Joseph thinks that formalism won’t work.
First, I think he’s confusing formalism with neocameralism. Perhaps this essay will help.
However, I can’t resist providing a brief summary.
Formalism is the idea that we should not lie to ourselves. For example, the temporary members of the US government are currently debating whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. The actual debt of the US government, however, is already well above the debt ceiling. Officially, it is below the debt ceiling because the US government’s accounting system is fraudulent – for example, Fannie and Freddie debt are not part of the limit and the social security shortfall is not accounted for at all. The formalist believes, among other things, that the US government needs a honest accounting system. This belief is so radical that the formalist is considered crazy by correct-thinking individuals.
Neocameralism is the belief that governments should be run like corporations.
The ideas of formalism and neocameralism intersect because (one can argue that) governments are, in fact, run like corporations. The institution of neocameralism would therefore be consistent with formalism.
Moving on . . .
A neocameralist ruler in fact does not need to be any more enlightened than a ruler under the current system of government. Far from it. In a neocameralist system, a ruler has direct and objective feedback – i.e. profit – about the success of his policies. Under the current system, feedback is indirect or non-existent.
Saying that a neocameralist rule must have the characteristics that Jospeh lists is incorrect. Such characteristics are not required to run a profitable company. Steve Jobs, for example, exists.