9 ms·
I don't think that public funding of elections or free advertising (see the bottom of the page) are the solutions to government corruption. That would just forc
by scottdw2 15y ago
I don't think that public funding of elections or free advertising (see the bottom of the page) are the solutions to government corruption. That would just force bribers to be more covert. It's analogous to the fact that SOPA wouldn't stop piracy.
It seems to me that the real solution is to dramatically limit the size of government, so that there is nothing to be bought, rather then just changing the currency used to make the purchase.
- Blarat 15y agoWouldn't the reduced size only mean that there would be fewer politicians to pay off? If you mean that a smaller government equals a government with no power, then why have a government at all?
- scottdw2 15y ago"Reducing the size of government" means to reduce the power of government, not the proportion of representation.
- Angostura 15y agoHurrah, so the people who would be bribed wouldn't be publicly accountable officials - they would be whoever we handed the power to.
- scottdw2 15y agoI don't think you understand. The point is to either eliminate the power, or make it extremely diffuse. That way, there is nothing to purchase.
- david927 15y agoBut that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The wealthiest countries in the world have large governments and don't have these problems. Just outlaw lobbying(bribing) of officials. Outlaw political campaign advertising. Better yet, as I mention above, allow the people to better represent themselves using technology. There are a thousand ways to apply the brakes -- killing the engine is maybe not the best.
- CWuestefeld 15y agoThe wealthiest countries in the world have large governments I'm not sure that trying to emulate the [other] wealthiest countries is the best of goals. Doesn't that ensure that we will be, optimally, second best? Given that corruption is endemic everywhere, including those other wealthy countries, isn't it worthwhile to strive for something better? Outlaw political campaign advertising That's just another way of saying "Throw out the 1st Amendment and outlaw freedom of speech". That is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. allow the people to better represent themselves using technology. What makes you think that the electorate as a whole can do any better. Consider the rampant ignorance of the issues in our voting today. And on top of that, most people aren't simply ignorant, but just plain wrong about matters of statistics and economics. I'm inclined to believe that the result would be far worse.
- jbooth 15y ago"Doesn't that ensure that we will be, optimally, second best?" No, it doesn't. Keep the things that work for us, and then take a look at the things that we're having problems with (lobbying, healthcare) and steal any solutions that look better. Just because Apple stole the GUI from Xerox didn't mean they had to steal Xerox's business plan for it, or their management structure. And I don't think anyone's claiming they wound up 2nd best to Xerox.
- david927 15y agoI'm not sure that trying to emulate the [other] wealthiest countries is the best of goals. You don't have to mimic, but it does give a very strong indication that size of government isn't the problem. [Outlaw political campaign advertising is] just another way of saying "Throw out the 1st Amendment and outlaw freedom of speech". Nice try. No, this is "access to media." And currently it's controlled by the wealthy when it should be more democratically controlled. What makes you think that the electorate as a whole can do any better. That's funny, because the entire history of the world has been a ruling class not wanting to give up power because they don't "trust" the commoners, when all evidence has been that the greater the democracy, the greater the success. You can take the king; I'll take the people, every time.
- jbooth 15y agoLook, even if we enacted every single liberfantastic idea on shrinking government, there's still more than enough to make it worth bribing people. Really, all you need is to have a legislature, are you proposing we get rid of that? The way to fight corruption is by fighting corruption, not by giving us things like the Citizens' United ruling (which is in fact less government, yet eminently more bribable).
- sigzero 15y agoLimit its size...and limit terms.
- jedbrown 15y agoIf bribery has to be covert, it can be investigated by the legal system. In its current form, bribery is essentially legal. Think about Lessig's suggestion. http://rootstrikers.org http://rootstrikers.org http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--1 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--2 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... http://lessig.org/content/av/ http://lessig.org/content/av/
- draggnar 15y agoalso his book - http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327414498&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress-...
- yequalsx 15y agoI think corruption is loosely tied to wealth inequality. I suspect that large variations in the top 5% have to do with this. Humans have a tendency to compare themselves to those who have more. To whoever is at the next level. We tend to want more and desire what another has. When the variation at the top is not so great as it is in the U.S. and other, equally corrupt, nations then political corruption lessens. The idea behind the website is a nice one. I hope they are successful. The website itself is quite nicely done.
- andrewcooke 15y agothat doesn't solve the real problem, though, which is that some entities are much more powerful than others. by removing the government, which can work as a (limited, imperfect) balance, you give other powerful institutions (ie big corporations) even more power. it won't be the government searching your laptop, it will be the airline, as part of a conglomerate that includes media companies. government exists for a reason. you need to fix it, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- scottdw2 15y agoNo. Government is force. Airlines, like most businesses, are subject to market forces. If Delta said "we have to search the data on your computer before you can fly", you can choose not to fly. Someone would have a strong incentive to provide a mode of travel that did not involve laptop searches. I didn't say "no government". I said "small government". There's a difference. You need the force of government to protect property rights, and to enforce contracts, for example.
- david927 15y agobusinesses are subject to market forces Markets are inefficient. Many products and services are inelastic. People will consume them while hating the companies that provide them. It was government, not market forces, that forced companies to stop making kids pajamas out of inflammable material. When people heard that Ford was letting people die in its Pinto rather than recall them because it was cheaper, did people stop buying Ford? I wish it was so simple. The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.
- anamax 15y ago> When people heard that Ford was letting people die in its Pinto rather than recall them because it was cheaper, did people stop buying Ford? Actually, they did. And, interestingly enough, the Pinto tradeoff decision in question came from a govt decision. Safety costs money. Ford asked the US govt "how much is a life worth" and the relevant design decision used a higher value. Price matters. Some folks are alive because they traded in an older less safe car for a Pinto. Some of them couldn't have done that if Pintos cost more.
- vectorpush 15y agodramatically limit the size of government Any specifics? "Limit the size of government" is a trite platitude that anyone could agree with on some level. Shove 100 random people in a room and you have 200 conflicting ideas about the appropriate role of government.
- davidw 15y agoMaybe someone should write a bot that replays these tedious discussions, freeing up people to do more productive work. M-x libertopians-vs-lefties Or something like that.
- JumpCrisscross 15y agoThe reason this debate rages incessantly is because government, like any institution, grows over time. It takes constant dialogue to evaluate when it has gone too far and then suddenly shrink it when that time comes. Mindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests.
- bh42222 15y agoMindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests. Terrible analogy. If engines were intelligent beings constantly plotting and trying to fail, no one would dare fly, no matter how many pre-flight checks there were. All large organizations, not just government, have a clear and strong tendency to grow. The sad fact is, there is no good solution. Switzerland's direct democracy might be one, however: 1. Switzerland is tiny. 2. What are the chances the US, or any other country, will radically reconfigure its constitution and system of government. A more realistic scenario is what has happened in other places. Like in the UK in the 1970s or Sweden in the early 19th century. Government grows so big and inefficient that a radical shrinking of it is forced upon everyone. It is an ugly and painful process and occasionally goes horribly wrong. But it's pretty much the only proven way governments have significantly shrunk in the real world.
- david927 15y agoThe wealthiest countries in the world have large governments and don't have these problems. Still, if we can bank online, we can vote online. I see nothing stopping a proposal where if 25% of the public vote online, the result is accepted over what Congress voted. No advertising allowed. Suddenly, bribing/lobbying Congress would no longer make sense.
- kiloaper 15y agoRegarding voting I highly recommend the brilliant 1970 comedy The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. It raises interesting questions about how people would react to being about to vote for everything. Here's a brief summary of it stolen from http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2011/06/25/you-cant-vote-for-everything/ http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2011/06/25/you-cant-vote-for-e... >Rimmer poses as a true democrat, insisting that the people should always have their way, hence the consultation on important matters – such as any new tax – with the public at large. >Whenever a question arose for determination a red light and loud buzzer would come on and not go off until the household had voted on whatever question appeared on the television screen. >But Rimmer was a meglomaniacal schemer. He made more and more issues matters for referendum questions. After a while the population got thoroughly fed of having their lives incessantly disrupted. So he posed a final referendum question – that all future questions should be decided by him. The masses voted Yes
- troygoode 15y agoPerhaps instead of voting on legislation directly, it would be a public (online) veto-only vote once the House/Senate passes a bill?
- alttag 15y agoRight. Because no one on the Internet has ever rightly compared the general public to easily manipulated sheep.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoTake a look at the mess California is in before you go too far down the referendum-type path. Having a final veto power in the hands of the people may be a really good, final check. Imagine what vetoing SCoTUS decisions could be like. It would have to be a high percentage (maybe even a true population majority, not just a voter majority). We certainly have the technology to make that happen now. I'm still not sure we wouldn't wind up with the federal version of California, though.
- pmarket 15y agoI wanted to keep the site as non-partisan as possible.
- DirkScheuring 15y agoIt seems to me that the real solution is to dramatically limit the size of government, so that there is nothing to be bought, rather then just changing the currency used to make the purchase. Either you have an elected government which makes the law, or the decision about how to behave is made by individual interests and resources, which are much easier to buy or otherwise influence than elected representatives.
- anamax 15y ago> the decision about how to behave is made by individual interests and resources, which are much easier to buy or otherwise influence than elected representatives. You're ignoring the diversity of individual choice plus the information problem. I've yet to hear of a politican, technocrat, or bureaucrat who can do a better job deciding for me. To be fair, they don't have the information. Feel free to delegate decisions wrt your resources as you see fit, but leave me out of it.
- jahewson 15y agoHere in the UK there are tough restrictions on political advertising, and our politics is much less silly, and much less about money. We don't have free speech (UK libel law is infamous) which for once is advantageous as one cannot engage in the gross misrepresentation of opponents which is all too common in the US.
- nextparadigms 15y agoAnd how is making most of the bribery cases legal helping? At least then you'd know bribery when you see it. Now, almost all types of bribery can be done in a legal way. US doesn't have too many bribery prosecutions not because there's so little corruption, but because it's all legal.