Thanks for starting this long post with a summary rather than a teaser. (Not saying you generally would, but it deserves to be acknowledged.) This topic has been on my mind lately wrt the US -- very timely.
Fascinating piece as ever Dom. Did you believe pre-June 2019 that much of worst parts of the state should be closed down rather than reformed? Or did experience of running no10 convince you it was necessary?
While it is true that Trump had trouble controlling Government (lots of his ideas got blocked and he was seriously exposed as just a figurehead for many of his signature policies like The Wall), it was actually a good thing he got blocked! The man was not brought up with values that many of us are educated from when were young. Born into wealth and power, he was only ever going to be an autocrat. If he hadn't been a figure in pop culture for 30+ years, he wouldn't have gotten elected.
There is though a point of getting small groups, but usually they are done to get elected (the Obama campaigns are a case in point, which took the Howard Dean campaign and put it on steroids). The problem in US politics is that the aims are so short-term.
Will the group of ten agree on the why they have got gov control? Will the eventual leaders of the startup gov also?
Looking at No. 10 now doesn’t seem like the only issue is the institutions but also limits of the imagination of politicians faced with realities of any major changes achieved.
Employment issues post Brexit one good example. ‘Hire Brits’ is not an answer but is being offered as one.
How about using prediction (betting) markets to help make decisions? You could, for example, have a market that bets on poll results conditional on a specified campaign strategy, e.g. if we spend $10 million on immigration messaging what do you bet the polls on immigration will say and if we don't spend the money the bet is cancelled.
Seeing a lot of Yarvin here. All of this is good. Another key factor -- voters on the right are sick to the point of gagging over the GOP. Something provides a genuinely novel approach and proposes to transcend the entire current garbage system could be wildly popular. Wish I had the money to thrown in $200K, but I don't. I hope others will.
I have a friend of mine who is a young (successful) technology entrepreneur. He's probably the best person I know at building things (networks, products, you name it). He is essentially the exact kind of person you were looking for when you put out the call for highly talented 'weirdos' at the start of last year. He doesn't have substack but he has the same results focused approach to politics that you do (i've shown him your work and he's on the same page). Is there any way for people like him to get in touch with you/your network to help on projects like these going forward? I can send you his details if you are interested etc.
Thanks for sharing! I agree re rebooting rather than reforming, but it is hard to think of any examples. Are there any instances where this approach to existing institutions has been tried? (I feel like FDR was mostly creating new institutions, correct me if I'm wrong. If so I would be interested to hear about them, and the piece would benefit from tangible examples.
Fwiw, the only example I can think of is the Ukrainian (I think) police force where a new force was started to make a clean break from systemic corruption.
Also the part about it not being a pitch might benefit from being put nearer the front.
I work for a smallish tech startup. I joined ~4 years ago, when we were a rabble of kids in a room. It's now doing pretty well (certainly not unicorn, but valuation tens of millions £)
Despite having a truly exceptional (really 0.001%) CTO and experienced director, in the early days, we were a mess. A total shambles. Lacking direction, changing priorities each day, putting out fires, appeasing shareholders etc.
Of course, in a small company with little to lose, this isn't disastrous. With few customers or major institutions signed up, hardly anyone was reliant on us. We could afford to make lots and lots (and lots) mistakes, and that's how we learned. Today, it's a much better operation.
My question is - if a major government dept was replaced by a startup organisation, would the "success through failure" startup mentality be tolerated by those reliant on its work? Indeed, would it even be morally acceptable? If you were to replace DWP, for example, with a new startup, there would undoubtedly be serious interruptions to UC payments on which people survive.
How can the initial disruption, chaos and failure of the startup be justified (or tolerated), even if it proves more successful in the long term?
<blockquote><i>A tiny and cheap (<$2-3 million) project — independent-for-now of any candidate — should start now to figure out how a GOP candidate could win, how they could actually control the government after they win, and who the candidate should be.</i></blockquote>
Are you up for it yourself with a few able key partners aiding right royally, Dominic? Just follow a great faultless and/or failsafe plan and prizes are easily won and any misguided opposition or competition bowled over and steamrollered. There are those with such plans readily available. Do you know of any of them and how surprisingly easy it is to directly connect with them?
Master Piloted Programs could also be made available to the powers that currently be lumbered with the responsibility of creating postmodern civil societies in Afghanistan from the ashes of the West's bonfire of the vanities abandoned there.
Such is not without its traditional problems though, as is accurately and adequately revealed in this earlier post elsewhere ........
The difficulty/hurdle that existing Pentagon type systems/executive administrations experience and struggle and too oft so maddeningly fail to overcome, is in recognising and realising developed and developing advanced technologies, and especially the game-changing types of technologies.
And it is of no help or use whatsoever to have such as may be such submissions run the gauntlet of subjective editorial moderation/comment vetting, and be dismissed and rejected whenever they are freely shared for greater public viewing and open peer review in presentations in publications such as National DEFENSE magazine.
Such a difficulty/hurdle though has unintended coincidental consequences for many of those who would benefit greatly from developed and developing advanced technologies as it guarantees leadership of great game-changers being exercised and led by others elsewhere.
It is though a perfectly natural progression born out of suppression and borne via ignorance and aided immensely by the arrogance in support of hubris.
Fortunately it does not adversely affect nor halt the rapid progression and infiltration by such advanced and advancing developments into failed conventional and struggling traditional systems/SCADA administrations.</i></blockquote>
Excellent post as usual Mr. Cummings. Imagine if the GOP took the time to seriously digest this piece along with gaining a firm grasp of Tetlock, Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest", Bismarck, Thucydides, and Gell-Man...
On a side-note, do you think that the "commissarial dictatorship" that bequeathed Lincoln with emergency powers during his term was a key part of his iron-clad grip on the government? If not, why?
Thanks for starting this long post with a summary rather than a teaser. (Not saying you generally would, but it deserves to be acknowledged.) This topic has been on my mind lately wrt the US -- very timely.
Would be fun to see you in the US. OMG. Those pompous Americans wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
I bet someone like Peter Thiel would be worth talking to
Best post yet
Fascinating piece as ever Dom. Did you believe pre-June 2019 that much of worst parts of the state should be closed down rather than reformed? Or did experience of running no10 convince you it was necessary?
While it is true that Trump had trouble controlling Government (lots of his ideas got blocked and he was seriously exposed as just a figurehead for many of his signature policies like The Wall), it was actually a good thing he got blocked! The man was not brought up with values that many of us are educated from when were young. Born into wealth and power, he was only ever going to be an autocrat. If he hadn't been a figure in pop culture for 30+ years, he wouldn't have gotten elected.
There is though a point of getting small groups, but usually they are done to get elected (the Obama campaigns are a case in point, which took the Howard Dean campaign and put it on steroids). The problem in US politics is that the aims are so short-term.
Will the group of ten agree on the why they have got gov control? Will the eventual leaders of the startup gov also?
Looking at No. 10 now doesn’t seem like the only issue is the institutions but also limits of the imagination of politicians faced with realities of any major changes achieved.
Employment issues post Brexit one good example. ‘Hire Brits’ is not an answer but is being offered as one.
Why did you not try and set up this model in the UK. new startups and shut down the institution's
How about using prediction (betting) markets to help make decisions? You could, for example, have a market that bets on poll results conditional on a specified campaign strategy, e.g. if we spend $10 million on immigration messaging what do you bet the polls on immigration will say and if we don't spend the money the bet is cancelled.
Seeing a lot of Yarvin here. All of this is good. Another key factor -- voters on the right are sick to the point of gagging over the GOP. Something provides a genuinely novel approach and proposes to transcend the entire current garbage system could be wildly popular. Wish I had the money to thrown in $200K, but I don't. I hope others will.
Hi Dom,
I have a friend of mine who is a young (successful) technology entrepreneur. He's probably the best person I know at building things (networks, products, you name it). He is essentially the exact kind of person you were looking for when you put out the call for highly talented 'weirdos' at the start of last year. He doesn't have substack but he has the same results focused approach to politics that you do (i've shown him your work and he's on the same page). Is there any way for people like him to get in touch with you/your network to help on projects like these going forward? I can send you his details if you are interested etc.
Thanks once again for all your work.
Thanks for sharing! I agree re rebooting rather than reforming, but it is hard to think of any examples. Are there any instances where this approach to existing institutions has been tried? (I feel like FDR was mostly creating new institutions, correct me if I'm wrong. If so I would be interested to hear about them, and the piece would benefit from tangible examples.
Fwiw, the only example I can think of is the Ukrainian (I think) police force where a new force was started to make a clean break from systemic corruption.
Also the part about it not being a pitch might benefit from being put nearer the front.
Thanks, Dom - v interesting.
I work for a smallish tech startup. I joined ~4 years ago, when we were a rabble of kids in a room. It's now doing pretty well (certainly not unicorn, but valuation tens of millions £)
Despite having a truly exceptional (really 0.001%) CTO and experienced director, in the early days, we were a mess. A total shambles. Lacking direction, changing priorities each day, putting out fires, appeasing shareholders etc.
Of course, in a small company with little to lose, this isn't disastrous. With few customers or major institutions signed up, hardly anyone was reliant on us. We could afford to make lots and lots (and lots) mistakes, and that's how we learned. Today, it's a much better operation.
My question is - if a major government dept was replaced by a startup organisation, would the "success through failure" startup mentality be tolerated by those reliant on its work? Indeed, would it even be morally acceptable? If you were to replace DWP, for example, with a new startup, there would undoubtedly be serious interruptions to UC payments on which people survive.
How can the initial disruption, chaos and failure of the startup be justified (or tolerated), even if it proves more successful in the long term?
<blockquote><i>A tiny and cheap (<$2-3 million) project — independent-for-now of any candidate — should start now to figure out how a GOP candidate could win, how they could actually control the government after they win, and who the candidate should be.</i></blockquote>
Are you up for it yourself with a few able key partners aiding right royally, Dominic? Just follow a great faultless and/or failsafe plan and prizes are easily won and any misguided opposition or competition bowled over and steamrollered. There are those with such plans readily available. Do you know of any of them and how surprisingly easy it is to directly connect with them?
Master Piloted Programs could also be made available to the powers that currently be lumbered with the responsibility of creating postmodern civil societies in Afghanistan from the ashes of the West's bonfire of the vanities abandoned there.
Such is not without its traditional problems though, as is accurately and adequately revealed in this earlier post elsewhere ........
<blockquote><i>GrahamC [2109010837] ....... shares on https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/9/1/analysts-see-shortfalls-in-pentagon-st-funding ....... :-) subject to negotiating the National DEFENSE magazine review process
The difficulty/hurdle that existing Pentagon type systems/executive administrations experience and struggle and too oft so maddeningly fail to overcome, is in recognising and realising developed and developing advanced technologies, and especially the game-changing types of technologies.
And it is of no help or use whatsoever to have such as may be such submissions run the gauntlet of subjective editorial moderation/comment vetting, and be dismissed and rejected whenever they are freely shared for greater public viewing and open peer review in presentations in publications such as National DEFENSE magazine.
Such a difficulty/hurdle though has unintended coincidental consequences for many of those who would benefit greatly from developed and developing advanced technologies as it guarantees leadership of great game-changers being exercised and led by others elsewhere.
It is though a perfectly natural progression born out of suppression and borne via ignorance and aided immensely by the arrogance in support of hubris.
Fortunately it does not adversely affect nor halt the rapid progression and infiltration by such advanced and advancing developments into failed conventional and struggling traditional systems/SCADA administrations.</i></blockquote>
Excellent post as usual Mr. Cummings. Imagine if the GOP took the time to seriously digest this piece along with gaining a firm grasp of Tetlock, Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest", Bismarck, Thucydides, and Gell-Man...
On a side-note, do you think that the "commissarial dictatorship" that bequeathed Lincoln with emergency powers during his term was a key part of his iron-clad grip on the government? If not, why?