5 ms·

> In a republic where deal-making has to happen, if you ran on W, X, Y, and Z, you might have to compromise on Z to get W, X, and a watered-down version of Y. D

> In a republic where deal-making has to happen, if you ran on W, X, Y, and Z, you might have to compromise on Z to get W, X, and a watered-down version of Y. Doesn’t mean you changed your mind on Z or strict-Y, but you can’t get everything you want because other Americans want other things and they can’t get everything they want either. Maybe a lesser politician would only have gotten W and half of X If I owned a company and the people I hired to manage it were playing games like this, and if I asked them for insight into what, specifically, is happening behind the scenes, and they told me "it is literally not possible for us to provide you with that information" (and wouldn't say why it is not possible), I would be immediately launching a side project with the intent to replace the whole lot of them. Yes, I realize "it's complex", but complexity is a continuum, not a binary. With respect to the article, is it not true that the President has some substantial ability to float ideas into the public consciousness, that would put the heat on the state and municipal politicians to come up with some better systems to manage law enforcement and officer interactions with the public? And if the federal level truly has no power whatsoever in instituting reform or enforcing federal laws (what's the FBI do again?), I don't see why a comprehensive framework with recommendations for operational reform and greater transparency couldn't come from the top down. If there's nothing to be held accountable to, and no one to do the holding, I don't see why people are surprised when law enforcement restraint is largely left up to the goodwill of individual officers. This whole situation and the way it is discussed seems rather absurd to me, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

sokoloff 6y ago
There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. They don't all run on the same set of promises (or else we'd presumably get all of those outcomes). Often their platform promises are in conflict with each other. They make deals with each other to get some of what they represent their constituents want in exchange for some of what the others' constituents want. This is necessary (and I believe by and large healthy) behavior when you're trying to govern ~350 million people.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Is it also necessary to have the precise level of transparency and style of media coverage we have now? Is there precisely nothing that our massive improvements in information technology and widespread connectivity of the public to the internet can do to improve the state of our political process? Is this situation optimal, no possible improvements can be made whatsoever?
sk5t 6y ago
> If I owned a company and the people I hired to manage it were playing games like this Imagine that you get to hire 5 people to run the company on your behalf, and four other directors each also hire 5 people to further their interests. Some of those other four directors want things that are nearly enough exactly the opposite of what you want, and you can do nothing to expel them, and precious little to change their minds. Also, the best five people who are willing to fill the roles you control are not exactly the ones you would like to hire, but nevertheless, they're the best available and willing. Now what?
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Some of those other four directors want things that are nearly enough exactly the opposite of what you want, and you can do nothing to expel them... I am the owner of the company, and there's nothing I can do to expel them? > Also, the best five people who are willing to fill the roles you control are not exactly the ones you would like to hire, but nevertheless, they're the best available and willing. Now what? Well in the short term, you're screwed. But how plausible is this imaginary scenario? There is literally no one better available, in a country of 300 million people? Are the politicians we have now the best of the best? Take the choices we have in the next presidential election for example: Donald Trump vs Joe Biden. Are these the best "available and willing" candidates out there? Not one single person in the country more qualified than either of these fellows?
  - invalidOrTaken 6y ago
    >I am the owner of the company, and there's nothing I can do to expel them? "I am the owner of this computer, yet I can't know whether it will run a certain problem in finite time?" "We are the dominant species on this planet, yet we can't change its course towards Alpha Centauri?" Ownership is more of a negative than positive good---that is, ownership means you own something more than other people, not that you're omnipotent regarding it. A human can own a computer yet still be unable to get it to do something. "Never attribute to scarcity what can be attributed to technical debt."
    - 6y ago

sokoloff 6y ago

There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. They don't all run on the same set of promises (or else we'd presumably get all of those outcomes). Often their platform promises are in conflict with each other. They make deals with each other to get some of what they represent their constituents want in exchange for some of what the others' constituents want. This is necessary (and I believe by and large healthy) behavior when you're trying to govern ~350 million people.

mistermann 6y ago
Is it also necessary to have the precise level of transparency and style of media coverage we have now? Is there precisely nothing that our massive improvements in information technology and widespread connectivity of the public to the internet can do to improve the state of our political process? Is this situation optimal, no possible improvements can be made whatsoever?

sk5t 6y ago

> If I owned a company and the people I hired to manage it were playing games like this Imagine that you get to hire 5 people to run the company on your behalf, and four other directors each also hire 5 people to further their interests. Some of those other four directors want things that are nearly enough exactly the opposite of what you want, and you can do nothing to expel them, and precious little to change their minds. Also, the best five people who are willing to fill the roles you control are not exactly the ones you would like to hire, but nevertheless, they're the best available and willing. Now what?

mistermann 6y ago
> Some of those other four directors want things that are nearly enough exactly the opposite of what you want, and you can do nothing to expel them... I am the owner of the company, and there's nothing I can do to expel them? > Also, the best five people who are willing to fill the roles you control are not exactly the ones you would like to hire, but nevertheless, they're the best available and willing. Now what? Well in the short term, you're screwed. But how plausible is this imaginary scenario? There is literally no one better available, in a country of 300 million people? Are the politicians we have now the best of the best? Take the choices we have in the next presidential election for example: Donald Trump vs Joe Biden. Are these the best "available and willing" candidates out there? Not one single person in the country more qualified than either of these fellows?
- invalidOrTaken 6y ago
  >I am the owner of the company, and there's nothing I can do to expel them? "I am the owner of this computer, yet I can't know whether it will run a certain problem in finite time?" "We are the dominant species on this planet, yet we can't change its course towards Alpha Centauri?" Ownership is more of a negative than positive good---that is, ownership means you own something more than other people, not that you're omnipotent regarding it. A human can own a computer yet still be unable to get it to do something. "Never attribute to scarcity what can be attributed to technical debt."
  - 6y ago