On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:44:14 +0000, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>er, Brian, I think you have forgotten that the government owns all the >shares of BW, and thus can "elect" the Board. It wasn't clear from your earlier messages that that would continue. But if the government's sole power is that of appointment and dismissal of the board, it is not clear that that provides for effective oversight of its doings. In the European Parliament, the "nuclear option" --- its sole power over the Commission was to dismiss the whole of it --- effectually rendered the elected representatives powerless. It may be, of course, that you want the elected representatives of the people to be powerless over the oligarchs. >>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". One of Canada's two major contribution to world culture, that was. But you might explain its relevance in this discussion. I, alas, am not a medium. >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. Eh? [Minor nod to Canadian culture there.] A machine gets used by a user. And who defines "what it is best at"? >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. That is your perception of what government "agencies" do. It is not necessarily a description of what all such "agencies" actually do or must do. The "cover its ass" is largely a result of its being required to abide by the law, but the tendency has been strengthened in recent times by the litigiousness of individualists, encouraged by the neocons who like to see individuals profiting at the expense of the commonwealth --- while at the same time weakening the commonwealth. >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 do you want this new BW to look after the waterways, to implement government (or the people's) policy or to make a profit? I see no reason to believe that its aiming for profit will not conflict with its role as guardian of the waterways. >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. But you don't seem to have worked it out: you're relying on prayer and miracles. Make BW a profit-seeking institution and all will be well ..... bjg
