Here are two
models, which, for simplicity, we’ll call the private model and state model. The
private model undergoes the following test: if people are willing to pay for
what you’re providing, then you must be serving them in providing value. If anyone has made a lot
of money from this model, then they are likely to be serving society
prodigiously. Alternatively, the state model takes our money in the form of taxation and
purports to serve us on our behalf. Within the private model, consumers are
spending their money as they choose, so inefficiencies will be few. Within the
state model, there’ll be some cases where the government spends our money in a
way that benefits us, but also, given the model, there’ll be many cases where
the state spends our money poorly and in ways that give us bad value for money.
Even if you’re someone who really values a big state, it’s still the case that
due to top down information failure, and self-serving interests from within the
political establishment, a lot of money will be spent on things that rob us of
greater value elsewhere through the private spending model. This inefficiency
gets exacerbated by the fact that the state keeps growing its sector to serve
these interests, so the inefficiencies increase alongside it.
But it doesn’t end there. Politicians become incentivised to fatten up their state model, and to do this they have to constantly adapt to reflect the views of the people on whom they rely for their power. The popular views held in society are often of the most absurd and ridiculous nature, which means as they become more ubiquitous, they are inevitably going to be absorbed into the state mindset, and eventually, as the Overton window shifts, they become part of mainstream policy. At this point, sheer nonsense has become part of lazy political gesturing, and the voters have become so inured that neither the governors nor the governed call any of it into question.
I think this relationship is a bit like the relationship between the greyhound and the hare on the racetrack. Greyhound racing uses an electrically controlled and propelled mechanical hare that must stay far enough in front of the dogs to keep them chasing, but not be so ahead that they stop bothering to chase. Politicians do that; they impose a small enough thrall to keep the majority tolerant of their aims, but they are careful not to go so far that folk reject the political system altogether and bring about anarchy (although watch this space - there is a lot of unrest out there). That is, they keep the hare close enough so people are willing to chase, and ensure it’s not sufficiently out of reach that people go off and do their own thing. You’ll notice that people in abusive/coercive relationships often do this too; they provide enough allure to keep their partner emotionally conjoined, yet are not so awful that they run a mile. The awareness of this is often what causes the victim to eventually extricate themselves. There is an analogue here too in countries with dictators and oppressed citizens who flee the tyranny in order to begin a better life.
All that is to say, there is a sub-standard co-dependency going on between the general population and the people that they elect into power – which means that if absurd views begin to proliferate in society, they are likely to find representation in the establishment too – and that makes everyone worse off. The government takes shape by moulding itself around their own perception of their electoral popularity – and as a weighted average, it is generally about as good or bad, and as prudent and imprudent, as its perception of the people it claims to govern.