The blog doesn't exist. I've just been batting the idea around. Essentially, I wanted to find something that was completely issue oriented. I've been calling it a “government blog” instead of a political blog. There are a million blogs to focus on politics — gaffs, perceptions, smart moves, horse races. I wanted one where I could just go and read about good and bad ideas on energy policy. Or health care. Or federalism. Etc. I was hoping to find an Editor who would provide content for each area.

Right now I'm not moving on it, however.

That book sounds interesting an I should check it out. I do have to say that looking at the Wikipedia page for all the descriptors, 0 of the commercial ones have an inherently negative connotation (in fact half of them have a positive connotation) and about half of the guardian class has inherently negative connotations. I'm not sure that “take vengeance” is a moral precept for instance. But it looks like there are some good ideas.

Thanks for putting up with all my stuff, I promise I'm going to get around to some more specific model ideas soon. BTW what sort of blog were you thinking about forming? I ask for two reasons: first of all, while I plan to talk about some basic mathematical concepts and how they relate to policy matters, I'm not sure it's the appropriate forum to discuss more complex stuff on a fundamental level. Also I'm thinking of designing a new way to categorize/link blog posts, a sort of Google++, and I'm not sure what your interests are but having two blogs would be interesting to test the interplay.

One of the sections of your essay that I found most interesting is the discussion of the sort of investments that are most appropriate for a government versus for the private sector. While it's not a direct match at all, I was reminded during your post of Jane Jacob's book (in dialogue form) called Systems of Survival. The book is worth reading not because it's a comprehensive look at ethics, but because it puts forth several ideas worth considering. I'm going to quote from a review that summarizes the main idea fairly nicely:

“This is a most insightful book, in which the author convincingly expounds her thesis that the world uses two systems of ethics as systems for the survival of mankind: the commercial system, and the guardian system.

The commercial class lives by production and exchange, primarily by means of honest, binding contracts and voluntary agreements, and where initiative, inventiveness and efficiency are prized, along with industriousness, thrift and investment.

The guardian class is prevalent in governments, benevolent trusts, charity organizations, universities and schools, military and police. They shun trading and exchange, and live by taking, in the form of taxes and donations, and sometimes expropriation. They are dispensers of the good things, in the form of grants and largesse. Guardians issue commands and expect them obeyed, with courage if necessary, which they in turn are subject to themselves, for a hierarchical command structure is honored. And they use force and deception where necessary to accomplish objectives.

The greatest sin, and the cause of all corruption, according to Ms. Jacobs, is when the two systems are merged in one organization.”

I am not sure this is correct, but I do think the basic idea is worthwhile: we need to figure out what sorts of thing government is likely to do well and what it is likely to fail at, and then maximize the former and minimize the latter. This won't necessarily match standard conservative versus liberal ideologies which can become simply: 'government bad but sometimes must have' versus 'government good to solve all problems'.