36 ms·

That analysis sounds correct but I think it's missing a key part. If we are on scenario 2, what do we do? A lot of people think that the answer is "make the g

by otikik 3y ago

That analysis sounds correct but I think it's missing a key part. If we are on scenario 2, what do we do? A lot of people think that the answer is "make the government as small as possible, because governments are always incompetent". There's an implicit assumption there about the free market and corporations taking some of the government's previous duties. To me (an European) that is a bonkers way of looking at the issue. I have seen what decent government (not perfect, not even "good" government) can accomplish. But I understand how someone who has only experienced shitty governments (or has been convinced that their government has always been shitty) can think that way. The other approach is "let's change things so that the government improves". I understand that this is a difficult, undefined, and risky endeavor. It might take generations. I understand how others can think that it is idealistic / impractical ("if that was on the table, why do we have a shitty government to begin with? people before us would have changed it for the better already. And I want improvements now, not in 20 years"). It still does sound like a better bet to me than "let corporations do what they want, the invisible hand will save us". That can turn bad in a single legislature.

Georgelemental 3y ago
There's another answer: make government more local, ie return to federalism. If you are European, you live in a country with a government that administers far fewer people than the US federal gov't.
- dopidopHN 3y ago
  Correct, but Europe is deep in our business ( budget, debt leverage, monetary policy ) If my favorite politician was elected at the head of my home country he probably would not be able to implement his program. Also: state have rights in the US and they do use them.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  That only shifts the dysfunction. Now everyone would not trust the mayor and the sheriff. And there would be gobs and gobs of tweets about "who was sleeping with who and that's why this kid got the contract to fix this road over here" and so on. With that entire influence campaign probably funded by the oligarchs from the wealthy city-state 300 miles away who want to use an area of your city for waste dumping or something. There's no quick easy way out. We really do need to actually fix the problem. Restructuring the corruption won't help here. Mostly because it's still corruption.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    Well, no, because people know the major and sherrif, they are close enough to the reality that propaganda won't override their own eyes.
    - bilbo0s 3y ago
      First, I think you are grossly overestimating the number of people who know their mayor or local sheriff. Secondly, the idea that professional influence campaigns won't work because, "the target 'knows' everybody" is naive in the extreme. It betrays a lack of knowledge about what it is you're up against. These campaigns work, and they work well. That's the reason everyone from corporations to intelligence agencies put so much resource into them. Lastly, none of what you said actually makes the mayor and the sheriff "not corrupt". Which is the fundamental issue. How do you ensure non-corrupt officials? Or at a minimum, decrease corruption. Your idea probably doesn't even shift the corruption, because corruption is already there. It just gives the corrupt local officials more money to steal in the end. Them knowing everyone increases the opportunity and possibilities for corruption. It doesn't decrease them, which is what you want. What we need are ideas on how to be more effective in decreasing corruption. So less, "shift it to the local level" and more "reignite and reallocate more human resources to the public corruption segment of the FBI". But people will not want to do the latter, because it would catch their corruption. Whereas they would want to do the former, because it gives them more opportunities to participate in corruption.
Pyramus 3y ago
> To me (an European) that is a bonkers way of looking at the issue. Came here to say exactly this. If you do not trust your democratically elected institutions you need to improve your democratic system. > "Popular sovereignty is the principle that the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political power." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty Don't get me wrong, this is not an actionable solution, but I'm a bit surprised that it's not even discussed conceptually? Why is that?

by otikik 3y ago

Georgelemental 3y ago

There's another answer: make government more local, ie return to federalism. If you are European, you live in a country with a government that administers far fewer people than the US federal gov't.

dopidopHN 3y ago
Correct, but Europe is deep in our business ( budget, debt leverage, monetary policy ) If my favorite politician was elected at the head of my home country he probably would not be able to implement his program. Also: state have rights in the US and they do use them.
bilbo0s 3y ago
That only shifts the dysfunction. Now everyone would not trust the mayor and the sheriff. And there would be gobs and gobs of tweets about "who was sleeping with who and that's why this kid got the contract to fix this road over here" and so on. With that entire influence campaign probably funded by the oligarchs from the wealthy city-state 300 miles away who want to use an area of your city for waste dumping or something. There's no quick easy way out. We really do need to actually fix the problem. Restructuring the corruption won't help here. Mostly because it's still corruption.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  Well, no, because people know the major and sherrif, they are close enough to the reality that propaganda won't override their own eyes.
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    First, I think you are grossly overestimating the number of people who know their mayor or local sheriff. Secondly, the idea that professional influence campaigns won't work because, "the target 'knows' everybody" is naive in the extreme. It betrays a lack of knowledge about what it is you're up against. These campaigns work, and they work well. That's the reason everyone from corporations to intelligence agencies put so much resource into them. Lastly, none of what you said actually makes the mayor and the sheriff "not corrupt". Which is the fundamental issue. How do you ensure non-corrupt officials? Or at a minimum, decrease corruption. Your idea probably doesn't even shift the corruption, because corruption is already there. It just gives the corrupt local officials more money to steal in the end. Them knowing everyone increases the opportunity and possibilities for corruption. It doesn't decrease them, which is what you want. What we need are ideas on how to be more effective in decreasing corruption. So less, "shift it to the local level" and more "reignite and reallocate more human resources to the public corruption segment of the FBI". But people will not want to do the latter, because it would catch their corruption. Whereas they would want to do the former, because it gives them more opportunities to participate in corruption.

Pyramus 3y ago

> To me (an European) that is a bonkers way of looking at the issue. Came here to say exactly this. If you do not trust your democratically elected institutions you need to improve your democratic system. > "Popular sovereignty is the principle that the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political power." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty Don't get me wrong, this is not an actionable solution, but I'm a bit surprised that it's not even discussed conceptually? Why is that?