# Increasing the bureucratic efficiency, by decreasing the level of bureaucracy



## jozze (Jul 2, 2013)

Hello,
I would like to share some of my thoughts with you. I hope you won't mind, it's quite "Off-Topic" all right, and I'd like a chance to hear your feedback, or your ideas, and start a debate.

We're not in the dawn of the new age anymore, but have quite boldly stepped into it already. Still, politics aside, I see a way to improve the state of many countries, by improving bureaucracy.

I am a president of the singing choir, so I have to arrange some papers from time to time. We made some changes recently, and since we're registered in our municipality records in order to get some support from there, we had to report those changes there. After that those changes had to be reported to the bank. And again to the bank of the bank (or something like this, I don't even understand it).

Also, sometimes I have to write how much money I earned in this or that year, how much I payed, who am I, how long I study, what are my grades and so on. There is so much bureaucracy in our country, because there is so much paperwork to do. Once my wallet was stolen. There was so much paperwork to do that I still get the cold sweat running down my forehead just thinking about it.

In my opinion all paperwork is done in a very primitive way. We should have one central archive for ALL the matters of the individual, and files would have certain ownership as to who can access them: some parts by the government, some parts by the bank, some by university, some by you. There would be two more versions of the archive on the "Intranet" (so it would be off-line) which would be updated on a weekly basis, when all the changes would be double checked. Those two would serve as a back up, and only the Archivists (yes, I want it to sound epic/romantic) would have the right to modify those.

Members of the Archive would be elected committers and would have to be strictly neutral on the political matters, with no records of being a member of any political party whatsoever, because these would be really delicate matters, and the net effect would be virtually instituting another branch of power (so we would have 4 instead of the current three).

Many people who have to do paperwork and keep the different archives in sync could do something more useful, since there would be just one archive to keep track of.

I think that people in the position to make such decisions are too obtuse to do such a thing, since great political apparatuses seen ti thrive on useless bureaucracy and whatever the opposite of transparency is (blurriness/corruption?), and it makes me very annoyed when I am thinking of all the incompetence and inadequacy of modern bureaucracy.

What do you guys/girls think? Do you see one combined Archive as the future, or would it represent a (too great) security problem (as all things do)? Are you also annoyed by bureaucracy? Like for example the people at our town hall, who are only available for questions/paperwork from 8 to 11 in the morning.


----------



## h3z (Jul 2, 2013)

Sadly, I am not well informed enough to give a very useful reply. But, since it doesn't necessarily seem as though you expected such a reply, here mine is.



			
				jozze said:
			
		

> We're not in the *dawn* of the *new age* anymore


A little off of your topic, but I was wondering by what sign did you judge this? Is it meant as just a common terminology for the modern era of the microchip? It may seem like a silly question, and I intend no negative critique of your person by it. 



> I think that people in the position to make such decisions are too obtuse to do such a thing, since great political apparatuses seen ti thrive on useless bureaucracy and whatever the opposite of transparency is (blurriness/corruption?), and it makes me very annoyed when I am thinking of all the incompetence and inadequacy of modern bureaucracy.


Its an observation of mine, that this shows the competency of the bureaucrat in place. The very fact that you are annoyed is evidence of this.

It is rumored that musical notation, while a very capable formatting was designed to keep the vulgar peasant from dabbling in one of the finer of the arts. Its terminologies meaningfully intimidating to the uninitiated. 

Law is the same way. I don't know if Blacks Law still defines it as such, but the legal definition of human was of some interest in this area. It said to reference the legal term monster. The legal definition of monster was summed up as an animal like being, requiring a person of intellect to represent it legally.

In the U.S. the architects were quite clear in their understanding that the common man should have nothing to do with the actual decision making of the country. That is why they are only allowed to vote on those that will represent them. Since, the common man has no where near the king's mountain view required to comprehend the impact of the decisions being made.

It could be said, that whenever one is frustrated by bureaucracy, it is just the sign of an age old manipulation that has herded the gereral populace well, whenever practiced.

Some can do their own taxes, while others do not even know exactly why they are being taxed.            

It seems to me that whenever your name is associated with money law or the government, your name always ends up being typed with all capital letters. There are many out there, on the web more informed on this matter than I. This practice of capitalizing your name, represents a separate entity from your physical self. The laws and practices involved in this legal entity are complex and seemingly endless. I bet the implications of changing even the simplest of processes has unforeseen entanglements. But, maybe not in your particular scenario.



> What do you guys/girls think? Do you see one combined Archive as the future, or would it represent a (too great) security problem


No. I think it just changes how the information is leaked, when requested. This was meant as a joke, maybe.

I hope someone responds to this in a more useful way, than I have. Keep in mind that things I state, my not be things that I admire.


----------



## jozze (Jul 2, 2013)

h3z said:
			
		

> Sadly, I am not well informed enough to give a very useful reply.


It doesn't matter! I was just interested in your opinions. Thanks for the very instructive reply, which gave me more food for my thought .



			
				h3z said:
			
		

> A little off of your topic, but I was wondering by what sign did you judge this? Is it meant as just a common terminology for the modern era of the microchip?


Well, it depends from country to country, but sometime in the 20th century things started to change very fast and the world practically became different in a matter of decades. The line is blurred, and hard to guess, but it is clear that the difference from between early 21st century world and 20th century world is far greater than let's say early 20th and early 19th. The world changed drastically with progress in aeronautics, printing, mass production, medicine, rapid increase in population growth etc. What we usually have for dinner is better food than kings ate in their courts in 15th century. I don't know when this change happened, but it did happen. And with it came also a change of mind. We're not on the boundary anymore -- these changes changed us, and our mentality, to the point where we cannot go back to the way it was voluntarily (well, okay, some people reject the technology, but most of the "western" civilization doesn't).



			
				h3z said:
			
		

> Its an observation of mine, that this shows the competency of the bureaucrat in place. The very fact that you are annoyed is evidence of this.


Interesting thought. I would like to hear more about this.



			
				h3z said:
			
		

> In the U.S. the architects were quite clear in their understanding that the common man should have nothing to do with the actual decision making of the country. That is why they are only allowed to vote on those that will represent them. Since, the common man has no where near the king's mountain view required to comprehend the impact of the decisions being made.


Wow! I guess this explains the current world affairs perfectly ...



			
				h3z said:
			
		

> Some can do their own taxes, while others do not even know exactly why they are being taxed.


I'm the latter type, although I would like to see everything black on white, why and what I am paying for, it's just easier for the government to just say: "Give us this much!" This is horrible practice, and is opening doors to corruption, and money laundering.

As for the efficiency of the annoying bureaucrats ...
In my experience, whenever you have to apply, and you have certain deadlines that must be met, you must hold on to them. With bureaucrats I think is different, as they seem vaccinated against speed, being several months late, and then even sending your application back, stating that it wasn't correctly filled in, even though the procedure itself requires it from you to give to official authorities to verify that your application was filled correctly (and they don't do this for peanuts).

In my opinion a large portion of population is falling into apathy. People don't know what they want as profession and many times they just take something where they will earn a nice sum of money, doing something they don't really feel passionate about. They have no motivation, and no reason to help you. And this is how many (but not all! I am still convinced that many people are cool!) bureaucrats are born. From people, who had their dreams stolen away.

Once I called the post office, because a package came for me from the US, and I had to send them some papers. After one month I still didn't get my package, and and the procedure is that, if you didn't send the papers in 40 days, they're going to send that thing back. So I called them, and a woman said: "You have to call this number!" So I called there, and a man picked up, and he said: "You should call back!" So I called back, but was automatically put through back to the other guy! This is unprofessional annoyance, I am a civilian and I got caught in the middle of office wars, with my package on the line!

Your opinion on music theory was very interesting. I didn't know that, but it does make sense.

Thanks for the reply!


----------



## gkontos (Jul 2, 2013)

@jozze

An opinion from someone who lives in a country that will bankrupt unless. 


Decreasing bureaucracy increases efficiency and productivity. 
In order to do that you need to have at least 90% of your country services being handled by private businesses.
The government should encourage private investments and support all sorts of development from any private investor(s). 
The role of the state is only to supervise and intervene in case of a monopoly tactic from a private business.

This means that most civil employes should be fired! If not then country > /dev/null


----------

