Every time I think "There's no way that's true!", the world seems to answer "challenge accepted". Not so much this, by now very little of the corruption and downright Orwellian behavior of government surprises me anymore. No, what surprised me was the first time I read Robert Conquest's Three Laws:
I had no trouble believing the First Law: "Everyone is conservative about what he knows best." This is invariably True of anyone competent.
I knew enough history to recognize the Second Law in action: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing." If nothing else, this seems probabilistically unavoidable, given enough time anything possible eventually becomes probable.
But the Third Law...
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies."
What the heck was this? It sounds like the premise of a parody or trashy spy thriller. Surely, he's having me on a bit, I thought. Very funny, but not possibly serious. Even your average tinfoil hat type would think that's a little overbroad... right? It's only in Orwell where we find organizations deliberately named the opposite of what they do.... right?
Then I learned about "Pravda". But that's foreign, that couldn't happen HERE... right? Then someone making a joke of it pointed out to me that our own "Department of Defense" has invaded more countries than our "War Department" ever did... but we were 'defending' something... right? Then the "Disinformation Governance Board"... Why? Why does this keep happening!?
Then somebody introduced me to the idea that organizations are functionally similar to organisms. They seek to survive, to grow, to eliminate rivals, to merge with compatible organizations, and otherwise exhibit self-interest. So when the incentives structure is "the worse the problem becomes, the more your survival is assured and you're able to grow larger and more powerful"... that's a heck of an incentive to let the problem get worse... Or even help it along if necessary. Let's face it, from a behavioral psychology standpoint we actively TRAIN our governing organizations to do this: disasters get MORE funding and influence while successes remain stagnant or get cut.
It’s so much worse than imagined
Top 10 Reasons To Defund Our Shadow Government ... based upon these insights.
https://directorblue.blogspot.com/2024/12/top-10-reasons-to-defund-our-shadow.html
Every time I think "There's no way that's true!", the world seems to answer "challenge accepted". Not so much this, by now very little of the corruption and downright Orwellian behavior of government surprises me anymore. No, what surprised me was the first time I read Robert Conquest's Three Laws:
I had no trouble believing the First Law: "Everyone is conservative about what he knows best." This is invariably True of anyone competent.
I knew enough history to recognize the Second Law in action: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing." If nothing else, this seems probabilistically unavoidable, given enough time anything possible eventually becomes probable.
But the Third Law...
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies."
What the heck was this? It sounds like the premise of a parody or trashy spy thriller. Surely, he's having me on a bit, I thought. Very funny, but not possibly serious. Even your average tinfoil hat type would think that's a little overbroad... right? It's only in Orwell where we find organizations deliberately named the opposite of what they do.... right?
Then I learned about "Pravda". But that's foreign, that couldn't happen HERE... right? Then someone making a joke of it pointed out to me that our own "Department of Defense" has invaded more countries than our "War Department" ever did... but we were 'defending' something... right? Then the "Disinformation Governance Board"... Why? Why does this keep happening!?
Then somebody introduced me to the idea that organizations are functionally similar to organisms. They seek to survive, to grow, to eliminate rivals, to merge with compatible organizations, and otherwise exhibit self-interest. So when the incentives structure is "the worse the problem becomes, the more your survival is assured and you're able to grow larger and more powerful"... that's a heck of an incentive to let the problem get worse... Or even help it along if necessary. Let's face it, from a behavioral psychology standpoint we actively TRAIN our governing organizations to do this: disasters get MORE funding and influence while successes remain stagnant or get cut.