Can the government act against its own interest?

[timosman]

It seems the government has no problem acting against its own interest. Arming both sides of any conflict or sponsoring criminal activities at home in the name of fighting terror or war on drugs. Is there a way to prevent these idiots from doing so?

[acptulsa]

What is the government's interest?

Hint: It ain't the same as the people's interest. Unless by 'the people' you mean 'the lobbyists'.

[otherone]

It seems the government has no problem acting against its own interest. Arming both sides of any conflict or sponsoring criminal activities at home in the name of fighting terror or war on drugs. Is there a way to prevent these idiots from doing so?

LOLZ.
If the government does not manufacture it's own necessity, then the people might realize it is not necessary.

[Raginfridus]

Special interests is political correctness for conflict of interests. There's so much central power, decentralized in so many agencies and committees, that our government's a worthless arbiter in situations where a neutral party would be nice. It has too many conflicts of interest to be of any use, and it's appetites for theft and waste of people and resources are totally unrestrained. I think the best prevention would have been an unequivocal clause, formalizing only male landowners shall ever be allowed to legislate. To propose a bill, a legislator would need to stake his life, and all legislators would need to lay security - skin in the game - for their vote to count. The multiplication of laws is essentially what destroyed our liberty, but a mechanism something like that would have slowed the corruption.

[fisharmor]

I think everyone here knows the answer is no.

The primary interest of the state is to increase the size and scope of its power.

The only way to act against that interest is to decrease the size and scope of its power.

And I think we all know that, in the long run anyway, such a decrease is manifestly impossible.

[otherone]

I think everyone here knows the answer is no.

The primary interest of the state is to increase the size and scope of its power.

The only way to act against that interest is to decrease the size and scope of its power.

And I think we all know that, in the long run anyway, such a decrease is manifestly impossible.

Now you're just being cynical.
I'm sure the government can select a blue-ribbon panel to research possible solutions, possibly leading to the creation of a Department of Governmental Shrinkage.
This would help the economy as well, by creating a host of civil service jobs to ensure the government gets smaller.