Comment by staplers
1 day ago
There is probably tremendous value to getting rid of a lot of the bureaucracy that has built up over the last 250 years.
Only when you have competent and highly qualified people making the decisions at lower levels. If those people are fired and/or swayed to avoid government jobs then you just end up with incompetence with no oversight.
This whole operation is to dismantle government programs so corporations can swoop in and fill the void.
I agree with you on this (thus my comments about the ham-fisted execution), with the caveat that in a lot of cases it's a very difficult thing to find people that are really good at making these decisions - they'd need to be well-informed but also apolitical and removed from the bureaucracy they're making decisions about. You can't really trust the decisions to the people in the organizations, because of course they have a huge bias towards protecting the status quo.
Ideally you'd get people who have some experience in them but are far removed. Like I've heard Casey Handmer talk about his time at NASA (I think it was NASA, at least) and how the organizational cruft made it hard to get anything done. I'd love to get him in there to make some change, but he's otherwise occupied. I am optimistic about Jared Isaacman, though.
In terms of corporations swooping in, that might happen, but in practice what I expect will happen is that the Democrats will return to power and will rebuild a lot of regulation. It seems to me like that's sort of the ideal cycle - add regulations and add regulations and add regulations, then do a cycle of cutting things, then return to adding regulations, ideally informed by the failure of past regulations.