3 ms·

> How could anyone possibly argue against that? Arguing against that is easy. The elite have so many better ways to profit from their positions that outlawing

> How could anyone possibly argue against that? Arguing against that is easy. The elite have so many better ways to profit from their positions that outlawing stock ownership is laughably naïve. Trading stocks against knowledge you obtained from your government position is an easy way to get busted, so you may assume the people caught up in this represent merely the profoundly stupid; the smart elites don't get nabbed in such simple minded schemes. Yes, there are very stupid federal judges; their appointments are a product a political haymaking that has their actual competence way down the list of priorities. So the best reason I can think of to oppose your plan is simply that it's a futile waste of time. If you're serious about meaningful efforts to hinder corruption think in terms of transparency. Give the electorate the means to know who is bought and paid for by whom. Without that you're wasting your time.

DFHippie 5y ago
> So the best reason I can think of to oppose your plan is simply that it's a futile waste of time. Time is a pretty small consideration here. One can and should apply many means to lessen corruption. Transparency is certainly important, but no means is going to cover all cases or be 100% effective. Reduce the possibility of conflict of interest and increase transparency. The problem with transparency, if you're relying on democracy to do the rest, is that any sufficiently clever corruption scheme is simply not going to be understood by the public you're relying on to oppose it. If you give them an explanation in detail they mostly see simply that it's detailed. It looks no different from a conspiracy theory to most people, who will barely be following the issue anyway. Most voters are low information voters. The information they need is which party backs which position. They in effect vote as they're told, not because they're stupid but because none of this interests them.

DFHippie 5y ago

> So the best reason I can think of to oppose your plan is simply that it's a futile waste of time. Time is a pretty small consideration here. One can and should apply many means to lessen corruption. Transparency is certainly important, but no means is going to cover all cases or be 100% effective. Reduce the possibility of conflict of interest and increase transparency. The problem with transparency, if you're relying on democracy to do the rest, is that any sufficiently clever corruption scheme is simply not going to be understood by the public you're relying on to oppose it. If you give them an explanation in detail they mostly see simply that it's detailed. It looks no different from a conspiracy theory to most people, who will barely be following the issue anyway. Most voters are low information voters. The information they need is which party backs which position. They in effect vote as they're told, not because they're stupid but because none of this interests them.