Tweet

BETTER LAWS

In this section the OECD talks about two elements: how to improve laws and how to take risks into consideration. We will review both cursorily only (i.e. not in depth because we only have so much tolerance for manure). Apparently this so-called guidance from the OECD is necessary because "the…[2008] crisis has uncovered major failings in governance and regulation".

What never ceases to amaze us is how underhanded and manipulative statements such as those ones are. We direct our dear readers to pay attention to one element of the statement: the underlying assumption that laws need correcting. The whole circus is not about the fact that they failed (this is just smoke and mirrors to appear "sincere") but the idea that more laws are required. Consider two things:

The 2008 crisis (just like almost any other economic crises of "modern democracy") can be traced back to governments meddling with the economy and the money supply.

Modern democracy has existed for over 200 years and it polluted the world with ineffective laws. And what is their solution to these ineffective laws? More laws.

Obviously, since the OECD is socialist in nature this could not be otherwise. The first rule of bureaucratic survival is not to bite the hand that feeds you. Recommending anything other than more laws would mean going against politicians' jobs and this would be totally unacceptable.

Guidance to improve regulations

In this section the OECD states that they developed a document bombastically called "The Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Regulatory Policy and Governance" whose http link is broken. We guess this "comprehensive international statement on regulatory policy since the crisis" wasn't that important after all. This is something typical and classic about useless documents generated by useless bureaucracies who have no impact whatsoever in real lives, to the point that making sure it is easily available to people is not a priority. It already served its purpose at the time of publication and it can now be thoroughly forgotten…its purpose being, of course, propaganda for top bureaucrats at the OECD.

This magnificent piece of bureaucratic thinking (also written in bureaucratese) is written at such a high level that it sounds impressive but it could be used (literally) to support almost any action(s) that a government may decide to take. Its recommendations are almost meta-recommendations (i.e. recommendations about recommendations). An example of such a magnificent work of political fiction includes statements as the following ones:

"Adopt an integrated approach, which considers policies, institutions and tools as a whole, at all levels of government and across sectors, including the role of the legislature in ensuring the quality of laws"

And this statement is part of the "explanation" of the recommendation, which means it is as detailed as it gets! Yes sir! Right away sir! Would you like that law with mustard, salt or pepper?

In any case, this is the summary of the 12 recommendations as interpreted by politicians and translated into plain language:

1. Develop laws using widespread bureaucratic support to ensure there will be no backstabbing. Make sure you justify everything so that your ass is covered.
2. Continue brainwashing people through meaningless "open government" initiatives (see Distrust Governments - They Are Not Open) so that they trust you and continue voting.
3. Increase the bureaucracy to ensure bureaucratic support during elections using the "need" for extended oversight of laws as excuse.
4. Cover your ass by seek explanations to justify avoiding other solutions than new laws.
5. Review existing laws through a meaningless process to ensure your ass is covered.
6. Regularly publish propaganda in the form of wildly successful stories (call them reports), highlighting how well the new laws are working. Make sure they are circulated amongst voters for brainwashing and propaganda during elections.
7. Develop "objective, impartial and consistent" processes to cover the ass of bureaucrats in different agencies, therefore assuring their support at election time.
8. Develop "due diligence" processes for bureaucrats that enforce laws, hence ensuring that their asses are also covered therefore rendering their support at election time.
9. Develop laws using a risk-based methodology hence ensuring that anything fuzzy can be explained away thus covering your ass.
10. Develop laws that are tied to many political levels thus linking your fate with other politicians. This will ensure their cooperation at election time.
11. Expand the bureaucracy using the excuse of "building capacity" thus ensuring the support of bureaucracies at election time.
12. Develop laws that follow international socialist standards to ensure the support of other politicians from other countries at election time.

We are pretty sure that if Machiavelli would have lived in a "modern democracy", these would also have been his recommendations. To be honest, if you read them, they all seem oh-so-fair, righteous and reasonable. They are written as if politicians were honest and reasonable people who place our wellbeing in front of theirs and were actually capable and willing of producing laws for the benefit of their voters (see for example Government Morality or Politicians And Bureaucrats Job Security Through Misery if you still harbour any doubts). However, once you actually had the chance to go through them, they can be summarized as follows:

1. Develop "good" laws (which is impossible as we have seen above)
2. Get the bureaucracy to monitor all laws using "objective" measures (which is impossible since no objective standards can be determined as we have seen above)
3. Make sure you coordinate locally and internationally (which is pointless because all other levels of government and countries have the exact same problems regarding laws).

In other words, this so-called guidance is at best wishful thinking based on theoretical conditions which do not exist in reality or at worse a blueprint for political job security bulletproofing through peoples' oppression. Your pick.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.