Brian J Goggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:00:12 +0000, Adrian Stott ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It appears that your proposal is aimed entirely at setting up a body >that will be outside the control of government and of citizens, and >that will pursue its own ends unhindered by any requirement to report >to anybody. er, Brian, I think you have forgotten that the government owns all the shares of BW, and thus can "elect" the Board. >So, as with so many of the neocon intellectuals, Aw, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me! >you seem more concerned to remake the world with institutions of your favoured >type >than to bring about any improvement in the performance of the systems >and organisations with which you propose to interfere. I'm a Canadian, so I know about Marshall Mcluhan's saying "The medium is the message". A machine tends to do what it is best at. You may be able to get it to do something else, but it probably won't do it well. A government agency will thus usually act like a government agency, i.e. it will cover its ass, and make few waves. Any other output will be of secondary importance and produced (if at all) inefficiently. A corporation designed to produce a profit will tend to try to do so. This usually requires it to try to be efficient, and to attract/keep its customers. I would rather BW remained a corporation, and were funded in a way as unlike that of a government agency and as much like an enterprise as possible. I think that is the best way to "bring about ... improvement in the performance". So, I am indeed concerned with remaking the (waterway) institutions, but only because I think that is the only workable way of getting/perpetuating/etc. the waterways we want. Try to fix e.g. EA? Think "sow's ear"? Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
