5 ms·

> And government should only have as much power as you think the worst possible people in charge should have. This immediately falls apart, by that logic we sh

• mikepurvis 3y ago
  I think that's the right take, with particular attention to overall transparency, since otherwise you have nothing— how do you hold someone accountable if you don't have the right to see what they're up to?
• gottorf 3y ago
  > but also have a reliable means to remove them from power if they act in bad faith. That answers your concern -- that's a reduction in the power of government. The worst possible person being in charge is OK if that person cannot unilaterally make things worse for everyone. I don't think it necessarily describes anarchy, though I do take your point. As for people acting in good faith, well, POSIWID[0] is a thing; ideally the system should be designed such that it shouldn't matter whether any individual within the system is acting in good faith or not, because the incentive structures set up therein will lead to positive outcomes. Besides, for any politically divisive topic, someone will always think you're acting in bad faith, anyway. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
• brightball 3y ago
  > there isn't a single decision in my life I would pass off to the worst person I could think of This is actually the point though. You shouldn't have to give power to an individual. If you're going to, you should give that power to a group of individuals who have to agree for the thing to move forward. And then have checks on that group as well. I live in South Carolina and one of the things I like about how this state works is that the governor is virtually powerless, so you never really have to worry about who is elected. There's certainly some degree of power outside of the veto, but for the most part the real power is with the state senate. There are pluses and minuses to it. On the plus side, it means that things are slower to change. On the minus side, it means that things are slower to change.
  • ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    The discussion was about giving power to an entire government, not an individual.
  • verve_rat 3y ago
    Sounds like South Carolina follows a Westminster style government. Look at the UK, NZ, AU governments (and I assume Canada, don't know for sure): A King, or Governor-General, with the theoretical power to override parliament. A Head of State which can issue decrees and makes important decisions "on the advice of the Prime Minster". Basically a figure head and a bunch of legal fictions wrapped up in the concept of "The Crown". But the real power lies with the PM and their Cabinet. But the party in charge can change the PM whenever they want, and if it ever got bad enough Parliament can change the party in charge without waiting for an election. The PM is responsible to the Cabinet and to their party and to the rest of Parliament. It is all one big mess of ambitious people pointing guns at each other, constantly evaluating their position ahead of the next election.
    • int_19h 3y ago
      Westminster system is not a particularly good example of checks and balances, though, given that whole parliamentary supremacy thing. A Westminster-style Parliament is essentially unanswerable to anyone but the voters; and even then it can unilaterally change election laws, so it can circumvent the voters as well. If the courts deem some act of Parliament unlawful, the latter can just pass another act explicitly declaring it lawful (the recent Safety of Rwanda Bill was a good example of just such an attempt).
      • verve_rat 3y ago
        Yeah, parliament is sovereign, the checks and balances are (meant to be) internal to parliament. That may break down a bit with modern parties and modern elections, I guess we will see if these systems still work in another couple of hundred years.
  • wolverine876 3y ago
• not2b 3y ago
  "people in charge" doesn't just include elected officials, it also includes heads of corporations. Checks and balances has to apply to them as well, meaning that regulation is necessary.
  • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    This goes both ways. The merchant class is one of the checks and balances on the government because it serves as a separate power base that should find it in its own interest to oppose government misconduct. One of the most important things for checks and balances to do is ensure the separation of commerce and state. Prevent the merger of state and corporate power. So they must restrain the government from inhibiting competition at the behest of crony incumbent corporations. Which requires you to restrict what kinds of regulation the government can impose, when that regulation impairs competition or otherwise advantages crony corporations. The last thing you want is to give a government official the power to do a corporation's bidding.
  • Nevermark 3y ago
    And it should apply to parties. Especially in systems like the US where single party rule is actually attainable. Political parties work hard to centralize and consolidate power across disparate voting districts, pushing and incentivizing their elected members to be more loyal to their party than to their districts. Then the party as a coordinated whole just works for itself. The whole point of having diverse representatives from diverse districts gets nullified. National level seat limits, and cross state party limits for local elections, would eliminate any chance of single party rule and evaporate the dysfunction that spreads from seeking and holding that crown.
• DANmode 3y ago
  What they're describing is infrastructure, which is what government should be. Not a ruling class.
• akira2501 3y ago
  > we should literally have no government or society to speak of I don't think society is dependent on government. > would mean literally no power Literally no power ensconced in the hands of a _single individual_, I think was the point.
  • autoexec 3y ago
    > I don't think society is dependent on government. Is that a hypothetical or are there large and successful societies around today that don't have one (or a group by some other name fulfilling the same function)?
    • akira2501 3y ago
      You'd have to more thoroughly define "successful." You'd also have to explain why you think the lack of one would prove any point.
      • autoexec 3y ago
        It's not that the lack of one proves it's impossible, but if one existed it'd sure be evidence that government isn't a requirement. As for "successful" I suppose that is very much subjective. Is there one you'd consider to be successful?
  • int_19h 3y ago
    There are no historical or current examples of societies larger than a tribe that are lacking any form of government. The thing that is not mandatory, however, is the state, which is not a synonym. State-based government is centralized government, but government does not necessarily need to be centralized to the point where the result is a state.
    • akira2501 3y ago
      You are limiting your definition of society to one that can be described by defended political borders. It's circular and tautological. I would argue that the internet is a society that's broader than these political borders, obviously exists, and does so entirely outside of government control. I would suggest you both missed this definition of society.
• AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > This immediately falls apart, by that logic we should literally have no government or society to speak of. "Only as much power as you think the worst possible person should have" would mean literally no power - there isn't a single decision in my life I would pass off to the worst person I could think of. What you're describing is anarchy. Not at all. Suppose the worst possible person is in the prosecutor's office. They get to decide who to prosecute. But they can't just file false charges against someone and throw away the key, they have to prove it in court with evidence and convince a jury of the defendant's peers. Moreover, we could prohibit prosecutorial misconduct and set up an independent agency for investigating and punishing it. And we could require vague laws to be construed in the defendant's favor and strike down excessively broad ones as unconstitutional. It's possible for these checks and balances to fail -- there is some evidence that they have -- but in principle we could have stricter ones that work better. And if they work as intended, it doesn't matter how bad the prosecutor is, they don't have the power to cause harm, and they themselves are punished if they try to exceed the limits of their power. But if they just do their job, i.e. investigate crimes and prosecute the offenders, they do have the power to do that. And so it is with any other office in the government.
  • mulmen 3y ago
    There is another failure mode. The prosecutor can refuse to prosecute a guilty party. This can happen for several reasons. 1) corruption, don’t prosecute your friends. 2) ideology, the law or punishment are “unfair” or the defendant is “misunderstood” or “disadvantaged” according to the prosecutor. 3) politics, to advance their political careers prosecutors want an unblemished record of successful convictions. It is good that our system biases toward avoiding wrongful conviction but there’s no check that forces a party to “do their job.”
    • LeroyRaz 3y ago
      You can have multiple prosecutors. E.g., if one does not want to prosecute (and so not get paid) then another will. While you can't ensure an individual does their job, market forces and competition can ensure the job gets done (by someone).
• nomel 3y ago
  Many good answers, but to put it simply, ideally you create a system that assumes abuse, which will then make abuse difficult or obvious. If you make any positive assumptions about someone in power, then they will, eventually, be used against you.
• gretch 3y ago
  In addition to all of the theoretical responses provided, I would also say that the US has withstood the test (so far). Trump is probably one of the “worst”* people and held the highest office. And yet despite the fact that it happened, the US is still chugging along. Bad things happened but the quality of life is similar to pre-trump presidency (as long as you are willing to discount for covid’s impact on the world). *Some say there are worse ppl than djt, but I argue very few has his combination of badness + boldness + tenacity. A bad+meek person thrust into presidency would probably just go with the flow.
  • dpkirchner 3y ago
    > Bad things happened but the quality of life is similar to pre-trump presidency (as long as you are willing to discount for covid’s impact on the world). And are male, of course.
  • blibble 3y ago
    > Trump is probably one of the “worst”* people and held the highest office. And yet despite the fact that it happened, the US is still chugging along. until the next election occurs we haven't really seen the effect of the damage done in 2020 1 in 3 voters no longer believing that the electoral system is fit for purpose ("the election was stolen") is really very scary
    • zmgsabst 3y ago
      A large fraction doesn’t view the government as fit for purpose either — as they allowed widespread, coordinated arson attacks across major cities totaling $2B+ in damages and then sent the FBI after peaceful demonstrators, based on which political faction people belonged to. That’s some real fascism.
  • p1esk 3y ago
    Interesting, if Trump is so bad, why do you think half of the country will vote for him?
    • 3y ago
• Geisterde 3y ago
  Thats the point, the power will be abused. Free markets subvert toxic heirarchies and inefficient industries, thats how america was designed to work, private capital formation and the ability to compete freely. When you need to resort to political means to achieve your ends you violate peoples rights, those rights are considered above the authority of the government.
  • JohnFen 3y ago
    > Free markets subvert toxic heirarchies and inefficient industries But a free market cannot exist in the absence of regulation, and regulation is a form of government.
    • pdonis 3y ago
      > a free market cannot exist in the absence of regulation As you are using the term "regulation" (see below), this is false. A free market is in fact exactly what you do get in the absence of government regulation: all transactions are voluntary. Only governments can force people to engage in market transactions they don't want to engage in, or prevent them from engaging in market transactions they do want to engage in. > regulation is a form of government Not necessarily. A true free market is regulated by the voluntary choices of all of its participants. No government is required. Government regulation replaces or overrides regulation by voluntary choices of market participants.
      • JohnFen 3y ago
        > A free market is in fact exactly what you do get in the absence of government regulation No, you don't. At least not for very long. In the absence of regulation, a free market will always devolve into monopoly as one player leverages their advantages to absorb more and more of the market. This effect snowballs -- the more successful a company is, the more easily they can monopolize ever larger parts. And that's not even mentioning that in the absence of regulation, companies will engage in profitable activities that are very harmful for everyone. Environmental issues, externalizing business costs, etc.
      • 3y ago
• wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
  I know countries are different, but there are many people who are pro severely minimal government in the USA. And it does not seem so unlike the initial intentions for the country either. If you frame it as anarchy it sounds like screaming chaos. But consider for a moment that the vast majority of laws that exist that are enforcable now only recently came to be.
  • zmgsabst 3y ago
    There’s also real trade offs: I had fiber to my condo a decade ago in Thailand, but still don’t reliably in the US. Regulations and government monopolies on poles and conduits slow development at the same time they reduce fires and clutter on the poles. (Whoa are there some real tangles in Thailand.) There’s a reasonable debate on where and how much we should regulate things.
    • wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
      I'm not concerned with slow development and the occasional fire. I'm more concerned with rampant over-regulation. Being required to have a license to put up a non load bearing wall in my own house... The homeless in the US that cannot afford the minimum ordained "humane" dwelling size. Minimum parking lot size requirements. Minimum wage. The fed modulating the currency value with the goal of INCREASING unemployment. Homes being required to have running water and electricity, be above a certain size, or you aren't allowed to live in them (Even if they are way wayy out in the middle of the woods). $20,000 driveway concrete keying fees intended to hurt companies that prevent basic individual rights on personal property. Regulation raises costs, and raises price floors. Generally you gain some quality, but don't see the ghost it unleashes. I understand we need building codes in cities so fires don't burn down all of New York, and train, plane, drug inspection laws. But I think overall, non-violent crime in the world is absolutely over-regulated. For some reason people usually assume there are no costs to regulation, and only benefit. I think its a just psychology. Regulation is a thin line that requires dancing on. Always assume there's a ghost cost behind a decision, even if it seems harmless. Even something as well intended as banning candy from the front of grocery stores to cut childhood obesity could unroll into a huge problem as each actor solves their local issue, and generate an emergent behavior. I'll function as an annoying representative of this concept.
• roenxi 3y ago
  Taking an argument to it's logical conclusion isn't "falling apart". The best scenario for governance is anarchy; ideally we could all just do what we want. It is a tautology that anything we're forced to do by the police is something we don't think is a good idea/in our interests. The problem with anarchy is that it will get toppled by a group - probably internally to the society - that is organised and forms a standing military. Organised factions tend to grow. The US is creeping in the same direction as a group like the USSR or China - an overdeveloped and too-powerful central bureaucracy - but much more slowly because it started from a well designed system with lots of checks and balances. But just because centralised power tends to be stable doesn't mean it is good, decentralised power is much more pleasant to live under. So the ideal government is anarchy, the practically ideal government is as close to anarchy as we can get without being destabilised by a military, and the reality of the situation is militarys form and tend to move away from anarchy towards tyranny. But that doesn't make them good.
  • Nevermark 3y ago
    > The problem with anarchy is that it will get toppled by a group The benefits of anarchy get “toppled” the first moment someone violates another persons freedom, leaving them no recourse but ad hoc retaliation, and the unlimited risks of further repercussions to themselves and those they care about. Assuming they are left in any shape to do so. No group needed.
  • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    What this is missing is that you can be forced to do something by someone other than a military. If a corporation pollutes the air, you're being forced to breathe polluted air. It's not in your interest for them to pollute the air, but it's in their interest because it's cheaper and they value money over incrementally cleaner air. Then you need a means to stop them from doing something they find to be in their own interest, because it isn't in yours and you didn't consent to it. The problem with this is that if you extend it to its logical conclusion, now you're not allowed to breathe because I didn't consent to you emitting CO2 from your lungs. The key here is to limit the government to the things that are both important and can only be feasibly accomplished through a monopoly on force. Prohibiting violence and monopolies, pricing major externalities, funding certain types of fundamental research, etc. Not prohibiting entirely consensual behavior or micromanaging marginal commercial activity or impairing your view of the bay by having the gall to construct housing during a housing shortfall. There can be some disagreement around the edges on what these things are, but the real hard part is finding a way to create checks and balances effective enough to resist when a wave of populism wants to stop imposing all of these restrictions on Their Guy. Because the thing that follows that is invariably centralization of power, corruption and injustice.