Comment by Aeglaecia
8 days ago
oh how i wish more people would avoid becoming lost in the details and see this system for what it very simply is
8 days ago
oh how i wish more people would avoid becoming lost in the details and see this system for what it very simply is
Time for my favorite intersection of critical theory[1] and systems theory: "The purpose of a system is what it does[0]"
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
[1] Ok, I admit, nobody but me has actually made the intersection between the two yet.
Out of curiosity, have you checked out these other works?
Design for Prevention (2010) ISBN 978-0-937063-05-7
Friends in High Places (1990) ISBN 937063-06-1
Have Fun at Work (1988) ISBN 0-937063-05-3
The New Plague (1986) ISBN 0-937063-03-7
POSIWID is mentioned in the first three works; engineer William L. Livingston authored the latter three.
This was too deep for me. Pretend we have a system that works differently than intended. I could say it does not meet its purpose. This quote means something else. Am I wrong?
You say, “The system does not meet its purpose.” They respond, “The purpose of the system is what it does.”
In other words, there’s no point in arguing about the purpose. If you want the system to do something else, you have to change the system.
Ignore what anyone says the intent or purpose is/was. Is anyone motivated to change the system?
For a more traditional phrasing: "actions speak louder than words."
It's "revealed preference". The people at the controls don't want to change the dysfunctional system because it serves them personally.
Don’t think of it as a tautology, think of it as a heuristic
Let me give it a try. Is the purpose of USAID to promote the liberal world view and fund its political allies? From what we’ve learned, that’s what the system does.
Consider vaccines, crops, and disaster recovery and their Soviet alternatives, Comecon and GKES. I feel both sides saw an advantage in offering that through a bureaucracy rather than transactionally. The development shortfalls didn’t go away with the Soviet collapse, so whether that’s liberal I don’t know. But any such bureaucracy threatens uncovering the endemic corruption among transactional operators.
2 replies →
If you think money is the motivation you just don’t understand politics. Money is a means, and the weakest form of power.
it’s both. money buys government which then makes you richer.
What would $100 billion more do for them?
1 reply →
Kompromat buys it for free.
8 replies →