10 ms·

Use the state to fix failures of the state? There's a weird cyclic optimism here that I don't think can really be supported by the facts. After all, those who w

Use the state to fix failures of the state? There's a weird cyclic optimism here that I don't think can really be supported by the facts. After all, those who write a law can just as easily add addendum to that law, or remove it all together. Even with equal banking laws, there's always going to be an individual who the state deems as less equal than others. That's just how it's always been. Its bizarre that this is such an unpopular idea, when if posted in a thread about anything other than crypto, it'd likely not be scoffed at this hard.

pjerem 4y ago
> Use the state to fix failures of the state? Yup, that's how it works in democracies...
- trutannus 4y ago
  You have to accept though that just saying "ah, the government will fix it" when historically governments have been a major contributor to wealth inequality, is somewhat glib. There's a reason NGOs and private charity exist. I think this approach is just as wrong as saying "crypto is the answer".
  - a_humean 4y ago
    And that is another instance where many people part ways, because another big aspect of crypto is that it is partially motivated by a political ideology that most people politely reject and many people think is full of crackpots and scam artists (because it is).
    - trutannus 4y ago
      I'm not advocating crypto here, I'm just pointing out that saying crypto is bad because you can "just pass a law" is just as illogical as saying "internet blockchain money will give us freedom".
      - giaour 4y ago
        > saying crypto is bad because you can "just pass a law" I think you're misconstruing the original suggestion, which was that a legal solution to the problem of the unbanked would be viable. You could pass legislation mandating that banks turn no one away, you could establish a publicly run bank of last resort, etc. I believe those measures would be "easier" solutions to the problem than replacing the entire financial system, but that's just an opinion about a hypothetical.
        trutannus 4y ago
        Not suggesting we replace the banking, just pointing out how this path you suggest is still not going to be an easy fix. There's no easy fix. Again, not advocating for crypto as a solution. Just asking people to consider more deeply the issues of saying "use the government to solve it!".
        Kbelicius 4y ago
        GP said "easier", not "easy". Number of people that display an inability to read a few sentences and parse them correctly is frightening.
        trutannus 4y ago
        > You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy. This is the one I'm specifically discussing, its from a different user. This is the line that started the thread. Plenty of users are discussing this specific line I believe.
        giaour 4y ago
        FWIW, I thought the "Easy." you cite was meant sarcastically. The full context is: > The same as national health insurance. You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy. and national health insurance is famously a fiendishly hard public policy issue (albeit one for which several competing models exist and have been put into practice). Working from an existing public policy model (like using France's example of offering bank-of-last-resort services through the postal service) still seems way easier than just deciding to solve it with crypto.
  - II2II 4y ago
    On the other hand, what would the world look like without democratic governments? Look at history, and you will notice that it is rarely better. Those who seek wealth and power aren't created by governments, nor will they magically disappear if governments disappear (or if their power is neutered). At least democracies have some checks and balances, even if they are nowhere near as effective as we need them to be.
    - trutannus 4y ago
      > On the other hand, what would the world look like without democratic governments Nobody here is advocating against democracy. People are just pointing out that blind trust in state institutions is equally as illogical as blind trust in the EVM. States have a track record of serving the powerful first, and sometimes exclusively. Trusting apparatus with a track record like this masks a sort of flawed optimism, just like putting your hopes of change in the blockchain.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
        Why are you so insistent that the trust necessarily be blind? Having legislation is the first step to getting banks to comply with how we think they should work. What's the alternative method of coercing their behavior?
        trutannus 4y ago
        The initial discussion started with someone saying something to the effect of "just change the law, easy". To me, that reads as "just use the government, it'll be fine". Perhaps it's just me, but that sounds a lot like blind trust in an institute.
      - MrMan 4y ago
        crypto is inherently anti-social and antidemocratic, or at least all the ones I know about.
    - raspberry1337 4y ago
      >what would the world look like without democratic governments? Look at history, and you will notice that it is rarely better. Why would one look at history? Democracy is a modern phenomenon, and many modern states are republics, designed not to be full-blown democracies.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  More like that's how democracies fail. Our current method of "fixing" failures of the state involves layering more and more legislation and regulation on top of the broken legislation and regulation. We do nothing to address the root causes of those failures because that would mean closing a lot of the loop holes that allow politicians to get rich by leveraging their positions aka corruption. Why else would we need bills that are thousands of pages long and seem to accomplish absolutely nothing?
  - trutannus 4y ago
    > Our current method of "fixing" failures of the state involves layering more and more legislation and regulation on top of the broken legislation and regulation. The UK is the perfect example. Hundreds of years of out-dated laws layered on top of each other to the point where nobody can tell what is law and what is a joke.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      But hey, at least they banned knives. They really know how to destroy crime there.
    - multjoy 4y ago
      >The UK is the perfect example. Hundreds of years of out-dated laws layered on top of each other to the point where nobody can tell what is law and what is a joke. Literal nonsense.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - biorach 4y ago
      Absolute nonsense. English law is the preferred basis for cross-border contracts and English courts are the preferred venue for litigation between entities from different jurisdictions. This is very well attested - e.g. first result from Google: https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-international-commercial-contracts https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Any fix for a failure in human organization(s) is going to come from ... humans. There are no hall monitors here, and there's also no magic wand. When things are of a large enough scope, the way that humans tend to organize to get things done, or get things fixed, is called "a state". Just like all human efforts, the outcome will likely not be perfect. But there actually isn't another way. Sure, you can suggest the idea that some alternate organization could do something, but it too will not be perfect. And an organization large enough to do substantive things about the issues at the top of TFA will essentially be a state, whether you call it that or not.
- trutannus 4y ago
  > There are no hall monitors here, and there's also no magic wand. Right, and saying "just pass a law" is asking the hall monitors to wave a wand.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    The law isn’t magic though. It’s a system we designed for this purpose and we know how it works.
    - trutannus 4y ago
      Except that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is: 1. Bad laws got us into this place 2. There's a lot of inertia in government 3. There's a lot of stake holders in government who don't have citizen's interests at heart 4. It's illogical to think you can, in light of this, just pass a law and fix it. Yeah, we designed the law, and we know how it works. Sadly, we know also that the way it works is generally not how it should, and it has been co-opted often for the powerful.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        "the problem with corruption, inefficiency and stupidity in government is corruption, inefficienty and stupidity, not government"
Tainnor 4y ago
> There's a weird cyclic optimism here that I don't think can really be supported by the facts. That's a pretty American, libertarian take. As somebody who grew up in Western Europe, I'm not disillusioned by "the state" per se, and I think that the facts rather support that privatisation doesn't always make things better (e.g. railways). None of us may be "right" (it always depends on your experiences), but it's worth considering that "using the state to fix society" isn't a completely ridiculous take for everyone.
- trutannus 4y ago
  > That's a pretty American, libertarian take. I'm not American. This take tends to come out of countries where the government has strayed away from its objective of serving the people. There are plenty of governments I'd trust, and not hold a libertarian view towards. Funny enough, most of these are European governments, so your point is well taken. That said, using the state to solve this problem isn't universally going to work. I bet Nordic nations could pull it off, if they've not already. In short: if the government doesn't work for the people, and is structurally broken, I hold a libertarian perspective. If I see a government that works for the people, I lean neoliberal.
pydry 4y ago
>Use the state to fix failures of the state? The lack of banking services for the poor is a market failure not a state failure. State competition in markets that have failed to deliver necessary services has long been effective whether its through provision of housing or bare bones post office bank accounts. It not only provides underserved communities it whips competitors into line because - surprise surprise - competition works. It's the one weird trick parasitic oligarchs hate.

pjerem 4y ago

> Use the state to fix failures of the state? Yup, that's how it works in democracies...

trutannus 4y ago
You have to accept though that just saying "ah, the government will fix it" when historically governments have been a major contributor to wealth inequality, is somewhat glib. There's a reason NGOs and private charity exist. I think this approach is just as wrong as saying "crypto is the answer".
- a_humean 4y ago
  And that is another instance where many people part ways, because another big aspect of crypto is that it is partially motivated by a political ideology that most people politely reject and many people think is full of crackpots and scam artists (because it is).
  - trutannus 4y ago
    I'm not advocating crypto here, I'm just pointing out that saying crypto is bad because you can "just pass a law" is just as illogical as saying "internet blockchain money will give us freedom".
    - giaour 4y ago
      > saying crypto is bad because you can "just pass a law" I think you're misconstruing the original suggestion, which was that a legal solution to the problem of the unbanked would be viable. You could pass legislation mandating that banks turn no one away, you could establish a publicly run bank of last resort, etc. I believe those measures would be "easier" solutions to the problem than replacing the entire financial system, but that's just an opinion about a hypothetical.
      - trutannus 4y ago
        Not suggesting we replace the banking, just pointing out how this path you suggest is still not going to be an easy fix. There's no easy fix. Again, not advocating for crypto as a solution. Just asking people to consider more deeply the issues of saying "use the government to solve it!".
        Kbelicius 4y ago
        GP said "easier", not "easy". Number of people that display an inability to read a few sentences and parse them correctly is frightening.
        trutannus 4y ago
        > You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy. This is the one I'm specifically discussing, its from a different user. This is the line that started the thread. Plenty of users are discussing this specific line I believe.
        giaour 4y ago
        FWIW, I thought the "Easy." you cite was meant sarcastically. The full context is: > The same as national health insurance. You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy. and national health insurance is famously a fiendishly hard public policy issue (albeit one for which several competing models exist and have been put into practice). Working from an existing public policy model (like using France's example of offering bank-of-last-resort services through the postal service) still seems way easier than just deciding to solve it with crypto.
- II2II 4y ago
  On the other hand, what would the world look like without democratic governments? Look at history, and you will notice that it is rarely better. Those who seek wealth and power aren't created by governments, nor will they magically disappear if governments disappear (or if their power is neutered). At least democracies have some checks and balances, even if they are nowhere near as effective as we need them to be.
  - trutannus 4y ago
    > On the other hand, what would the world look like without democratic governments Nobody here is advocating against democracy. People are just pointing out that blind trust in state institutions is equally as illogical as blind trust in the EVM. States have a track record of serving the powerful first, and sometimes exclusively. Trusting apparatus with a track record like this masks a sort of flawed optimism, just like putting your hopes of change in the blockchain.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
      Why are you so insistent that the trust necessarily be blind? Having legislation is the first step to getting banks to comply with how we think they should work. What's the alternative method of coercing their behavior?
      - trutannus 4y ago
        The initial discussion started with someone saying something to the effect of "just change the law, easy". To me, that reads as "just use the government, it'll be fine". Perhaps it's just me, but that sounds a lot like blind trust in an institute.
    - MrMan 4y ago
      crypto is inherently anti-social and antidemocratic, or at least all the ones I know about.
  - raspberry1337 4y ago
    >what would the world look like without democratic governments? Look at history, and you will notice that it is rarely better. Why would one look at history? Democracy is a modern phenomenon, and many modern states are republics, designed not to be full-blown democracies.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
More like that's how democracies fail. Our current method of "fixing" failures of the state involves layering more and more legislation and regulation on top of the broken legislation and regulation. We do nothing to address the root causes of those failures because that would mean closing a lot of the loop holes that allow politicians to get rich by leveraging their positions aka corruption. Why else would we need bills that are thousands of pages long and seem to accomplish absolutely nothing?
- trutannus 4y ago
  > Our current method of "fixing" failures of the state involves layering more and more legislation and regulation on top of the broken legislation and regulation. The UK is the perfect example. Hundreds of years of out-dated laws layered on top of each other to the point where nobody can tell what is law and what is a joke.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    But hey, at least they banned knives. They really know how to destroy crime there.
  - multjoy 4y ago
    >The UK is the perfect example. Hundreds of years of out-dated laws layered on top of each other to the point where nobody can tell what is law and what is a joke. Literal nonsense.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - biorach 4y ago
    Absolute nonsense. English law is the preferred basis for cross-border contracts and English courts are the preferred venue for litigation between entities from different jurisdictions. This is very well attested - e.g. first result from Google: https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-international-commercial-contracts https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

Any fix for a failure in human organization(s) is going to come from ... humans. There are no hall monitors here, and there's also no magic wand. When things are of a large enough scope, the way that humans tend to organize to get things done, or get things fixed, is called "a state". Just like all human efforts, the outcome will likely not be perfect. But there actually isn't another way. Sure, you can suggest the idea that some alternate organization could do something, but it too will not be perfect. And an organization large enough to do substantive things about the issues at the top of TFA will essentially be a state, whether you call it that or not.

trutannus 4y ago
> There are no hall monitors here, and there's also no magic wand. Right, and saying "just pass a law" is asking the hall monitors to wave a wand.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  The law isn’t magic though. It’s a system we designed for this purpose and we know how it works.
  - trutannus 4y ago
    Except that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is: 1. Bad laws got us into this place 2. There's a lot of inertia in government 3. There's a lot of stake holders in government who don't have citizen's interests at heart 4. It's illogical to think you can, in light of this, just pass a law and fix it. Yeah, we designed the law, and we know how it works. Sadly, we know also that the way it works is generally not how it should, and it has been co-opted often for the powerful.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      "the problem with corruption, inefficiency and stupidity in government is corruption, inefficienty and stupidity, not government"

Tainnor 4y ago

> There's a weird cyclic optimism here that I don't think can really be supported by the facts. That's a pretty American, libertarian take. As somebody who grew up in Western Europe, I'm not disillusioned by "the state" per se, and I think that the facts rather support that privatisation doesn't always make things better (e.g. railways). None of us may be "right" (it always depends on your experiences), but it's worth considering that "using the state to fix society" isn't a completely ridiculous take for everyone.

trutannus 4y ago
> That's a pretty American, libertarian take. I'm not American. This take tends to come out of countries where the government has strayed away from its objective of serving the people. There are plenty of governments I'd trust, and not hold a libertarian view towards. Funny enough, most of these are European governments, so your point is well taken. That said, using the state to solve this problem isn't universally going to work. I bet Nordic nations could pull it off, if they've not already. In short: if the government doesn't work for the people, and is structurally broken, I hold a libertarian perspective. If I see a government that works for the people, I lean neoliberal.

pydry 4y ago

>Use the state to fix failures of the state? The lack of banking services for the poor is a market failure not a state failure. State competition in markets that have failed to deliver necessary services has long been effective whether its through provision of housing or bare bones post office bank accounts. It not only provides underserved communities it whips competitors into line because - surprise surprise - competition works. It's the one weird trick parasitic oligarchs hate.