6 ms·

Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corrup

Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corruption. This is inescapable so long there are regulators and so long it involves humans. Any system that does not heavily accept and model itself against the potential for corruption is naive. If its not trustless, decentralized and emergent from the bottom up it doomed to eventual capture.

Clubber 5y ago
>Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corruption. I agree wit this part. >This is inescapable so long there are regulators and so long it involves humans. I don't agree with this part. Our nation has gone through periods of more corruption and less corruption. It's pretty simple to get back to a period of less corruption: keep voting out the incumbents. Will the people who replace them be corrupt? It's certainly possible, but we know the ones currently holding office are corrupt. Furthermore, when we have fresh politicians, because they are new to office, they won't have such intrenched interests. We will never get another TR, FDR or LBJ when someone corrupt is holding their seat of power.
- alsetmusic 5y ago
  I’m curious why you list LBJ alongside FDR. I see the former as guiding the US further into a pointless cold war which JFK seemed to want to put to bed.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    LBJ's domestic programs were overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Vietnam would unfortunately come to dominate his legacy. Some of his big domestic successes were: Medicare, Medicaid, War on Poverty, and the Civil Rights Act. I would argue he was the last "common man" Democrat. He also grew up dirt poor. https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affairs https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affair... Historians are doubtful that had JFK lived, the US involvement in Vietnam would be much different. It's interesting that history gives him a pass since he also escalated the war as well. https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/ https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vi... LBJ recorded most of his phone conversations for historical record. They are pretty interesting. https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon
    - alsetmusic 5y ago
      Thanks for an informing response.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  You can’t vote out the corruption, because much of it is enmeshed in bureaucratic appointments and institutions. The government as a whole needs to be flushed out, from top to bottom, but these parasites are dug in too good to remove without killing parts of the host. Personally, I am completely okay with that scenario: defund the government.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    The people currently in office certainly won't defund themselves. We'd still have to replace them by voting out the incumbents for there ever to be a chance of shrinking these massive bureaucracies (think TSA, DHS, FBI, etc). Also there is an institutional culture of corruption in congress that can only be removed by clearing house. Think of it as citizen imposed congressional term limits. That should be the default as opposed to incumbent winning 90+% of the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_th...
pphysch 5y ago
How does decentralization enable accountability? What prevents a corrupt party from conspiring towards and achieving a 51% attack on a "decentralized", "trustless" blockchain? Or other attempts to "beat the system" even if blockchains aren't involved.

Clubber 5y ago

>Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corruption. I agree wit this part. >This is inescapable so long there are regulators and so long it involves humans. I don't agree with this part. Our nation has gone through periods of more corruption and less corruption. It's pretty simple to get back to a period of less corruption: keep voting out the incumbents. Will the people who replace them be corrupt? It's certainly possible, but we know the ones currently holding office are corrupt. Furthermore, when we have fresh politicians, because they are new to office, they won't have such intrenched interests. We will never get another TR, FDR or LBJ when someone corrupt is holding their seat of power.

alsetmusic 5y ago
I’m curious why you list LBJ alongside FDR. I see the former as guiding the US further into a pointless cold war which JFK seemed to want to put to bed.
- Clubber 5y ago
  LBJ's domestic programs were overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Vietnam would unfortunately come to dominate his legacy. Some of his big domestic successes were: Medicare, Medicaid, War on Poverty, and the Civil Rights Act. I would argue he was the last "common man" Democrat. He also grew up dirt poor. https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affairs https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affair... Historians are doubtful that had JFK lived, the US involvement in Vietnam would be much different. It's interesting that history gives him a pass since he also escalated the war as well. https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/ https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vi... LBJ recorded most of his phone conversations for historical record. They are pretty interesting. https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon
  - alsetmusic 5y ago
    Thanks for an informing response.
voakbasda 5y ago
You can’t vote out the corruption, because much of it is enmeshed in bureaucratic appointments and institutions. The government as a whole needs to be flushed out, from top to bottom, but these parasites are dug in too good to remove without killing parts of the host. Personally, I am completely okay with that scenario: defund the government.
- Clubber 5y ago
  The people currently in office certainly won't defund themselves. We'd still have to replace them by voting out the incumbents for there ever to be a chance of shrinking these massive bureaucracies (think TSA, DHS, FBI, etc). Also there is an institutional culture of corruption in congress that can only be removed by clearing house. Think of it as citizen imposed congressional term limits. That should be the default as opposed to incumbent winning 90+% of the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_th...

pphysch 5y ago

How does decentralization enable accountability? What prevents a corrupt party from conspiring towards and achieving a 51% attack on a "decentralized", "trustless" blockchain? Or other attempts to "beat the system" even if blockchains aren't involved.