I think it's interesting that you put companies, nonprofits, and government bodies into the same group. The goals of these different bodies are quite different, and it seems that their “governance” would thus be different. My point is that we can’t apply the government style of a for-profit company to a state. The reasons are the different goals and responsibilities of either entity.
The goal of a company that is run by shareholders is very simple and one-dimensional. It is for-profit. The goal of the shareholders is to put people in power who will make them money. It is simple, and for that reason, there is a simple style of governing the company. A nation/state is much more complicated in its goals. In truth, I don’t even know what it is. Is it the well-being of its population? The wealth of its policymakers? The occupation of the most resources? The domination of the world market? It seems that a nation has a difficult time knowing exactly what it wants, and this goal tends to change with who is in power or the cultural mood at the time. Therefore, it seems that the government style has to reflect and allow for this flexibility. As you mentioned, changes in a government “have to be made using the rules of the existing system.” The government of a nation has to reflect a president who wants to promote social reform and another who wants to focus on war-making. TL;DR The government of a nation has to be flexible to accommodate changes in goals, whereas a company's goals usually don't change that much. This is why I am interested in your choice to combine the two in an analysis of government.
Secondly, I think it is interesting to point out the epistemic environment in which this all takes place. In any ideal government, the people who are making decisions have to have the most knowledge possible in order to make the best decision. For students of philosophy that may be a polarizing statement, but I will rely on some decision theory to support me. I think the dominance principle applies quite well here. If you wish to make the best decision (vote for the best option) you need to choose the best option for all states of the world. The more information you have, the more you can know about the states of the world. That justification may be futile (and just an excuse to bring it into the conversation), but I think the overall point is intuitive enough.
I guess I don’t really have a point, just that it's an interesting connection. If there is any point it is that any ideal government should be built with the epistemic environment in mind.
I think it's interesting that you put companies, nonprofits, and government bodies into the same group. The goals of these different bodies are quite different, and it seems that their “governance” would thus be different. My point is that we can’t apply the government style of a for-profit company to a state. The reasons are the different goals and responsibilities of either entity.
The goal of a company that is run by shareholders is very simple and one-dimensional. It is for-profit. The goal of the shareholders is to put people in power who will make them money. It is simple, and for that reason, there is a simple style of governing the company. A nation/state is much more complicated in its goals. In truth, I don’t even know what it is. Is it the well-being of its population? The wealth of its policymakers? The occupation of the most resources? The domination of the world market? It seems that a nation has a difficult time knowing exactly what it wants, and this goal tends to change with who is in power or the cultural mood at the time. Therefore, it seems that the government style has to reflect and allow for this flexibility. As you mentioned, changes in a government “have to be made using the rules of the existing system.” The government of a nation has to reflect a president who wants to promote social reform and another who wants to focus on war-making. TL;DR The government of a nation has to be flexible to accommodate changes in goals, whereas a company's goals usually don't change that much. This is why I am interested in your choice to combine the two in an analysis of government.
Secondly, I think it is interesting to point out the epistemic environment in which this all takes place. In any ideal government, the people who are making decisions have to have the most knowledge possible in order to make the best decision. For students of philosophy that may be a polarizing statement, but I will rely on some decision theory to support me. I think the dominance principle applies quite well here. If you wish to make the best decision (vote for the best option) you need to choose the best option for all states of the world. The more information you have, the more you can know about the states of the world. That justification may be futile (and just an excuse to bring it into the conversation), but I think the overall point is intuitive enough.
I guess I don’t really have a point, just that it's an interesting connection. If there is any point it is that any ideal government should be built with the epistemic environment in mind.
-R.A.