5 ms·

And that leads to - why not let the govt make money exposing bad actors? Why should the tax payer fund the cops?

by gsatic 4y ago

filoleg 4y ago
> why not let the govt make money exposing bad actors?Why should the tax payer fund the cops? Do you mind elaborating? Just trying to figure out what you meant there. Are you talking literally about police funding and how it could have been better used for funding SEC? Or are you talking about it in a more metaphorical sense, and questioning why random tax payers are doing the job of catching instances of malicious insider trading instead of SEC doing that? If it is the latter, then there is one solid incentive - whistleblowers get a reward between 10-30% of the monetary sanctions recovered on that case by SEC, as long as the case was successful and led to over $1mil recovered[0]. 0. https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/frequently-asked-questions https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/frequently-asked-questions
luckylion 4y ago
They're not making money "exposing bad actors", they're making money by betting that exposing the bad actors will move investors to sell and stay away from those bad actors within some period of time. But that's not a given outcome, and the government shouldn't speculate with taxes.
ajb 4y ago
We've tried profit making cops, it leads to corruption: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29228851 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29228851
- fragmede 4y ago
  You mean running the government like a business is a stupid idea and that profit leads to all sorts of perverse incentives? Who would have thought!?
drewcoo 4y ago
Because the government has a monopoly on violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  I've thought about this, and wonder if the often discussed "right to bear arms" is intended to prevent the government from having such a monopoly, by which i mean is that what people are discussing and disagreeing over, wrt the 2nd amendment?
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Worth considering that the original idea was the US would have practically no standing army (a navy, maybe, but not so much an army). The freedom-protecting bits didn't necessarily mean (only) from our own government, and there's a reason the word "militia" occurs—the idea was that much of our military might, were we attacked, would come from citizen militias. Further, the right to bear arms means nothing as far as the legality of use of force. The so-called monopoly (which basically always has exceptions, anyway—it's a tool for understanding the role of government, not a law of nature) is on the legal use of force—it's not as if folks don't illegally use force all the time, so clearly there's no monopoly on the ability to use force, but on the ability to use force legally.
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      except the monopoly doesn't exist in states with "stand your ground" laws? (Those states where someone can use lethal force if they're being attacked, or feel her/his life is in danger)
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Right, one of many exceptions, hence my: > > which basically always has exceptions, anyway The really important part of the "monopoly on violence" idea is whether a state has the power to claim such a monopoly. It's a measure of state efficacy—a state fails to be fully sovereign in its territory if it cannot claim such a monopoly, that is, if it is unable to effectively quash others' similar claims; or, if its claim to the monopoly lacks credibility. Say, if a cartel claimed the authority to regulate and dispense violence in part of the US and the federal government were unable to re-assert its claim there, that would be an indication of, at the very least, significantly eroded US sovereignty over that territory, if not the complete loss of it. A state making lethal force in self-defense legal doesn't challenge the state's claim of sovereignty, so isn't what's usually meant by this principle.
bko 4y ago
That's the idea behind asset forfeiture. In theory, cops pull over bad guy, confiscate his car, use proceeds to fund their department and catch more bad guys all while saving tax payer money. In reality it leads to a lot of corruption and abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
- chii 4y ago
  and also alters incentives - crimes where there would be a lot of assets to seize might get disproportionate attention. Asset seizures should still happen, but the seized asset is parked as gov't revenue as escrow until the crime is completely solved, and victims paid out from it (if applicable). Then whatever remains become general tax revenue, rather than funding the police directly.

And that leads to - why not let the govt make money exposing bad actors? Why should the tax payer fund the cops?

by gsatic 4y ago

And that leads to - why not let the govt make money exposing bad actors? Why should the tax payer fund the cops?

> why not let the govt make money exposing bad actors?Why should the tax payer fund the cops? Do you mind elaborating? Just trying to figure out what you meant there. Are you talking literally about police funding and how it could have been better used for funding SEC? Or are you talking about it in a more metaphorical sense, and questioning why random tax payers are doing the job of catching instances of malicious insider trading instead of SEC doing that? If it is the latter, then there is one solid incentive - whistleblowers get a reward between 10-30% of the monetary sanctions recovered on that case by SEC, as long as the case was successful and led to over $1mil recovered[0]. 0. https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/frequently-asked-questions https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/frequently-asked-questions

luckylion 4y ago

They're not making money "exposing bad actors", they're making money by betting that exposing the bad actors will move investors to sell and stay away from those bad actors within some period of time. But that's not a given outcome, and the government shouldn't speculate with taxes.

ajb 4y ago

We've tried profit making cops, it leads to corruption: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29228851 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29228851

fragmede 4y ago
You mean running the government like a business is a stupid idea and that profit leads to all sorts of perverse incentives? Who would have thought!?

drewcoo 4y ago

Because the government has a monopoly on violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

jjtheblunt 4y ago
I've thought about this, and wonder if the often discussed "right to bear arms" is intended to prevent the government from having such a monopoly, by which i mean is that what people are discussing and disagreeing over, wrt the 2nd amendment?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Worth considering that the original idea was the US would have practically no standing army (a navy, maybe, but not so much an army). The freedom-protecting bits didn't necessarily mean (only) from our own government, and there's a reason the word "militia" occurs—the idea was that much of our military might, were we attacked, would come from citizen militias. Further, the right to bear arms means nothing as far as the legality of use of force. The so-called monopoly (which basically always has exceptions, anyway—it's a tool for understanding the role of government, not a law of nature) is on the legal use of force—it's not as if folks don't illegally use force all the time, so clearly there's no monopoly on the ability to use force, but on the ability to use force legally.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    except the monopoly doesn't exist in states with "stand your ground" laws? (Those states where someone can use lethal force if they're being attacked, or feel her/his life is in danger)
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Right, one of many exceptions, hence my: > > which basically always has exceptions, anyway The really important part of the "monopoly on violence" idea is whether a state has the power to claim such a monopoly. It's a measure of state efficacy—a state fails to be fully sovereign in its territory if it cannot claim such a monopoly, that is, if it is unable to effectively quash others' similar claims; or, if its claim to the monopoly lacks credibility. Say, if a cartel claimed the authority to regulate and dispense violence in part of the US and the federal government were unable to re-assert its claim there, that would be an indication of, at the very least, significantly eroded US sovereignty over that territory, if not the complete loss of it. A state making lethal force in self-defense legal doesn't challenge the state's claim of sovereignty, so isn't what's usually meant by this principle.

bko 4y ago

That's the idea behind asset forfeiture. In theory, cops pull over bad guy, confiscate his car, use proceeds to fund their department and catch more bad guys all while saving tax payer money. In reality it leads to a lot of corruption and abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

chii 4y ago
and also alters incentives - crimes where there would be a lot of assets to seize might get disproportionate attention. Asset seizures should still happen, but the seized asset is parked as gov't revenue as escrow until the crime is completely solved, and victims paid out from it (if applicable). Then whatever remains become general tax revenue, rather than funding the police directly.