7 ms·

Uncover the theft of hundreds of thousands will get you a bonus. Uncover the theft of millions will get you a big promotion. Uncover the theft of billions by

Uncover the theft of hundreds of thousands will get you a bonus. Uncover the theft of millions will get you a big promotion. Uncover the theft of billions by corrupt state actors and international crime syndicates is only ever going to get you dead. Perhaps I have a different mindset, but if I had been looking into this, I think I would have stopped digging as soon as I got a hint of how deep this rabbit hole actually was. Risk vs Reward.

bilekas 7y ago
But with this mentality corruption will just go unchallenged. Its a huge risk, but the rewards for removing such a big chunk of corruption is huge. So I guess you're right, it is more of a mindset thing.
- krageon 7y ago
  > reward This person is dead. We can thus deduce the reward is death. While that is a big reward, it's not one most people want.
  - bilekas 7y ago
    I understand, but some people don't want a life knowing the corruption they're seeing is degrading the lives of potentially millions. I am not saying go out and get yourself killed, just that I can see the reasons some people do try to get this info out.
  - bkor 7y ago
    > This person is dead. We can thus deduce the reward is death. You're mixing reward with outcome. The outcome is that the person was murdered. That's something entirely different from a reward.
  - mola 7y ago
    Maybe living with knowing about the thing was worse than the one time event of death?
  - hliyan 7y ago
    Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. - The Categorical imperative (Kant). Basically, it's the next level of "do unto others". To determine whether your action is right or wrong, ask yourself what would happen to society if every person performed that action as a matter of habit.
    - krageon 7y ago
      When I was 18, I'm sure I would have agreed with you. After some more time living among other people, I think I can say I've moved past that. If you have not, all the more power to you!
      - hliyan 7y ago
        At 18, I thought Atlas Shrugged was the pinnacle of philosophy. I'm 40 now, it's been only 3 years since I've started to look at morality through the lens of CI.
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      Even this is a little unsophisticated for the same reason as the Golden Rule. The problem is that other people aren't just mirror versions of you. In small children "theory of mind" develops, the child supposes that perhaps this experience they're having, whatever that is, is also an experience the other people who look like them are having. And this theory works well, you can make useful predictions with it. Because Daddy is like you, and you like apple drink better than pond water, you can surmise correctly that Daddy will prefer the apple drink over the pond water too. Being smacked in the face (e.g. by your own unco-ordinated limbs) hurts, and so it's not a surprise that Daddy doesn't like a smack in the face either. But the explanatory power of theory of mind is limited if you stop there. I don't like Peanut Butter. But it turns out that other people _do_ like Peanut Butter, their minds are similar but not identical. If I see some bread with Peanut Butter spread on it, to me that bread is ruined, but to someone else that's a delicious snack. I don't want to marry. So for me a Categorical Imperative forbidding marriage is no problem. But it's clear to me that other people value marriage and so, against my better judgement, it should continue to be permitted. Some people feel marriage should be restricted, that couples ought to be of opposite biological sex, or the same skin colour, or of child-bearing age, or whatever other constraint. I have no dog in that fight but it's simplest if we're to allow something I have no need for, to assume that everybody will avail themselves of this custom only if they value it, and so it may as well be open to everyone until we see some clear evidence of ill-effects.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  It's no different than a peasant (or even a lesser lord) challenging a king in the feudal era. You spoke out against the king, you lost your head. Billionaires are our kings. Jeff Bezos' wealth is 3 times the GDP of North Kora, which has a standing army of over a million people. They are more wealthy than a number of independent states. Do you think he couldn't fund and equip 100,000 mercenaries if his monopoly were threatened? When a peasant threatens his power, he doesn't even need to do that: a single assassin is enough. Replace Bezos (who I doubt would order a hit but you never know) with a Russian oligarch (who absolutely would order a hit) and you have your explanation.
  - greggman2 7y ago
    If Jeff Bezos was to commit murder tomorrow and be caught I suspect the police would chase him, catch him, throw him in jail, he'd make bail and it would turn into a scene like OJ. I don't expect he'd be able to raise an army to break him out or defend is home. He might be able to flee the country but even that might be hard even with all his money. If he had covertly planned ahead and already had his mercenary army in place maybe. (though maybe he'll have the secret code for all the drones....)
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Recently a Mexican cartel outgunned the Mexican police and forced the release of El Chapo's son. It's hard to imagine something like that happening in a wealthy country, but it's not unheard of in the real world. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/americas/el-chapo-son-operation-video/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/americas/el-chapo-son-operati...
      - learc83 7y ago
        Mexican cartels are much closer to terrorists, rebel groups, or rival states than they are to businesses operating in a functioning country. The difference in what's basically a warlord who already has loyal troops to command, controls territory, and assets that can't be easily seized and Jeff Bezos is too much to make a comparison remotely useful.
mola 7y ago
This is why humanity invented the Hero. We recognize that irrational selflessness can be extremely beneficial for society. The more heroes we have, the less corrupt the system, the stakes of corruption would be lower and the price of heroism should decrease, thus society at large and these selfless heros will probably benefit together.
- mola 7y ago
  So we could call this guy stupid, or hail him as a hero. In which society would you like you and your children to live in, the one where heroes are acknowledged or the one they are dismissed as dumb and irrational? Mind you, calling someone a hero cost you next to nothing in utility so I think the choice is a no brainier.
  - thomasll 7y ago
    I'm getting flashbacks to numerous "Vulcans Vs Humans" debates I had with friends in my halcyon days...
    - mola 7y ago
      Vulcans are not real, we have no proof such a society could survive.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >In which society would you like you and your children to live in, the one where heroes are acknowledged or the one they are dismissed as dumb and irrational? I would like to live in the former, but you have to face reality: we do not live in such a society, we live in one where heroes like him will only be murdered, and no one will really care as it'll be forgotten quickly.
    - GVIrish 7y ago
      Sergei Magnitsky brought light to Russia corruption and paid with his life. But because of his sacrifice, the United States, UK, Canada, and others implemented the Magnitsky Act which allows for the sanctioning of individuals involved in human rights abuses. It shuts the sanctioned individuals out of banking systems and prevents their entry to the country with a ratified Magnitsky Act. More and more countries are implementing their own version of this law. People who expose corruption don't always live to see the day their efforts make a difference. But the bad guys don't always win either.
Asooka 7y ago
Хорошо сказал, товарищ.
HashThis 7y ago
People don't buy $200 billion worth of drugs. To get that much, the nation state and oligarchs need to be rigging the economy and stealing with massive crony capitalism.
squarefoot 7y ago
"I think I would have stopped digging as soon as I got a hint of how deep this rabbit hole actually was" Or maybe find a way of making the news public under anonimity, which brings us to the importance of being able/allowed to do so when necessary.
- magduf 7y ago
  Maybe. The problem with a lot of stuff like that is that it's really hard to release information anonymously. The nature of the information is such that not many people would have had access to it, so for the assassins, the number of suspects is very low, and it's not that hard for them to figure out who did it.
  - ajross 7y ago
    I think the comment was making an analogy to a more contemporary issue. As far as whether they could figure out how to target Koslov personally, that requires more info than we have. The nature of any complicated scheme is that, while yes, information is compartmentalized, doing it at all requires a lot more "regular people" than you expect. Leaders alone can't effect a criminal conspiracy. At the end of the day, someone like, say, a mid-level foreign affairs analyst probably saw this stuff and could have blown the whistle too.
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    This is also true. In such a scenario probably an effective torture proof dead man switch (the one the whistleblower can't turn off once they kidnap him) could have helped. Something on the lines of "here's 500 pages of sensitive data in the wild about your crimes, if I or anyone of my family members disappear or die a thousand more pages will be published, and nobody can turn off this feature, including me". I know I'm making this a lot easier than it really is...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

bilekas 7y ago

But with this mentality corruption will just go unchallenged. Its a huge risk, but the rewards for removing such a big chunk of corruption is huge. So I guess you're right, it is more of a mindset thing.

krageon 7y ago
> reward This person is dead. We can thus deduce the reward is death. While that is a big reward, it's not one most people want.
- bilekas 7y ago
  I understand, but some people don't want a life knowing the corruption they're seeing is degrading the lives of potentially millions. I am not saying go out and get yourself killed, just that I can see the reasons some people do try to get this info out.
- bkor 7y ago
  > This person is dead. We can thus deduce the reward is death. You're mixing reward with outcome. The outcome is that the person was murdered. That's something entirely different from a reward.
- mola 7y ago
  Maybe living with knowing about the thing was worse than the one time event of death?
- hliyan 7y ago
  Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. - The Categorical imperative (Kant). Basically, it's the next level of "do unto others". To determine whether your action is right or wrong, ask yourself what would happen to society if every person performed that action as a matter of habit.
  - krageon 7y ago
    When I was 18, I'm sure I would have agreed with you. After some more time living among other people, I think I can say I've moved past that. If you have not, all the more power to you!
    - hliyan 7y ago
      At 18, I thought Atlas Shrugged was the pinnacle of philosophy. I'm 40 now, it's been only 3 years since I've started to look at morality through the lens of CI.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    Even this is a little unsophisticated for the same reason as the Golden Rule. The problem is that other people aren't just mirror versions of you. In small children "theory of mind" develops, the child supposes that perhaps this experience they're having, whatever that is, is also an experience the other people who look like them are having. And this theory works well, you can make useful predictions with it. Because Daddy is like you, and you like apple drink better than pond water, you can surmise correctly that Daddy will prefer the apple drink over the pond water too. Being smacked in the face (e.g. by your own unco-ordinated limbs) hurts, and so it's not a surprise that Daddy doesn't like a smack in the face either. But the explanatory power of theory of mind is limited if you stop there. I don't like Peanut Butter. But it turns out that other people _do_ like Peanut Butter, their minds are similar but not identical. If I see some bread with Peanut Butter spread on it, to me that bread is ruined, but to someone else that's a delicious snack. I don't want to marry. So for me a Categorical Imperative forbidding marriage is no problem. But it's clear to me that other people value marriage and so, against my better judgement, it should continue to be permitted. Some people feel marriage should be restricted, that couples ought to be of opposite biological sex, or the same skin colour, or of child-bearing age, or whatever other constraint. I have no dog in that fight but it's simplest if we're to allow something I have no need for, to assume that everybody will avail themselves of this custom only if they value it, and so it may as well be open to everyone until we see some clear evidence of ill-effects.
wayoutthere 7y ago
It's no different than a peasant (or even a lesser lord) challenging a king in the feudal era. You spoke out against the king, you lost your head. Billionaires are our kings. Jeff Bezos' wealth is 3 times the GDP of North Kora, which has a standing army of over a million people. They are more wealthy than a number of independent states. Do you think he couldn't fund and equip 100,000 mercenaries if his monopoly were threatened? When a peasant threatens his power, he doesn't even need to do that: a single assassin is enough. Replace Bezos (who I doubt would order a hit but you never know) with a Russian oligarch (who absolutely would order a hit) and you have your explanation.
- greggman2 7y ago
  If Jeff Bezos was to commit murder tomorrow and be caught I suspect the police would chase him, catch him, throw him in jail, he'd make bail and it would turn into a scene like OJ. I don't expect he'd be able to raise an army to break him out or defend is home. He might be able to flee the country but even that might be hard even with all his money. If he had covertly planned ahead and already had his mercenary army in place maybe. (though maybe he'll have the secret code for all the drones....)
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Recently a Mexican cartel outgunned the Mexican police and forced the release of El Chapo's son. It's hard to imagine something like that happening in a wealthy country, but it's not unheard of in the real world. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/americas/el-chapo-son-operation-video/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/americas/el-chapo-son-operati...
    - learc83 7y ago
      Mexican cartels are much closer to terrorists, rebel groups, or rival states than they are to businesses operating in a functioning country. The difference in what's basically a warlord who already has loyal troops to command, controls territory, and assets that can't be easily seized and Jeff Bezos is too much to make a comparison remotely useful.

mola 7y ago

This is why humanity invented the Hero. We recognize that irrational selflessness can be extremely beneficial for society. The more heroes we have, the less corrupt the system, the stakes of corruption would be lower and the price of heroism should decrease, thus society at large and these selfless heros will probably benefit together.

mola 7y ago
So we could call this guy stupid, or hail him as a hero. In which society would you like you and your children to live in, the one where heroes are acknowledged or the one they are dismissed as dumb and irrational? Mind you, calling someone a hero cost you next to nothing in utility so I think the choice is a no brainier.
- thomasll 7y ago
  I'm getting flashbacks to numerous "Vulcans Vs Humans" debates I had with friends in my halcyon days...
  - mola 7y ago
    Vulcans are not real, we have no proof such a society could survive.
- magduf 7y ago
  >In which society would you like you and your children to live in, the one where heroes are acknowledged or the one they are dismissed as dumb and irrational? I would like to live in the former, but you have to face reality: we do not live in such a society, we live in one where heroes like him will only be murdered, and no one will really care as it'll be forgotten quickly.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    Sergei Magnitsky brought light to Russia corruption and paid with his life. But because of his sacrifice, the United States, UK, Canada, and others implemented the Magnitsky Act which allows for the sanctioning of individuals involved in human rights abuses. It shuts the sanctioned individuals out of banking systems and prevents their entry to the country with a ratified Magnitsky Act. More and more countries are implementing their own version of this law. People who expose corruption don't always live to see the day their efforts make a difference. But the bad guys don't always win either.

Asooka 7y ago

Хорошо сказал, товарищ.

HashThis 7y ago

People don't buy $200 billion worth of drugs. To get that much, the nation state and oligarchs need to be rigging the economy and stealing with massive crony capitalism.

squarefoot 7y ago

"I think I would have stopped digging as soon as I got a hint of how deep this rabbit hole actually was" Or maybe find a way of making the news public under anonimity, which brings us to the importance of being able/allowed to do so when necessary.

magduf 7y ago
Maybe. The problem with a lot of stuff like that is that it's really hard to release information anonymously. The nature of the information is such that not many people would have had access to it, so for the assassins, the number of suspects is very low, and it's not that hard for them to figure out who did it.
- ajross 7y ago
  I think the comment was making an analogy to a more contemporary issue. As far as whether they could figure out how to target Koslov personally, that requires more info than we have. The nature of any complicated scheme is that, while yes, information is compartmentalized, doing it at all requires a lot more "regular people" than you expect. Leaders alone can't effect a criminal conspiracy. At the end of the day, someone like, say, a mid-level foreign affairs analyst probably saw this stuff and could have blown the whistle too.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  This is also true. In such a scenario probably an effective torture proof dead man switch (the one the whistleblower can't turn off once they kidnap him) could have helped. Something on the lines of "here's 500 pages of sensitive data in the wild about your crimes, if I or anyone of my family members disappear or die a thousand more pages will be published, and nobody can turn off this feature, including me". I know I'm making this a lot easier than it really is...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]