A Few Notes on Climate Change

Posted by Andrei Illarionov

I got a buddy/roommate who is an ex-North Carolina sheriff's deputy. What with my issues revolving around law enforcement in general (which I will not go in depth here) let's just say we made friends after he left the force, and all is well.

In our many late-night conversations, he has alluded to what can be considered the foundation of Libertarian principles, from a LE perspective: reduced number of laws, reduced government power, ending the war on drugs, restoring power to the individual. He is aware that I am both politically and functionally a Libertarian, but has professed an ignorance about what it means.

He's not your stereotypical "bully cop", quite the opposite, in fact. To him, it was simply a job, not a way of life; none of this "once a cop always a cop" kind of stuff. He's exercised judgment and compassion, but was tough when necessary. He's admitted to occasionally selectively enforcing the law according to his values (i.e. ignoring the obvious smell of pot in the air). He has shared stories about how his bretheren personally benefitted from the laws they were supposed to enforce at the expense of the public. He has witnessed corruption, nepotism, favoritism, and fellow cops using the law as a weapon of harm rather than a tool of safety. He has "seen the dark side of law enforcement, and hated it" (his words).

Now, he's looking to take a different course in life. He's considering going back to school with a focus on being a public defender, social worker, or advocate. I think this is laudable, and also consider this my opportunity to cultivate his Libertarian values. I think he would be a good candidate for participation in our movement.

With both of us being new in town (Pittsburgh) I think this the perfect opportunity for us to start participating in the local circles. I have some experience in the Denver scene, and need to start getting to know some folks in our new town. I'd like to introduce my buddy to some like-minded people, and show him that there is, indeed, a group of folks looking to codify the values he shares with them. Pittsburgh is a heavy democratic stronghold, but for the most part seems friendly enough toward our way of thinking; haven't had much opportunity to pick a good verbal scrap at a local bar. Again, I'm new here, so maybe my impressions are a bit off base. Nobody's defaced my truck for having a Libertarian sticker on it yet :)

In conclusion, are there any things to do in Pittsburgh when you're Libertarian? Anyone on this list from here? Anybody? Beuller?

WASHINGTON - The US Air Force on Tuesday confirmed for the first time that it is flying a stealth unmanned aircraft known as the "Beast of Kandahar," a drone spotted in photos and shrouded in secrecy.

The RQ-170 Sentinel is being developed by Lockheed Martin and is designed "to provide reconnaissance and surveillance support to forward deployed combat forces," the air force said in a brief statement.
[...]
The image suggested a drone with a radar-evading stealth-like design, resembling a smaller version of a B-2 bomber.
[...]
The photo of the drone in Afghanistan has raised questions about why the United States would be operating a stealth unmanned aircraft in a country where insurgents have no radar systems, prompting speculation Washington was using the drones for possible spying missions in neighboring Iran or Pakistan.

It seems British writer Cyril Northcote Parkinson and his Parkinson's Law have not been mentioned here. I think it is a good insight about how governmental bureaucracy grows. Here is the original article and here is a short version.

"
Politicians and taxpayers have assumed (with occasional phases of doubt) that a rising total in the number of civil servants must reflect a growing volume of work to be done. Cynics, in questioning this belief, have imagined that the multiplication of officials must have left some of them idle or all of them able to work for shorter hours. But this is a matter in which faith and doubt seem equally misplaced. The fact is that the number of the officials and the quantity of the work to be done are not related to each other at all. The rise in the total of those employed would be much the same whether the volume of the work were to increase, diminish or even disappear.

. . . we may distinguish, at the outset, two motive forces:
Factor I. An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals and
Factor II. Officials make work for each other.
. . .
"

Much of the essay is dedicated to a summary of purportedly scientific observations supporting his law, such as the increase in the number of employees at the Colonial Office while Great Britain's overseas empire declined (indeed, he shows that the Colonial Office had its greatest number of staff at the point when it was folded into the Foreign Office because of a lack of colonies to administer). The total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done."


A modern version is that no amount of computer automation will reduce the size of a bureaucracy.
Historical analysis of bureaucracies such as the Australian Tax Office shows that massive software automation has not increased their real efficiency since the 1950s. Any increase in the efficiency of individual workers has simply been consumed by increased bureaucratic complexity, as predicted by Parkinson's law.