What is the "administrative state"?

pecksniff

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Posts
22,077
It's a phrase that comes up now and then as something ominous, but it doesn't really seem to mean anything. Every state is administrative. A small town with no agencies but a zoning board, a library and a three-officer police force is an administrative state.
 
It's the millions of faceless bureaucrats who write the laws we actually have to obey and who make or break the tenure of elected officials.
 
And you know that how?

The federal government employs about 2 million people. About 1/3 of them are uniformed military. The vast majority of the rest are Executive Branch employees who form the regulatory and other bodies.

Laws in the US are not self-executing, they require the EB body to write the regs that are then enforced.
 
The federal government employs about 2 million people. About 1/3 of them are uniformed military. The vast majority of the rest are Executive Branch employees who form the regulatory and other bodies.

Laws in the US are not self-executing, they require the EB body to write the regs that are then enforced.

None of that places them above the elected officials, or gives them any power over them.
 
In the UK, and in many other European countries, the Civil Servicer (or their equivalents) run the country under the direction of the politicians elected as a government.

In the absence of a government, the Civil Service carries on administering the country until a new government is formed. In Belgium, recently, that has been for several months while the parties argued about a coalition.

While there is no government, there can be no real significant change. the Civil Service will continue on as it was last directed.

In Northern Ireland, while the power-sharing agreement was in abeyance, the inertia of the Civil Service carrying on for years led to some difficulties because things should have been changed, decisions should have been taken - but weren't.
 
In the UK, and in many other European countries, the Civil Servicer (or their equivalents) run the country under the direction of the politicians elected as a government.

In the absence of a government, the Civil Service carries on administering the country until a new government is formed. In Belgium, recently, that has been for several months while the parties argued about a coalition.

While there is no government, there can be no real significant change. the Civil Service will continue on as it was last directed.

In Northern Ireland, while the power-sharing agreement was in abeyance, the inertia of the Civil Service carrying on for years led to some difficulties because things should have been changed, decisions should have been taken - but weren't.

That makes it sound like the worst problem an "administrative state" presents is inertia.
 
That makes it sound like the worst problem an "administrative state" presents is inertia.

It can be, but the problems vary by country.

In the UK, the Civil Service is normally efficient and unbiased, with people who see their tasks as being public servants. But they can be slow.

In Germany, it can be too efficient and soulless but records everything in minute detail.

In France, public servants can be a real pain to the public, making lives difficult. Getting a permit for anything in France can be a nightmare.

In Italy, public servants are seen as corrupt, needing bribes to get anything done, and too much influence is exerted by unions and the mafia.

Other European countries can be a mixture of all the above...
 
That's about the intelligence agencies in particular -- not, I think, what is usually meant by "the administrative state."

LOL, and why not? There are tens of thousands that work in them, and they are all (AFAIK) in the Executive Branch, i.e. the administrative state.
 
LOL, and why not? There are tens of thousands that work in them, and they are all (AFAIK) in the Executive Branch, i.e. the administrative state.

Because -- most of the time -- nobody is afraid of the intelligence agencies in particular (we know they do nasty shit, including torture and assassination and subversion of governments, but we assume that's all done in foreign countries). "The administrative state" implies some sinister force controlling the whole government.
 
Because -- most of the time -- nobody is afraid of the intelligence agencies in particular (we know they do nasty shit, including torture and assassination and subversion of governments, but we assume that's all done in foreign countries). "The administrative state" implies some sinister force controlling the whole government.

Is this a fucking joke? Cointelpro ring a bell? The Church Commission? Face it, Taibbi is right, the Left loves the CIA now because it's aligned itself with the DNC.
 
Is this a fucking joke? Cointelpro ring a bell? The Church Commission? Face it, Taibbi is right, the Left loves the CIA now because it's aligned itself with the DNC.

But, that would not give the "administrative state" so defined any immediate power over regulatory or tax policy. It would not be something you could blame for the failure of a small business.
 
But, that would not give the "administrative state" so defined any immediate power over regulatory or tax policy. It would not be something you could blame for the failure of a small business.

Where did you get this definition? That's so wispy it doesn't even rise to being a straw man.
 
What definition do you mean, then, if you refer to the administrative state as something objectionable or ominous?

The Deep State is an entity that manages to operate with little or no accountability to any of the three branches in ways that can be divergent or even in opposition to those of the law and the Executive.

In the case of intelligence agencies, they can even to to war with an administration, we saw with Trump, and damage it irreparably, to advance their own agenda.
 
The Deep State is an entity that manages to operate with little or no accountability to any of the three branches in ways that can be divergent or even in opposition to those of the law and the Executive.

In the case of intelligence agencies, they can even to to war with an administration, we saw with Trump, and damage it irreparably, to advance their own agenda.

How do they even have their own agenda?
 
How do they even have their own agenda?

That's been a problem since the Praetorian Guard, at least. The guardians begin to see themselves as the representatives of the Republic, not servants to it. It leads to things like classified phoe calls being leaked to the press.
 
That's been a problem since the Praetorian Guard, at least. The guardians begin to see themselves as the representatives of the Republic, not servants to it. It leads to things like classified phoe calls being leaked to the press.

The point is that you are sending your mail to the wrong address. To the extent America is not a true democratic republic, the problem is not institutions within government, it is the plutocracy that controls government.
 
The point is that you are sending your mail to the wrong address. To the extent America is not a true democratic republic, the problem is not institutions within government, it is the plutocracy that controls government.

They have some small say in who goes to Congress and the WH (Hillary outspent Trump 2-1), but the bureaucracy is permanent.
 
Back
Top