Reading this made me consider the possibility that people with anti-government sensibilities have intentionally gotten themselves into critical government roles and employed these, or similar, techniques. The procedural productivity killers seem like they would be extremely effective, and easily passed off as incompetence or a simple proclivity for bureaucracy.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the slow moving, budget draining, enthusiasm killing bureaucrat were really a subtle and effective anarchist?
Honestly, I think that sort of thing is happening.
Look at the changes to the Post Office. Two seemingly small things combine to put real pressure on what is otherwise able to operate just fine.
One was a change in rates, which basically favored large publishers. Small distribution and citizen mail subsidize big publishing, who then can ramp up on their volume.
The other was a pre-pay requirement for benefits that is just nuts! Something like 25 years.
Now, the Post shows a loss and there is a lot of discussion about how to "improve" it, privatize it, etc...
I'll bet there is a fair amount of this type of thing going on. Some analysis to identify critical targets, planning to impact them, then messaging to maximize the leverage / profit / change from those impacts.
Anyway, back to the Post. Either one of those things would have been both manageable and to a degree justifiable. Both combined are a real mess.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the slow moving, budget draining, enthusiasm killing bureaucrat were really a subtle and effective anarchist?