7 ms·

If there are no limits on betting, then this is just plutarchy with extra steps. Guy comes along with $100B and directly changes the policy landscape. If there

If there are no limits on betting, then this is just plutarchy with extra steps. Guy comes along with $100B and directly changes the policy landscape. If there are limits on betting, then it's direct democracy with extra steps (everyone gets one "vote" worth up to $limit). What if improving society was a reward-in-itself and we trusted competent managers to do the complicated bits?

jacquesm 5y ago
We are already in that situation, but we have several intermediaries (media ownership, lobbying) to pretend that we do not.
- pphysch 5y ago
  There is no law that says you have to be a corrupt politician and enable plutarchy, although it is common. At any rate, "futarchy" is clearly a step backwards.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    They don't have to be corrupt at all, just the simple fact that media and lobbying power are mostly controlled by capital expended it would be naive to assume that non-corrupt politicians can not be influenced. If they could not then there would not be a lobby, and media would not be as politicized as they are.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      In my opinion, a politician has some freedom to choose who they listen to, and politicians who predicate that choice on their personal enrichment are corrupt.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        But that's a black-and-white view. The 'gray' version is that it is perfectly possible for a politician to be of good intentions, but presented with a choice of 99 parties funded by special interests with megaphones and one lonely voter you can't fault them for having more - and usually better argued - input from special interests. That's why many countries forbid lobbying entirely (not that that's 100% effective, but it's a start).
        pphysch 5y ago
        I never said it's dichotomous; that's on you. I was explaining how I classify corruption. Some politicians are more or less corrupt than others.
  - leppr 5y ago
    Judiciary laws are just one of the many incentives present in the real world. Money is a better data point to base models and predictions than laws. > What if improving society was a reward-in-itself and we trusted competent managers to do the complicated bits? This is the mental model many citizen seem to adopt to interpret their government. In my opinion it's closer to a religion than reality. People that willingly reject great personal rewards in favor of the common good are a rarity. They do exist, but expecting people in power to naturally adopt that stance, or expecting that elections is a good way of finding those people, is a mistake.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      > Money is a better data point to base models and predictions than laws. I completely disagree. Not all value is as fungible as money, because economic value is rooted in the diverse & time-sensitive needs of individuals and societies. My demand for "potable water-value today" is not freely exchangeable, via a universal value medium such as money, with your demand for "quiet sleepy-time value next week", even though these are things we are economically acquiring. Regulations are required to prevent uncontrolled financialization from cannibalizing society.
      - leppr 5y ago
        Can you elaborate on that? It seems to me that in most of today's capitalistic societies these goods/services are totally interchangeable. If I'm rich and willing to pay for quiet sleepy time next week, I will get it. If I'm poor and can't pay for potable water today, I won't get it. It doesn't matter how relatively important to each individual the service is.
        pphysch 5y ago
        And if that individual doesn't get their $0.25 of water, they die. How is that a reasonable outcome in any functioning society? The free market has its practical uses, but allocating basic human rights is not one of them.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    > There is no law that says you have to be a corrupt politician and enable plutarchy, although it is common. There's no such law, of course, but there's also no law that a restaurant must offer food and service that customers like, and yet we tend to observe that restaurants which do that tend to survive better than those which do not.

jacquesm 5y ago

We are already in that situation, but we have several intermediaries (media ownership, lobbying) to pretend that we do not.

pphysch 5y ago
There is no law that says you have to be a corrupt politician and enable plutarchy, although it is common. At any rate, "futarchy" is clearly a step backwards.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  They don't have to be corrupt at all, just the simple fact that media and lobbying power are mostly controlled by capital expended it would be naive to assume that non-corrupt politicians can not be influenced. If they could not then there would not be a lobby, and media would not be as politicized as they are.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    In my opinion, a politician has some freedom to choose who they listen to, and politicians who predicate that choice on their personal enrichment are corrupt.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      But that's a black-and-white view. The 'gray' version is that it is perfectly possible for a politician to be of good intentions, but presented with a choice of 99 parties funded by special interests with megaphones and one lonely voter you can't fault them for having more - and usually better argued - input from special interests. That's why many countries forbid lobbying entirely (not that that's 100% effective, but it's a start).
      - pphysch 5y ago
        I never said it's dichotomous; that's on you. I was explaining how I classify corruption. Some politicians are more or less corrupt than others.
- leppr 5y ago
  Judiciary laws are just one of the many incentives present in the real world. Money is a better data point to base models and predictions than laws. > What if improving society was a reward-in-itself and we trusted competent managers to do the complicated bits? This is the mental model many citizen seem to adopt to interpret their government. In my opinion it's closer to a religion than reality. People that willingly reject great personal rewards in favor of the common good are a rarity. They do exist, but expecting people in power to naturally adopt that stance, or expecting that elections is a good way of finding those people, is a mistake.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    > Money is a better data point to base models and predictions than laws. I completely disagree. Not all value is as fungible as money, because economic value is rooted in the diverse & time-sensitive needs of individuals and societies. My demand for "potable water-value today" is not freely exchangeable, via a universal value medium such as money, with your demand for "quiet sleepy-time value next week", even though these are things we are economically acquiring. Regulations are required to prevent uncontrolled financialization from cannibalizing society.
    - leppr 5y ago
      Can you elaborate on that? It seems to me that in most of today's capitalistic societies these goods/services are totally interchangeable. If I'm rich and willing to pay for quiet sleepy time next week, I will get it. If I'm poor and can't pay for potable water today, I won't get it. It doesn't matter how relatively important to each individual the service is.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        And if that individual doesn't get their $0.25 of water, they die. How is that a reasonable outcome in any functioning society? The free market has its practical uses, but allocating basic human rights is not one of them.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > There is no law that says you have to be a corrupt politician and enable plutarchy, although it is common. There's no such law, of course, but there's also no law that a restaurant must offer food and service that customers like, and yet we tend to observe that restaurants which do that tend to survive better than those which do not.