Is There a Bureaucratic Solution to Problems of Substance

Opening post by the rabbi

Is There a Bureaucratic Solution to Problems of Substance

Sent on 9/9/2005

| |

Is there a bureaucratic solution to problems of substance?

The problem of dividing a cake precisely between two children is well known. Game theory’s solution is that one of them divides the cake into two, and the other chooses his portion first. This is a tested method for achieving an exactly equal division.

An explanation for those who find this difficult: the first child must take care to divide the cake into two exactly equal parts, for at the next stage his friend (or perhaps his enemy?) will choose the larger piece. The first child’s way of securing the largest possible share is an exactly equal division.

(Incidentally, for this reason, in such a situation it is always preferable to be the second: the first gets at most half, and the second gets at least half; therefore the minimax and maximin solution is half.)

Does such a method solve the problem of exasperated parents? It would seem so, if the problem really were one of distributive justice.

However, two important points should be noted, each arising from a different philosophical perspective. By way of introduction, there are two moral-philosophical perspectives on problems of this kind. One perspective examines things by the test of the outcome: in the end, perfect distributive justice has been created. The other is concerned also, and perhaps mainly, with motives and character formation (Kantian ethics): here, of course, a problem arises.

And now to the two points:

1. The more egoistic the children are, the more reliably the method will work. A child who is not egoistic, and not self-centered, will not insist on an exact division (this, of course, will not prevent him from crying and becoming angry that the other received more).

If so, this method encourages egoism, and certainly does not negate it. That is a problem from the perspective of motives.

2. In the future, when we are no longer dealing with dividing cake but with other problems for which we have not found—or at least not institutionalized in law—a method of conduct, the children who have become more egoistic will quarrel more fiercely and justice will diminish. This is a problem also from the teleological perspective (= a morality of ends, or of outcomes).

In other words: even by the test of outcome, a problem is created by such a policy, since there are additional outcomes that matter to us, and not only an equal division of cake.

To put it yet another way: the bureaucratic method is meant to solve simple problems. Complex and tangled problems generally cannot be solved bureaucratically. In such problems there is no escape from requiring each person to be a decent human being, and a system of formal rules, or a game-theoretic method (defined solely by interests), is not enough for us. Not only is a bureaucratic method insufficient, but the use of such methods intensifies the problem, because it creates more self-interested people, something that will come to expression in situations we did not think of. All this is from the standpoint of teleology. From the standpoint of character-based morality (that of motives), of course, there is an inherent problem even if there are no additional problems to solve, and even in simple situations.

Let us now move to the state, or to a large society (n>2).

In a state, all problems are complex, even if one looks only at the test of outcome. It is therefore hard to see how bureaucratic solutions can bring relief to the ailments of a large society.

Many bureaucratic methods have been tried in order to create an ideal society:

A. Communism, which imposes equal distribution (according to needs, and not according to contribution and quality). In our example: the rule is that one must divide equally. The children do not divide the cake; mother and father do.

B. Capitalism. This is precisely the example of dividing the cake through market forces (the invisible hand). This may create an optimal situation in certain respects (at least in my opinion), but the character it forms and the problems that will arise in other contexts are not simple.

C. In another context: democratic bureaucracy. The democratic system is ‘capitalist’ in this sense, since it tries to channel society toward optimal behavior without educating anyone. The rules will lead us, whether we like it or not, solely through our interests, to the desired conduct. For example, the determination that the ruler is elected once every few years by all the citizens and is supervised by other authorities tries to create a situation in which he will behave properly despite his bad character (like all of us, under the pessimistic assumption of this method). He wants to be elected, and therefore he must act with integrity and fairness and do the will of his ‘Creator’ (= the citizen).

It should be noted that this is a bureaucratic method like the cake-division example above, since we are trying to create a system of rules that will lead him to the desired conduct without changing his personality (working on his character traits). The price is the same price: in places that are not visible (which is why we try to minimize their scope because of this: everything is justiciable and everything is accessible to the press), or in places where the law did not determine matters clearly, there he behaves like an animal, according to the best (or worst) of his genuine human nature (again, bureaucratic pessimism).

The same is true of all the institutions of government, and of the citizens as well. When paying taxes is a formal law backed by draconian means of enforcement (and unjust ones, because of the large number of cheats), that itself creates cheating and circumvention of the law. According to the bureaucratic approach, the more formalistic we are and the more we insist on the law, the closer we will come to optimal behavior and social structure, since one cannot ‘rely’ on our rotten character (forgive the expression).

Yet this very thing is what creates the kinds of anti-moral formalism that are so widespread, along with the naked pursuit of interests and an unwillingness to yield and contribute.

We return to the examples of communism, where handing over the task of saving the citizen who is in trouble to legal-bureaucratic means leads ordinary citizens to be unwilling to contribute from their own resources when necessary. And there is such a need, since institutionalized help operates according to bureaucratic rules, and they miss a great deal. Society is a complex reality, and formal laws will not succeed in covering it fully.

D. Postmodern pluralism. Here too there is an aspect of a bureaucratic solution (if we are talking about a social demand, and not about educating each individual character). The claim is that if we institutionalize the thesis that there is no truth and everyone’s view is as valid as anyone else’s, the problems will disappear. No one will kill and no one will quarrel with anyone else, and redemption will come to Zion.

In my opinion, the violence rampant in our midst today is a product of this pluralism. Since everyone is right to the same degree, people despair of the possibility of discussion and persuasion, and there is no choice but to move to violence and forcefulness. This is the same problem as in the division of the cake. The formal solution is perfect, but the problems that it itself creates devour it from within.

E. The rule of law. In a society without consensus, where values are not agreed upon, the law becomes everything. Every step is taken with lawyers, and there are three such people for every citizen. Obedience to the law is the supreme value (see the ridiculous hysteria over refusals to obey orders). This is, of course, a bureaucratic solution to problems of substance. It creates, of course, a less just and decent society, not a more just and decent one (I have already written several times that I am an anarchist).

Therefore, in my opinion, the law should be abolished (or at least slimmed down as much as possible. And I have proposals on this subject (not as naive as they look).

One can argue about each example separately, and that is not my purpose here. I only wanted to show why bureaucratic solutions, which are what we usually deal with in public discourse, will never help. This is a short blanket that can never cover the whole body. We can only move it from place to place, and each time expose something else (see, for example, the direct election of a prime minister, or of a local authority head, as opposed to indirect election, and much more).

All these examples amount to ‘building a hospital under the bridge.’ They solve the problems created by human character and drives, but do not touch the root of the problem itself at all. More than that: they sharpen even further the problems that exist in any case.

What is the solution?

In my opinion, there is no solution. Working on each person’s character traits is the only possible way to improve anything substantive. And we all know that the concept of ‘working on one’s character traits’ does not exist today in public discourse (see expressions like: ‘That’s how I am; what can I do?’). If a problem arises, people immediately try to change the law and the procedure (or to turn to a psychologist or psychiatrist).

Of course, I have no bureaucratic way to ensure that we all work on our character traits (myself included), since if there were such a way, it would itself suffer from the problems of bureaucratic solutions.

It is only important to raise awareness and call on each person to think about it. Naive? True.

An additional note: clearly, there is reason to concern ourselves with the optimal law and procedure, since one cannot rely only on the citizens’ work on their character traits. But one should not deal only with that, and one should not place too much confidence in its solving the substantive problems. In general, the dosage of attention given to law and procedure should be sane. In today’s Israel, the law is actually threatening to swallow us all, and so are all the normative bureaucracies (as noted, law = bureaucracy).

Incidentally, if we are dealing with social democracy, it seems to me that, broadly speaking, these considerations lead more in the capitalist direction (though not in an extreme way), and not in the socialist direction so popular in our ‘enlightened’ circles. Capitalism does not contradict morality; on the contrary. It allows each person to earn what he is worth, yet requires (or at least can require) him to contribute as much as he can to those who have nothing (if that is not their own fault, since it is also important to ‘punish’ parasites). Communism neutralizes the concept of charity and places the responsibility on society and not on the individual. This is a solution bureaucratic in its essence.

Sorry for the length, but I have not opened a thread in a long time, so I vented here the energy that had accumulated.

In any event, whoever has made it this far, I would be glad to hear his opinion on three levels:

1. With respect to the examples, but even more with respect to their significance for the topic of the thread (bureaucracy versus substance).

2. Adding other examples of this phenomenon.

3. Responses to the analysis itself (perhaps bureaucracy is, after all, excellent, and anarchism bad).

Source (the ‘Atzor Kan Khoshvim’ forum): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=1561502&forum_id=1364