4 ms·

That would be ideal but in reality these party members raised money for the party so.. they’re in 0 trouble as far as their party is concerned. The system is a

That would be ideal but in reality these party members raised money for the party so.. they’re in 0 trouble as far as their party is concerned. The system is a farting contest that enables this behavior. Solution would be to do away with the 2 party system and make parties more responsible with consequences as being completely voted out if corruption isn’t handled. Now both Reps and Dems are corrupted and they known we have no other choice

akudha 4y ago
Countries like India have multi party system. That doesn’t seem to have slowed corruption/bribery at all. How would it help in the U.S? In a way, corruption is the U.S is worse because it is legalized (campaign contributions). If there were 25 parties instead of 2, it would be a bit more work to find out who to bribe, but I guess it is still doable
s3r3nity 4y ago
- oneplane 4y ago
  If you have a government with a billion people in it, but none of them are allowed to do anything with investments or even hold/have 'extra' jobs while serving society, you reduce or remove the problem all the same. A teeny tiny government with 1 person in it can still mess with investments on a global scale all the same if they are allowed to do so. It 'fixes' nothing. The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences).
  - koolba 4y ago
    > The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences). The larger the size and scope, the more opportunity there is for bad actors. More cracks to slip through. More tills to dip into. It’s not the factor that makes a person corrupt, but the bigger the government, the more room there is for more corrupt people.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      As you increase the number of samples, you reduce the variance. So a small government of, say, 1 person, can either be 100% corrupt or 100% pure, but a larger government would approach the population level of corruption in expectation. Why is a larger governance with each individual holding less power less desirable than fewer individuals holding more power?
    - kylebyproxy 4y ago
      By the same token, bigger government allows more room for oversight and principled actors to dilute the effects of the unscrupulous ones. As others here have alluded to, our problem is quality, not quantity.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      But you're ignoring other variable affected by the size of government. I also want to point out the various dictatorship that have bankrupted countries. Sadam Hussain, various kings and queens over time , etc So you can't prove that a smaller government would be less corrupt
      - justincredible 4y ago
- lanternfish 4y ago
  Now, I understand that there are very valid logical supporting arguments for small government, but let me get this straight: In a situation where massive fraud was committed by a corporation because the government inaccurately blocked government oversight, your solution is to decrease the size of the government... presumably meaning the oversight never would have been attempted in the first place. Crypto is exactly where libertarian advantages should be manifesting - the advocacy of a small government is exactly _more_ situations like FTX.
  - SailingSperm 4y ago
    >the advocacy of a small government is exactly _more_ situations like FTX. Arguably not true. The presence of large government and pervasive regulation may behave like the bike helmet paradox (Where cyclists feel they are able to take more risk while wearing a helmet, and motorists drive more carefully around helmet-less riders). Smaller gov in this case may lead to individuals feeling less like the government has vetted xyz investment opportunity and therefore may feel a need to do their own due diligence more thoroughly.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      > Arguably not true. The presence of large government and pervasive regulation may behave like the bike helmet paradox (Where cyclists feel they are able to take more risk while wearing a helmet, and motorists drive more carefully around helmet-less riders). It's a paradox for a reason -- it is counterintuitive. Do you have studies or proof that "small government" may be helpful here, or is this a position that you hold from before that you are justifying here?
    - themitigating 4y ago
      The amount of risk taking obviously has some increase in the number of cyclists that get into accidents. However the outcome of the accident is more important. So for each accident: how bad was in the injury, cost, permanent damage, and recovery time. Then compare that between both groups. For example it could be that although wearing a helmet increases the risk of an accident by 15% it decreases the risk of serious brain injury or long term damage by 60%. If that were the case then the helmet is beneficial.
- belltaco 4y ago
  >EDIT: lol heaven forbid you propose smaller government with legitimate facts on HN lest you get downvoted How would smaller government have helped the FTX situation rather than make things like that much more common and worse? >The fact that the greatest investor in the US is Nancy Pelosi, AND she actively prevented legislation limiting insider trading by US Congress Members, should tell you that the government is not going to just get better by hoping the right people are voted-in. You need to systemically cut off their power and give that power back to the people. Restricting Congress members from trading would be big government and more regulations, not small and fewer.
  - MikePlacid 4y ago
    > How would smaller government have helped the FTX situation rather than make things like that much more common and worse? What FTX situation? I have not given a cent to FTX, my kids have not given a cent to FTX, nobody I personally know have lost anything with FTX. More regulation (which in this case I don’t need) will cost me money spent to enable and enforce it. Now, exactly what regulations we need to prevent companies from spending customers’ money on executive homes? All regulation you need to prevent this is on the books for some hundred years.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      > What FTX situation? I have not given a cent to FTX, my kids have not given a cent to FTX, nobody I personally know have lost anything with FTX. More regulation (which in this case I don’t need) will cost me money spent to enable and enforce it. "Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position." [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
      - leereeves 4y ago
        How much empathy should we have for gamblers in an unregulated casino known to be filled with criminals? There are so many people in the world more deserving of empathy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- themitigating 4y ago
  "The fact that the greatest investor in the US is Nancy Pelosi" Is that a legitimate fact? I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet is better than her, maybe he's not the best but the point is you lied then got mad when downvoted
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  You should expect to be kneejerk-destroyed from those who suffer from cognitive dissonance. It's what they do.
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  She is also the biggest fundraiser and therefore really important for the party.

akudha 4y ago

Countries like India have multi party system. That doesn’t seem to have slowed corruption/bribery at all. How would it help in the U.S? In a way, corruption is the U.S is worse because it is legalized (campaign contributions). If there were 25 parties instead of 2, it would be a bit more work to find out who to bribe, but I guess it is still doable

s3r3nity 4y ago

oneplane 4y ago
If you have a government with a billion people in it, but none of them are allowed to do anything with investments or even hold/have 'extra' jobs while serving society, you reduce or remove the problem all the same. A teeny tiny government with 1 person in it can still mess with investments on a global scale all the same if they are allowed to do so. It 'fixes' nothing. The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences).
- koolba 4y ago
  > The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences). The larger the size and scope, the more opportunity there is for bad actors. More cracks to slip through. More tills to dip into. It’s not the factor that makes a person corrupt, but the bigger the government, the more room there is for more corrupt people.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    As you increase the number of samples, you reduce the variance. So a small government of, say, 1 person, can either be 100% corrupt or 100% pure, but a larger government would approach the population level of corruption in expectation. Why is a larger governance with each individual holding less power less desirable than fewer individuals holding more power?
  - kylebyproxy 4y ago
    By the same token, bigger government allows more room for oversight and principled actors to dilute the effects of the unscrupulous ones. As others here have alluded to, our problem is quality, not quantity.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    But you're ignoring other variable affected by the size of government. I also want to point out the various dictatorship that have bankrupted countries. Sadam Hussain, various kings and queens over time , etc So you can't prove that a smaller government would be less corrupt
    - justincredible 4y ago
lanternfish 4y ago
Now, I understand that there are very valid logical supporting arguments for small government, but let me get this straight: In a situation where massive fraud was committed by a corporation because the government inaccurately blocked government oversight, your solution is to decrease the size of the government... presumably meaning the oversight never would have been attempted in the first place. Crypto is exactly where libertarian advantages should be manifesting - the advocacy of a small government is exactly _more_ situations like FTX.
- SailingSperm 4y ago
  >the advocacy of a small government is exactly _more_ situations like FTX. Arguably not true. The presence of large government and pervasive regulation may behave like the bike helmet paradox (Where cyclists feel they are able to take more risk while wearing a helmet, and motorists drive more carefully around helmet-less riders). Smaller gov in this case may lead to individuals feeling less like the government has vetted xyz investment opportunity and therefore may feel a need to do their own due diligence more thoroughly.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > Arguably not true. The presence of large government and pervasive regulation may behave like the bike helmet paradox (Where cyclists feel they are able to take more risk while wearing a helmet, and motorists drive more carefully around helmet-less riders). It's a paradox for a reason -- it is counterintuitive. Do you have studies or proof that "small government" may be helpful here, or is this a position that you hold from before that you are justifying here?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    The amount of risk taking obviously has some increase in the number of cyclists that get into accidents. However the outcome of the accident is more important. So for each accident: how bad was in the injury, cost, permanent damage, and recovery time. Then compare that between both groups. For example it could be that although wearing a helmet increases the risk of an accident by 15% it decreases the risk of serious brain injury or long term damage by 60%. If that were the case then the helmet is beneficial.
belltaco 4y ago
>EDIT: lol heaven forbid you propose smaller government with legitimate facts on HN lest you get downvoted How would smaller government have helped the FTX situation rather than make things like that much more common and worse? >The fact that the greatest investor in the US is Nancy Pelosi, AND she actively prevented legislation limiting insider trading by US Congress Members, should tell you that the government is not going to just get better by hoping the right people are voted-in. You need to systemically cut off their power and give that power back to the people. Restricting Congress members from trading would be big government and more regulations, not small and fewer.
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  > How would smaller government have helped the FTX situation rather than make things like that much more common and worse? What FTX situation? I have not given a cent to FTX, my kids have not given a cent to FTX, nobody I personally know have lost anything with FTX. More regulation (which in this case I don’t need) will cost me money spent to enable and enforce it. Now, exactly what regulations we need to prevent companies from spending customers’ money on executive homes? All regulation you need to prevent this is on the books for some hundred years.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > What FTX situation? I have not given a cent to FTX, my kids have not given a cent to FTX, nobody I personally know have lost anything with FTX. More regulation (which in this case I don’t need) will cost me money spent to enable and enforce it. "Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position." [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
    - leereeves 4y ago
      How much empathy should we have for gamblers in an unregulated casino known to be filled with criminals? There are so many people in the world more deserving of empathy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
themitigating 4y ago
"The fact that the greatest investor in the US is Nancy Pelosi" Is that a legitimate fact? I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet is better than her, maybe he's not the best but the point is you lied then got mad when downvoted
nathanaldensr 4y ago
You should expect to be kneejerk-destroyed from those who suffer from cognitive dissonance. It's what they do.
rqtwteye 4y ago
She is also the biggest fundraiser and therefore really important for the party.