3 ms·

It would be subject to a lot more scrutiny and due process?

xvedejas 5y ago
I'm not sure how to figure out which situation results in more scrutiny and due process. I can buy that private corporations are under-policed, but I'm not sure the government would police itself either. Maybe the best is a kind of adversarial relationship between the public and private entities? Anyone know of compelling studies on what ultimately is best practice for compliance?
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > I'm not sure the government would police itself either One would assume that if the law was intended that everyone can have a bank account, then ultimately one would be able to appeal through the courts. Which are not perfect, but are a hell of a lot better than a company just being able to make it's own decision without having to justify it. Of course, you could have a governmental setup without this aim. And you could regulate the private market. But generally speaking governmental organisations are held to higher standards and have less incentive to be non-compliant.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    > But generally speaking governmental organisations are held to higher standards and have less incentive to be non-compliant Citation needed. I’ve seen precisely the opposite. What’s needed is external pressure to be a good actor. The courts can do that to a government - in a country with very strong institutions. With a decent number of competing banks and a strong regulator, you can get very far
  - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    > One would assume that if the law was intended that everyone can have a bank account, then ultimately one would be able to appeal through the courts Maybe we should first socialize the legal industry, such that suing the government is actually a realistic option for the common person who, at present, cannot afford to hire lawyers for something like that.
- kcplate 5y ago
  > I'm not sure the government would police itself either Has it ever?
  - xvedejas 5y ago
    There's clearly _some_ push-and-shove that happens some of the time, officials get fired for ethics violations, laws get changed, politicians lose re-election. I don't think it's worthwhile to be reductive, there's got to be a quantitative way to compare how different compliance schemes tend to fare.
mythrwy 5y ago
And political wrangling. And moral panics. And "national emergencies". And just about every other political abuse you can imagine. That's without getting into the weeds of how well they would do at it implementation or how much it would cost. Government could just do all the farming and manufacturing and food distribution also. Probably not very well and people would be much worse off and the system would be abused by those in power. Same concepts apply to this. Single responsibility principal, as much as possible, is an efficient idea. Government's job is to regulate. If there are problems with the current system that is largely a failure of regulation.

I'm not sure how to figure out which situation results in more scrutiny and due process. I can buy that private corporations are under-policed, but I'm not sure the government would police itself either. Maybe the best is a kind of adversarial relationship between the public and private entities? Anyone know of compelling studies on what ultimately is best practice for compliance?

nicoburns 5y ago
> I'm not sure the government would police itself either One would assume that if the law was intended that everyone can have a bank account, then ultimately one would be able to appeal through the courts. Which are not perfect, but are a hell of a lot better than a company just being able to make it's own decision without having to justify it. Of course, you could have a governmental setup without this aim. And you could regulate the private market. But generally speaking governmental organisations are held to higher standards and have less incentive to be non-compliant.
- FredPret 5y ago
  > But generally speaking governmental organisations are held to higher standards and have less incentive to be non-compliant Citation needed. I’ve seen precisely the opposite. What’s needed is external pressure to be a good actor. The courts can do that to a government - in a country with very strong institutions. With a decent number of competing banks and a strong regulator, you can get very far
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  > One would assume that if the law was intended that everyone can have a bank account, then ultimately one would be able to appeal through the courts Maybe we should first socialize the legal industry, such that suing the government is actually a realistic option for the common person who, at present, cannot afford to hire lawyers for something like that.
kcplate 5y ago
> I'm not sure the government would police itself either Has it ever?
- xvedejas 5y ago
  There's clearly _some_ push-and-shove that happens some of the time, officials get fired for ethics violations, laws get changed, politicians lose re-election. I don't think it's worthwhile to be reductive, there's got to be a quantitative way to compare how different compliance schemes tend to fare.

mythrwy 5y ago

And political wrangling. And moral panics. And "national emergencies". And just about every other political abuse you can imagine. That's without getting into the weeds of how well they would do at it implementation or how much it would cost. Government could just do all the farming and manufacturing and food distribution also. Probably not very well and people would be much worse off and the system would be abused by those in power. Same concepts apply to this. Single responsibility principal, as much as possible, is an efficient idea. Government's job is to regulate. If there are problems with the current system that is largely a failure of regulation.