Loved this. Thank you! And thanks for mentioning Popper!
To me, tracking truth is about holding the folks making the decisions personally accountable.
A few years I was contacted by the city manager of a small Western city. The city council had set up a year of one-day retreats on practical topics to improve their productivity and positive impact on their citizens. The city manager said they were interested in a program on accountability since, in their words, "We don't know what accountability is."
So, I came up with a sample agenda with topics and exercises, and a bibliography. (I am definitely old school when it comes to education. Read a book or five, dang it.) Sent it off. Heard nothing. Finally took the initiative to call. The city manager was embarrassed. Personally, she loved my proposal, but apparently I scared the elected officials, and the accountability segment of their program was cancelled.
I have noticed that many people - and not just elected and appointed government officials - find the idea of accountability, including having to justify their actions and be evaluated by their stakeholders and third-party specialists, untenable. And they considered themselves privileged, having achieved an elite level where people should just trust them without any kind of oversight. Actually are insulted if someone suggests otherwise.
By the way, if you want to see a solid model of local government oversight, Denver's elected city auditor, Tim O'Brien and his team are awesome.
Tim came to office with decades of experience as a government auditor and as having served on national committees regarding standards. Since his office is independent of city government, he is free of political influence. Everything his office does - all the audits, reports, etc - are made available to the public. He announces the reports via social media and mainstream media, summarizes the findings, and makes the documents available in paper and online formats.
A typical pattern: Audit a department or project, and publish the results with specific recommendations for improvement. Then, return a year or so later for a follow-up audit. Were problems fixed? Were recommendations followed? Some departments are very cooperative, others not so much. The auditor does not have the power to arrest people, but the public here is learning that those reports are at the least embarrassing to the powers that be and encourage them to speak up.
And, the tone of the reports is calm and factual, sort of like a BBC news announcer.
No drama, just, well, just facts. Of course, not everyone agrees with the facts. Our mayor's office tries to tap dance their way around their failures. Not convincing. I am not a fan.
Betting preferable to guessing? Hardly! The people who run betting always win. The reason people bet is in hopes of beating the odds, which in reality means in hopes that everyone else who bets loses. Only a minority can possibly win, and that minority is always the few who run the game.
That is why almost everyone in government either is a crook (most of the time) or becomes one. People who believe that democracy is best in the long run are hopelessly deluded. Honest people are always a minority, if they exist at all. The only sure check on government is regicide, IF the rebels are honest. And who will trust someone who is willing to kill. By the way, the mark of an effective general is his willingness to kill.
Loved this. Thank you! And thanks for mentioning Popper!
To me, tracking truth is about holding the folks making the decisions personally accountable.
A few years I was contacted by the city manager of a small Western city. The city council had set up a year of one-day retreats on practical topics to improve their productivity and positive impact on their citizens. The city manager said they were interested in a program on accountability since, in their words, "We don't know what accountability is."
So, I came up with a sample agenda with topics and exercises, and a bibliography. (I am definitely old school when it comes to education. Read a book or five, dang it.) Sent it off. Heard nothing. Finally took the initiative to call. The city manager was embarrassed. Personally, she loved my proposal, but apparently I scared the elected officials, and the accountability segment of their program was cancelled.
I have noticed that many people - and not just elected and appointed government officials - find the idea of accountability, including having to justify their actions and be evaluated by their stakeholders and third-party specialists, untenable. And they considered themselves privileged, having achieved an elite level where people should just trust them without any kind of oversight. Actually are insulted if someone suggests otherwise.
By the way, if you want to see a solid model of local government oversight, Denver's elected city auditor, Tim O'Brien and his team are awesome.
https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Auditors-Office/Audit-Services
I wonder how we can give auditors like this more transparency and teeth.
Tim came to office with decades of experience as a government auditor and as having served on national committees regarding standards. Since his office is independent of city government, he is free of political influence. Everything his office does - all the audits, reports, etc - are made available to the public. He announces the reports via social media and mainstream media, summarizes the findings, and makes the documents available in paper and online formats.
A typical pattern: Audit a department or project, and publish the results with specific recommendations for improvement. Then, return a year or so later for a follow-up audit. Were problems fixed? Were recommendations followed? Some departments are very cooperative, others not so much. The auditor does not have the power to arrest people, but the public here is learning that those reports are at the least embarrassing to the powers that be and encourage them to speak up.
And, the tone of the reports is calm and factual, sort of like a BBC news announcer.
No drama, just, well, just facts. Of course, not everyone agrees with the facts. Our mayor's office tries to tap dance their way around their failures. Not convincing. I am not a fan.
Betting preferable to guessing? Hardly! The people who run betting always win. The reason people bet is in hopes of beating the odds, which in reality means in hopes that everyone else who bets loses. Only a minority can possibly win, and that minority is always the few who run the game.
That is why almost everyone in government either is a crook (most of the time) or becomes one. People who believe that democracy is best in the long run are hopelessly deluded. Honest people are always a minority, if they exist at all. The only sure check on government is regicide, IF the rebels are honest. And who will trust someone who is willing to kill. By the way, the mark of an effective general is his willingness to kill.
You're absolutely right. We do not want government agents to be "the House." Instead, we must start to dream of how a decentralized system might work. I do such in this oldie but goodie: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/sensemaking-in-the-era-of-authoritarian