3 ms·
So what you've done here is invent a hypothetical, state by fiat that it would end poorly, then used that complete fiction to argue that we build systems to pre
by Avshalom 4y ago
So what you've done here is invent a hypothetical, state by fiat that it would end poorly, then used that complete fiction to argue that we build systems to prevent fraud then point to massive fraud in the system we built to prevent the fraud that you stated we need to build to prevent it.
Like I dunno, maybe if the thing we're doing recursively fails to work we could try the other thing for a bit and check.
- scarmig 4y agoI'm pretty sure you don't actually reject the outcome of my hypothetical. And, yes, fraud is endemic, we try lots of systems, and some work better than others. Building ones that attempt to satisfy multiple constraints at once makes things harder.
- Avshalom 4y agoI do actually. Although it's pretty easy to reject because both the hypothetical and the outcome are pretty vague like obviously a big bowl of cash is gonna lose most of it's money to the wind. But to be clear I do think a system where any one could receive money without first demonstrating "need" could be successfully continuously funded and would help a lot of people that "need" help. Although in my system "need" is in scare quotes because I don't think that its only the starving for food that have a moral claim to aid. I'd also point out that in a system where I just ask the mayor for a hundred bucks and he gives it to me, there can't be fraud. There's nothing to defraud. It's only once we start adding shit like "prove you're poor enough" or "prove you can't get paid for work" that we have something to commit fraud about. Indeed the more constraints you add the more frauds become possible.