The marketplace versus the bureaucrats

America is a giant marketplace. We who live here now should heed this, because it saves us the pointless political debates.

While the poorest may not have health care, those who can afford it get better care.

While this is ass, it’s the best we’ve come up with because it is both disorganized and organized. The market needs few central controls, and most of those are impotent. But it is organized because it gives each individual a clear path to follow, and a goal to shoot for.

The other option, which is having more centralized control, which means bureaucracies and panels reading over a few pages of our case files and then telling us what to do, is a lesser option because:

(a) Bureaucracies are detached and impersonal, and apply uniform rules to a non-uniform population
(b) Bureaucrats tend to be the worst abusers of power because they are both impotent and can enforce rules absolutely
(c) Without the ability to distinguish themselves personally, people go with the flow for a mediocre result
(d) Centralized bureaucratic controls rapidly produce elites of those who manipulate them
(e) People quickly learn to “game the system” or obey the rules without putting forth honest effort

As a result, the places with bureaucratic control tend to be less competent, while those that rely on a self-organizing system like capitalism tend to be more flexible and more competent, even if we all agree they could do better.


Like nature, this type of order is not perfect. Injustices happen; however, in every system injustices happen, and in a more flexible system, there’s “more than one way to do it” and determined people can work around setbacks. In a centralized control system, there’s only one way to work around, which is going through the bureaucracy.

Decentralized and self-organizing systems are like natural selection in a weird but mostly viable form. They don’t always get it right, but they get it right more often than a central bureaucracy, and if something goes wrong, it’s easier to fix them and keep going.

Even in societies with light bureaucracy, we have all had horrible experiences with rather dumb people behind counters who pay more attention to rules than reality. The rules become more important than the goal of the rules; then, all sense of the goal is lost and as soon as one person starts gaming the system, so does everyone else, to compete. Bureaucracies produce entropy.

Right now, America is torn up over this universal health care issue. One side doesn’t see why we don’t just give everyone health care; the other side wants government to back off, and does not want to support those who cannot make it on their own. The former side tends more toward wanting central bureaucratic order, and the latter wants more of a “natural selection” scenario, where the rules are reasonably fair and those who can organize themselves to survive well will rise.

As stated in another post, there’s more sense to the natural selection side because it never reaches a moribund state in and of itself, while bureaucracies do. If you insist on subsidizing everyone, you must have a central agency to implement that, and so you get an unruly mob ruled by an iron hand. On the other hand, if you let self-organizing forces work, there’s less need for control.

In addition, by accepting injustice, you create a more realistic view of society. In any age and every age, injustice has existed; this is the nature of a chaotic environment. If we accept it, and also accept that some will rise above challenges and survive well, we have a healthy outlook. If we bemoan injustice and invent “progressive” notions to compensate, we are rejecting reality and become very negative toward life itself.

Mobs united by negativity toward life become destructive. In this split over health care, which isn’t really about health care, we see a mob forming like a hurricane in the gulf, and then we see the people who don’t want that to happen trying to resist. They know, on some instinctual level, that empowering a mob will cause destructive, negative psychology to become the norm. That in turn will lead our civilization into internal conflict and decay.

The downside of a marketplace is that it consists of people who are trying to sell you stuff by convincing you that they, the sellers, are good people. They do this through the universal methods of politeness: they approve of whatever you want, and will tell you how great it is in order to make you like them. This is why big media, your friends, even local businesses tend to be “liberal”: they approve of and encourage the crowd.

Let’s use critical thinking to deconstruct some of this marketing/propaganda:

“I don’t understand why the people who have stuff are enraged, and the people who have nothing are warm and hopeful.”

Raw Story

Well, of course they’re hopeful — they’re about to get something for free! And of course the people who have stuff are enraged, because they’re about to have something taken from them, and given to their ideological enemies. It’s flamingly obvious. But these people don’t want you to see it that way. They want you to see that “everybody else is doing it” and go along with the plan. Really high school, isn’t it?

Here’s another one:

“Most of the ‘green’ stuff is verging on a gigantic scam,” Lovelock told the New Scientist shortly before the release of his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia. “Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.”


Of course it’s a giant scam. The real solutions — fewer problems and humans using less land — are taboo because that means shutting down someone’s dream, whether to open a McDonald’s or own a 13,000 square foot house in the suburbs. “Not everyone can participate” is the message of responsible environmental change, but that makes each person fear for themselves, so instead we get harmless or pointless actions that are popular. Profit is made.

How do we turn this around? An interesting idea:

Another is that we should stop comparing national economies as if they were running a race. Plainly, they are not. Supply and demand do not respect borders. For one country to have a surplus, another must be running a deficit. It is imbalances between economies that puts prosperity at risk; the way different nations structure their economies within the globalised market probably matters less than we like to think.

If we stopped comparing the “competitiveness” of national economic models, we could devote more attention to what kind of society we want, and what economic policies will get us there. That, indeed, is probably the economic equivalent of another famous Socratic injunction: know thyself.

The Guardian

In other words, if we don’t want to be ruled by the market, we have to give it goals which requires all of our society agree on what’s important. And that is what this healthcare debate is about: one side wants values that reward good people, and the other wants to subsidize everyone. One side wants natural selection, the other wants social acceptance. Until these values are reconciled, we’re at the mercy of the markets forevermore.


7 Responses to “The marketplace versus the bureaucrats”

  1. highduke says:

    The 1st part of this article concerning Injustice caught my attention. Im not aware of any Folklore Myths in which Evil is destroyed. Self-hatred, fear, laziness, shame, viciousness, lust, envy, & their derivatives like hypocrisy, superficiality, selfishness, etc… CANT be erased from ANYBODY’S personality or any group’s collective consciousness, they must be sublimated into positive actions and learning how is learning how to be an Ubermensch, most fail & cant accept it & prattle on like fools

    • Doug Vance says:

      You’re right about the vices. They keep coming back, but so does virtue. Where do they come from? Used to be, as we were taught, the supernatural would enter our material world and use us as vessels in its spiritual battles.

      Then, they told us it was all wicked people vesus good people. The power of society determines how someone ends up in life. Yet, people make society, so why then does society, which is caused by people, cause goodness or wickedness?

      Genetics is the best answer. Traits are passed along across the generations. Some traits don’t work out for the best, others do.

      But we’re still stuck on the social determinist path which subsidizes all genes because according to this method, genes don’t matter that much because modern society trumps them with education and rehab. When society fails to make people better, as it always has, society is blamed for the error and political battles begin anew over how to tweak society.

      Maybe society is a symptom of collections of genes at work and fighting symptoms takes us pretty much nowhere over the long haul.

      • highduke says:

        Its genetics & upbringing combined. A person with average genetic potential can go both ways depending on upbringing, the underaverage are fucked either way & the superior will find the right path in time with bad upbringing. NOT all men have their nature/nurture at the same ratio. My folks are superficial Liberal hedonists, whereas I’m a traditionalist ultranationalist. Shitty people can produce noble people via random re-emergence of dormant genes. Its unlikely but it happens.

  2. Nils says:

    I have to comment on this quote in particular: “In addition, by accepting injustice, you create a more realistic view of society. In any age and every age, injustice has existed; this is the nature of a chaotic environment. If we accept it, and also accept that some will rise above challenges and survive well, we have a healthy outlook. If we bemoan injustice and invent “progressive” notions to compensate, we are rejecting reality and become very negative toward life itself.”

    This seems to go completely against the idea that humanity or civilization serves any purpose. Yes, injustice is a reality for any society. But so is making an attempt to eradicate those injustices. So I guess slaves shouldn’t have fought for freedom because it’s just an injustice that they should have accepted. After all, the free market gave white man bigger boats and more guns so that’s just a fact that they should have accepted. Whatever. It’s a completely asinine concept and goes against the idea that we as humans can rise above our current conditions.

    • highduke says:

      Think about it Nils: Society cant ‘eliminate’ pedophilia, rape, incest, bribery, alcoholism, dysfunctional families etc…without a rigid, ubiquitous eugenics program where the DNA & psycho-profile of all citizens are monitored from birth to death. Progressives try to ‘eliminate’ these vices by using The Media to spread panic & mistrust among kinsmen but vices increase. Traditional society saw vice as everpresent & used Morality & Culture against vices & so was more successful at subduing it.

  3. We are suffering from our own economic success, basically. Overproduction/oversupply can be as bad for an economy (or even worse) than underproduction/undersupply. All advanced White/Western societies (and some advanced Asian nations) are currently glutted with a massive oversupply of goods and services – this has led to sinking demand across the board (because most people already have all that they need)…this means less employment, and thus a stalling economy. Too many people have also took on too much debt because they have been forced to do so in order to ‘get ahead’ in the modern USA.

    Frankly, the best way to return the American housing market to ‘normalcy’ would be to tear down a lot of the excess housing supply in order to bring it back in line with the very slack current demand. Notice how they are doing this to the autos which have been traded in during the ‘cash for clunkers’ program in order to reduce the overall supply of used autos floating around the market.

    We are living under Jewish-Marxist tyranny. The ultragreedy international Jewish financiers and their filthy allies are trying to manipulate the basic economic law of supply and demand. Under normal (non-manipulated) circumstances prices would drop on goods/services like housing, autos, medical care, food, college educations, etc because there is such an huge oversupply of these things in White/Western countries – but the Jewish-Marxist manipulators want to keep prices artificially high even though there is a huge oversupply of the aforementioned goods/services in order to make sure that ordinary people (mostly Whites) remain mired in permanent debt-slavery to the rotten Jewed system.

  4. Disregard the above comment (and this one) by just deleting it…I meant to post it in another thread, the one about overproduction of food.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>