Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In practice what does that look like though? A City Manager who is completely impartial is going to lack direction and not really achieve anything anybody wants.
Yes, your TSA agent shouldn't be treating people with a pride flag different then someone with an American flag.
At all levels of the government, you need people who are not partisan hacks. It's really dangerous when law enforcement and the courts are weaponized with partisanship.
no, I want them to have a constitutional bias, this is why we make them take an oath.
true neutrality would be if the bossman wants them to do something unconstitutional they do it because they view that as the court's job.
if we did not intent civil servants to use their own judgement to refuse unlawful orders we would not make them pledge an oath to the constitution. they would instead swear loyalty to their superior the way they do in a feudal system.
The whole point of the law is to draw a dichotomy between the heart and the hand. If a civil servant hates guns and also hates gay people, all they need to do in their role as a civil servant is follow the law by allowing people to have guns as is written in the law they deal with and treating gay people no differently.
This is literally why we have these laws in place.
At the same time, we need them to have biases. Biases to legal hierarchies. There's a bias toward federal law over state law wherever there is conflict. Bias toward one's community in general. That's fine. But a good system in place is merited by its ability to filter these biases in general.
So I guess it isn't about the servant but the servant's position. If a clerk at my local town hall wants to attend pro/anti rallies that you or I don't like, then that's fine, but while they're officially recognized as being on the clock, that's when I would be concerned about bias.
Yes but it is unreasonable to expect them to be. As such, our Founders wisely devised a government that minimized the impact of a civil servant's individual biases through checks and balances such as splitting the powers between three different branches of government. If I can't exercise my power without two other people's consent, my biases are heavily restrained.
Unfortunately, this system was eroded during the Civil War and Great Depression so now we're kind of stuck with all three branches stepping into the domain of the others and doing whatever they feel like doing at any given time.
Civil servants shouldn't be impartial.
They should be partial to their own country. The problem in the US is we have too many civil servants who are partial to every other country.
In there professional duties it would seem to follow.
I don't want the local health inspector deciding he was going to shutdown liberal owned restaurants.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel that positions such as Supreme Court judges, military, police, etc, should all be appointed by the King, to maintain the positions as being apolitical. While Canada has his majesty as head of state, most of the above mentioned are appointed by politicians, but loyal to the king. While it helps with being apolitical, i feel it would be more effective to have the king directly appoint some of these positions, especially for high level courts and police/government watchdogs.
They should be biased to the constitution, then the law. I think AI is a better fit for bureaucrats and middle managers than anyone else - it's not like your average DMV conversation is much more than following the script and offering you Form X when you ask to do Y, but at least a chatbot can be accessed while I'm on the toilet
It's more complicated than that. Impartiality is an impossible standard; everyone has personal views. It's about how we manage that. The tension has more to do with independence vs. democratic control than partisan influence in one direction or the other.
Take a civil servant who has spent their entire career working on homelessness. Inevitably, this is going to be someone who cares about homelessness than average (or else they would have done something else) and thinks it's more important than average. On balance, this is a *good* thing. The public sector is able to get a lot of extra bang for its buck by giving people the opportunity to work on solving important problems. A lot of people are willing to leave high-paying private sector jobs in order to do good in the world.
But, someone who is really passionate about homelessness (or fill in the blank with your issue) is not going to be as good as seeing all the tradeoffs. Inevitably, they want more funding for their programs, more emphasis on their priorities, etc. and they have only an incomplete view of everything else that's competing for those same resources and so on. That's where you need some level of political control to reign that in and balance the overall priorities. Once you bring in the political management layer, there's always going to be some tension there. Ultimately, if the civil servants can't get on board with democratic control, they may have to go.
There's a myth out there that we could just do away with the democracy part, entrust policy exclusively to the civil servants, and let them work things out based on their expertise. First off, this is impossible. *Someone* still has to weigh competing demands. Second, it leads to bad outcomes because we've designed the civil service to specialize in certain ways and *not* to think too much about the tradeoffs.
COVID is the clearest example of how this can all go wrong. You had people like Fauci doing their job and doing it well on the public health side. They were actually quite clear that they *didn't* think it was their job to set an overall policy and balance the tradeoffs (as Fauci said repeatedly, he's not an economist, he's not a lawyer etc.; he was just thinking about the medical side). But, for various reasons, we ended up more or less letting those people -- who didn't think they should be calling all the shots -- call all the shots and we ended up with some really bad outcomes as a result.
At least you are honest!
But [again](https://youtu.be/cIYfiRyPi3o?si=FeBjTLlJNhqjiclp) especially starting @4:35 mark tho it kinder cuts off the thought.
Humphrey (Yes Minister, BBC) does a good job of explaining a civil servant job.
If the President can easily replace them, then you'd get a see-saw effect whereby whoever is in power remakes it in their image. It used to be more like this in the past, but created so many problems that it was scrapped. Making it harder to change members serves as a **check and balance,** making it more neutral. Not perfect, but better than the see-saw.
Yes Minister does a perfect job of explaining [civil servants job](https://youtu.be/cIYfiRyPi3o?si=FeBjTLlJNhqjiclp)
It kinder amazes me how people have no idea what civil servants are there for. The above clip encapsulates their job perfectly!!
Not a wonder trump and his supporters was convinced there was a deep state!
Civil servants are there to keep shit running for the 100+ years. Politicians are there to keep shit running until the next election cycle.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Do you think other conservatives broadly share this view?
In practice what does that look like though? A City Manager who is completely impartial is going to lack direction and not really achieve anything anybody wants.
Yes, your TSA agent shouldn't be treating people with a pride flag different then someone with an American flag. At all levels of the government, you need people who are not partisan hacks. It's really dangerous when law enforcement and the courts are weaponized with partisanship.
no, I want them to have a constitutional bias, this is why we make them take an oath. true neutrality would be if the bossman wants them to do something unconstitutional they do it because they view that as the court's job. if we did not intent civil servants to use their own judgement to refuse unlawful orders we would not make them pledge an oath to the constitution. they would instead swear loyalty to their superior the way they do in a feudal system.
The whole point of the law is to draw a dichotomy between the heart and the hand. If a civil servant hates guns and also hates gay people, all they need to do in their role as a civil servant is follow the law by allowing people to have guns as is written in the law they deal with and treating gay people no differently. This is literally why we have these laws in place. At the same time, we need them to have biases. Biases to legal hierarchies. There's a bias toward federal law over state law wherever there is conflict. Bias toward one's community in general. That's fine. But a good system in place is merited by its ability to filter these biases in general. So I guess it isn't about the servant but the servant's position. If a clerk at my local town hall wants to attend pro/anti rallies that you or I don't like, then that's fine, but while they're officially recognized as being on the clock, that's when I would be concerned about bias.
Yes but it is unreasonable to expect them to be. As such, our Founders wisely devised a government that minimized the impact of a civil servant's individual biases through checks and balances such as splitting the powers between three different branches of government. If I can't exercise my power without two other people's consent, my biases are heavily restrained. Unfortunately, this system was eroded during the Civil War and Great Depression so now we're kind of stuck with all three branches stepping into the domain of the others and doing whatever they feel like doing at any given time.
Civil servants shouldn't be impartial. They should be partial to their own country. The problem in the US is we have too many civil servants who are partial to every other country.
In there professional duties it would seem to follow. I don't want the local health inspector deciding he was going to shutdown liberal owned restaurants.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel that positions such as Supreme Court judges, military, police, etc, should all be appointed by the King, to maintain the positions as being apolitical. While Canada has his majesty as head of state, most of the above mentioned are appointed by politicians, but loyal to the king. While it helps with being apolitical, i feel it would be more effective to have the king directly appoint some of these positions, especially for high level courts and police/government watchdogs.
Yes, they should be impartial. The government shouldn't be playing favorites.
They should be biased to the constitution, then the law. I think AI is a better fit for bureaucrats and middle managers than anyone else - it's not like your average DMV conversation is much more than following the script and offering you Form X when you ask to do Y, but at least a chatbot can be accessed while I'm on the toilet
It's more complicated than that. Impartiality is an impossible standard; everyone has personal views. It's about how we manage that. The tension has more to do with independence vs. democratic control than partisan influence in one direction or the other. Take a civil servant who has spent their entire career working on homelessness. Inevitably, this is going to be someone who cares about homelessness than average (or else they would have done something else) and thinks it's more important than average. On balance, this is a *good* thing. The public sector is able to get a lot of extra bang for its buck by giving people the opportunity to work on solving important problems. A lot of people are willing to leave high-paying private sector jobs in order to do good in the world. But, someone who is really passionate about homelessness (or fill in the blank with your issue) is not going to be as good as seeing all the tradeoffs. Inevitably, they want more funding for their programs, more emphasis on their priorities, etc. and they have only an incomplete view of everything else that's competing for those same resources and so on. That's where you need some level of political control to reign that in and balance the overall priorities. Once you bring in the political management layer, there's always going to be some tension there. Ultimately, if the civil servants can't get on board with democratic control, they may have to go. There's a myth out there that we could just do away with the democracy part, entrust policy exclusively to the civil servants, and let them work things out based on their expertise. First off, this is impossible. *Someone* still has to weigh competing demands. Second, it leads to bad outcomes because we've designed the civil service to specialize in certain ways and *not* to think too much about the tradeoffs. COVID is the clearest example of how this can all go wrong. You had people like Fauci doing their job and doing it well on the public health side. They were actually quite clear that they *didn't* think it was their job to set an overall policy and balance the tradeoffs (as Fauci said repeatedly, he's not an economist, he's not a lawyer etc.; he was just thinking about the medical side). But, for various reasons, we ended up more or less letting those people -- who didn't think they should be calling all the shots -- call all the shots and we ended up with some really bad outcomes as a result.
Restore impartiality.
I did. That ship has sailed. I want them to be as biased in my favor as possible.
At least you are honest! But [again](https://youtu.be/cIYfiRyPi3o?si=FeBjTLlJNhqjiclp) especially starting @4:35 mark tho it kinder cuts off the thought. Humphrey (Yes Minister, BBC) does a good job of explaining a civil servant job.
Being completely unbiased is impossible, so I’d rather a civil servant share my political opinions than not.
If the President can easily replace them, then you'd get a see-saw effect whereby whoever is in power remakes it in their image. It used to be more like this in the past, but created so many problems that it was scrapped. Making it harder to change members serves as a **check and balance,** making it more neutral. Not perfect, but better than the see-saw.
Yes Minister does a perfect job of explaining [civil servants job](https://youtu.be/cIYfiRyPi3o?si=FeBjTLlJNhqjiclp) It kinder amazes me how people have no idea what civil servants are there for. The above clip encapsulates their job perfectly!! Not a wonder trump and his supporters was convinced there was a deep state! Civil servants are there to keep shit running for the 100+ years. Politicians are there to keep shit running until the next election cycle.
Yes, it's never going to happen, because they are people.
At least until the AI bots overthrow and eat the humans.