4 ms·

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

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

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