3 ms·

you’re repeatedly sidestepping the core of what I’m saying. we are talking about the practicalities of trying to legislate against this one specific kind of cor

you’re repeatedly sidestepping the core of what I’m saying. we are talking about the practicalities of trying to legislate against this one specific kind of corruption no sane court of law is going to convict representatives for getting a good job post hoc. there is far too much possibility for reasonable doubt. unless you fundamentally change the way the justice system works, that is not going to change >which reasons? do I really have to come up with these reasons? bear in mind that they don’t have to be rock solid, they just have to introduce reasonable doubt. since you almost certainly have no other evidence, “perhaps that could be true rather than collusion” is enough. “their term made us aware of them and they seemed competent”; “they’re famous now and that’s good for sales”; “they made connections that could prove useful to the company”; “they look good to foreign investors/trading partners”; “patriotism!”; “we feel we have a duty to support our ex-reps!”; etc etc etc. there are a million reasons that any lawyer could come up with and sell to a jury also, please don’t specifically try and defeat each thing I say. just address the central issue. I say that just like you can’t convict people for using drugs because they possesa drug paraphernalia, properly functioning courts will struggle to meet the burden of proof to convict this kind of bribery you say that they won’t struggle because:

lapcat 4y ago
> please don’t specifically try and defeat each thing I say Heh, this is an interesting request. > properly functioning courts will struggle to meet the burden of proof to convict this kind of bribery I think this frames the issue in entirely the wrong way. My claim is that you can't safely offer bribes to a randomly selected citizen legislature. Suppose the legislature has 1000 members, and they serve 1 year terms, maximum 1 term per lifetime. So as a wealthy interest attempting to trade jobs for political favors, you start out with 1000 complete strangers. They're unknown to you, and you're unknown to them. Moreover, they don't need to take meetings or phone calls with you, because you didn't vote for them (nobody did), you didn't finance their campaigns, they don't represent you, and they're not running for reelection, because they aren't elected, and they can't serve another term. Indeed, these legislators are likely to be suspicious of unsolicited inquiries, and rightly so. They probably don't even have time for your crap. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to somehow meet them, gain their trust, and offer them a bribe in less than 1 year, all while avoiding the honest citizen who responds to your offer by calling the cops. The burden of proof is pretty easy when the person bribed testifies against the briber.
- permo-w 4y ago
  I request that as your style seems to be to attack details, which goes nowhere as each reply gets longer and less relevant until every reply is a marathon and you’ve lost sight of the actual issue being discussed speaking of that, you’ve moved the goalposts. you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe because of the more abrupt job change. I said that it’s almost impossible to legislate against that now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me if you’d like, you can reread our original two comments, but I’ve laid out the bones of it here: your claim: easier to catch takers my disputation: yes easier to catch but impossible to convict your response: but takers wouldn’t take in the first place do you see how that doesn’t follow?
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > each reply gets longer and less relevant Each gets longer and more detailed, as I defend my position. If length and details are a problem for you, then we'd better end the discussion here. me: "This is actually why bribes to randomly selected citizens would be easier to catch." you: "you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe" I said easier. You misquoted me as saying easy. Easier != easy. We're comparing sortition to the current electoral system. Sortition just has to be better, it doesn't have to be perfect. Moreover, I said, "Many elected politicians have been criminally convicted of corruption", so it's not in fact impossible. > now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all > however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me This is a misunderstanding. Of course some legislators (I won't call them "reps") might accept bribes. The problem is when some don't. When you're trying to bribe a bunch of random strangers, the number who don't accept bribes, even if the number is small, will blow up the whole bribery system and will send the bribers to jail. Even if there's some level of bribery in sortition — which I believe can't be high, for reasons explained earlier — it would be vastly better than the current electoral system, which is legalized bribery via campaign contributions.

lapcat 4y ago

> please don’t specifically try and defeat each thing I say Heh, this is an interesting request. > properly functioning courts will struggle to meet the burden of proof to convict this kind of bribery I think this frames the issue in entirely the wrong way. My claim is that you can't safely offer bribes to a randomly selected citizen legislature. Suppose the legislature has 1000 members, and they serve 1 year terms, maximum 1 term per lifetime. So as a wealthy interest attempting to trade jobs for political favors, you start out with 1000 complete strangers. They're unknown to you, and you're unknown to them. Moreover, they don't need to take meetings or phone calls with you, because you didn't vote for them (nobody did), you didn't finance their campaigns, they don't represent you, and they're not running for reelection, because they aren't elected, and they can't serve another term. Indeed, these legislators are likely to be suspicious of unsolicited inquiries, and rightly so. They probably don't even have time for your crap. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to somehow meet them, gain their trust, and offer them a bribe in less than 1 year, all while avoiding the honest citizen who responds to your offer by calling the cops. The burden of proof is pretty easy when the person bribed testifies against the briber.

permo-w 4y ago
I request that as your style seems to be to attack details, which goes nowhere as each reply gets longer and less relevant until every reply is a marathon and you’ve lost sight of the actual issue being discussed speaking of that, you’ve moved the goalposts. you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe because of the more abrupt job change. I said that it’s almost impossible to legislate against that now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me if you’d like, you can reread our original two comments, but I’ve laid out the bones of it here: your claim: easier to catch takers my disputation: yes easier to catch but impossible to convict your response: but takers wouldn’t take in the first place do you see how that doesn’t follow?
- lapcat 4y ago
  > each reply gets longer and less relevant Each gets longer and more detailed, as I defend my position. If length and details are a problem for you, then we'd better end the discussion here. me: "This is actually why bribes to randomly selected citizens would be easier to catch." you: "you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe" I said easier. You misquoted me as saying easy. Easier != easy. We're comparing sortition to the current electoral system. Sortition just has to be better, it doesn't have to be perfect. Moreover, I said, "Many elected politicians have been criminally convicted of corruption", so it's not in fact impossible. > now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all > however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me This is a misunderstanding. Of course some legislators (I won't call them "reps") might accept bribes. The problem is when some don't. When you're trying to bribe a bunch of random strangers, the number who don't accept bribes, even if the number is small, will blow up the whole bribery system and will send the bribers to jail. Even if there's some level of bribery in sortition — which I believe can't be high, for reasons explained earlier — it would be vastly better than the current electoral system, which is legalized bribery via campaign contributions.