer required. So they can go without prejudice — with generous severance pay, even. As long as they go peacefully. If not, see the preceding paragraphs.

Believe me… there will come a point where those who still have jobs will start cooperating. Some because they see a route to a promotion that would otherwise have taken 30 years, others out of sheer fear. It doesn’t matter which. As long as they do their jobs. Properly.

Don’t mess with me, Mr. Bear… I like bear meat!

Xanthippa says:

It is not as easy as you present it. Trust me. I know what I speak of – at least on this one!

The whole point is to dismantle the bureaucracy.

At least 95% of the things government does are things it should not be doing at all. Therefore the required reform is simply to eliminate those functions.

No bureaucrat can sabotage a policy whose entire content consists of eliminating his job.

Xanthippa says:

Still, CodeSlinger, do not underestimate the power most higher-ranking bureaucrats hold. Stripping them of it will not be as easy as telling them their job was eliminated. And a cornered bureaucrat, fearing the loss of their ‘empire’ is more dangerous than a cornered bear…plus they are armed with blackberries. You’d have an army of frightened, cornered bureaucrats – bureaucrats well connected with the union hierarchy. General strike by all civil servants, from immigration and customs people to healthcare and on and on….

The Greeks were not about freedom. Remember Socrates?

Constantine PROMOTED freedom by his edict of Milan in 313. It was the first time in recorded history that a government announced toleration for various religious beliefs.

The demise of Hypatia, tragic as it was, hardly marked the beginning of the decline of Greek civilization.

It’s erroneous to lay the blame of the so-called “Dark Ages” on Christianity. The Fall of the Roman Empire did not automatically make Europe into a Christian continent. Arian Vandals ruled in Spain; France, England, Germany, and other vast areas of Europe were still largely pagan. The Ostrogoths ruled in Italy, but there were still pockets of paganism.

The Dark Ages, i.e. the breakdown of the political and social system was largely due to the barbarian invasions. These uncultured individuals largely took over. It was with the gradual conversion of these people that they rose from their barbarism and learned to appreciate education.

If the Church was such a force for ignorance, how is it that a figure like St. Isidore of Seville created his encyclopedia, or Boethius penned his philosophies, or the monks penned their chronicles?

If anything the Church was the shining light in the beacon of darkness when it came to learning. It was the only force that valued these things when the rest of the world was warring and plundering.

I don’t think you get that.

The point of separating Church and State was not to limit the influence of religion. It was to limit the power of the state in running the Church. It was expected that government would be influenced by transcendent values. Even our Charter of Rights makes our rights dependent on the Supremacy of God.

Who do you suppose came up with the idea of the Separation of Church and State? It wasn’t atheists. It was people who had some form of faith, and who let their faith influence their thinking in political matters.

I think you have a distorted view of history.

It was the Catholic concept of the two-sword theory that made the Separation of Church and State a possibility. You don’t have that idea in Islam nor Judaism, nor in any other religion that I know of. The natural law theory of the universities– religious institutions– made possible basic ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The idea of freedom that you propose did not come from militant secularists, because up until the 20th century there were virtually no militant secularists, with the possible exception of those directing the French Revolution. And we all know what kind of freedom they ended up promoting.

So yes, Freedom, as we know, has its roots in Judeo-Christian culture, because up until the 20th century, there was virtually no culture untouched by Judeo-Christian values. It was only in the post-war that we really see the emergence of such a widespread culture.

It was precisely those experiences of persecution that led various Christian communities to adopt a more tolerant attitude because they *didn’t* want to go back to persecution and wars of religion. It’s not inherent in Christianity to do that.

Xanthippa says:

THAT is why we must guard against ALL theocracies!