"OSTO Minarchism" as a political philosophy
support
Side Score: 6
|
 |
opposed
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
1
point
Couldn't you run into a problem where like with the Dictatorship of the proletariat there is never a point in which the task is compleeted? creating somthing that just sucks money off of the taxes? and what about ongoning projects like public schools, how would they be staffed? Side: opposed
The issue that task groups can be formed to execute plans with negative consequences for others groups persists within OSTO minarchists systems. This is mitigated by citizen vigilance enabled by mandatory organizational transparency. The risk of setting out to complete a task and failing persists under OSTO Monarchism. However, with the meritocratic selection system those failures would be less likely. Ongoing endeavors like public education can be reduced to a series of training tasks, completion verified by proficiency tests. Side: support
1
point
1
point
What about never ending problems? You can't really solve cyclical unemployment or education. You need permanent bureaucracies for those kind of problems. Government usually forms temporary committees for solvable problems like the Benghazi investigation or 9/11. Though I agree that bureaucracies have a tendency to ossify and that certainly is a problem. I've always thought it would be an interesting idea to dissolve each bureaucracy every 25 or 50 years, fire everybody and ban them from reentering that bureaucracy so that it can be rebuilt from the ground up. Side: opposed
OSTO Minarchism does not "Solve all the world's problems". Its just asserting that "effective governments" = "groups effective at accomplishing tasks" I've always thought it would be an interesting idea to dissolve each bureaucracy every 25 or 50 years In an OSTO Minarchist system, when task groups convene to accomplish tasks and they fail too often the members lose status for future election. Side: support
Thank you for an interesting and unique debate. I'm not opposed to ever operating this way. Indeed there are some needs in society better served by a task group. But here's my problem with it. I've seen this attempted in large companies. It appears to work great in the short run, but stick around long enough and whatever need the task group addressed tends to come up again and again in the future. But since the original group no longer exists almost all the expertise is lost, as well as the context of what they looked at the last time and decided what they did or did not do, as well as the records and contacts, etc. Basically it just results in reinventing the wheel over and over again, which ultimately is a waste of resources worse than maintaining a core staffing in that area. In fact, in many ways democracy itself is OSTO Minarchism on a grand scale since the people elected and the projects and teams they work on are constantly changing (even if at the grassroots we still feel they didn't change enough). And just like my criticism above, whatever our elected officials don't get done within their time frame and with the peers they have to work with usually ends up dropped and ruined and has to start from scratch or at least from a position of ignorance when the new group comes to office to try again. Side: opposed
Thank you for an interesting and unique debate That's a nice compliment. Appreciated Your relating it to business practices that you've seen implemented seems to at least partly validate the approach. Your concern about the inefficienciets involved with recurring tasks being handled by possibly fresh teams too often is legitimate. I fail however to see anything preventing specialized task groups from remaining where their proficiencies are. ie being that "core staffing" As to the point about losing invested intellectual capital, this is where the "open source" approach really shines.. In OSTO minarchism, tasks consist of precise executable instructions. Side: support
|
