3 ms·

It is dramatically more constrained.

godelski 3y ago
I recognize that (actually made a longer comment in main thread), and I'm not convinced that's strictly in the public's interest. You are essentially placing a filter of "you must be this rich to bribe politicians." This could "counterintuitively" empower the already powerful even further, as you decrease their competition. To perform market capture they must capture a critical mass of politicians (we'll say mass varies by each politician's power). While there's already an implicit filter for those high mass politicians (fat cats ;) -- since you accumulate mass quickly -- the system's robustness is through the distribution of power among politicians. The whole political structure is designed to make it difficult to capture enough mass, and this is identical to the argument against authoritarian systems. So the constraining effectively reduces competition and can actually make mass accumulation cheaper and easier for companies that have the highest potential (and incentives) for abuse. So unless you got a counter argument that can convince me that this is of no concern, then I'm sticking to my original position.
- jessriedel 3y ago
  If we make murder illegal, only the people who are good at evading the police will be able to freely commit murder.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I do not believe your comment is in good faith and thus is violating community standards. But yes, people that are good at evading the police are in fact able to "freely" commit murder. I'm not sure why you thought this would be be a convincing retort considering it is true by definition.[0] You do in fact have to be captured by police and subsequently prosecuted. I am glad that you do understand the most basic operating principle of the judicial system: you cannot imprison those who are not in your custody. (A bit tautological, don't you think?) [0] Assuming "freely" means "able to commit crime without judicial repercussions". I assume you don't mean "freely" in reference to having capacity as such a definition wouldn't be conditioned on legality.
    - jessriedel 3y ago
      Your argument has the same form as the murder argument, and it is wrong for the same reason.
      - godelski 3y ago
        If you weren't aware, murder already is illegal. If you also weren't aware, some people get away with murder. Serial killers do exist. There are, in fact, serial killers who have never been caught. Several even famous to California. Do you not know who OJ Simpson is? Do we seriously have to drop examples of people who got away with crimes because they were good at not getting caught? Isn't that why Frank Abagnale is famous? You seriously think we've caught everyone? And instantaneously?
        jessriedel 3y ago
        You're misunderstanding.

I recognize that (actually made a longer comment in main thread), and I'm not convinced that's strictly in the public's interest. You are essentially placing a filter of "you must be this rich to bribe politicians." This could "counterintuitively" empower the already powerful even further, as you decrease their competition. To perform market capture they must capture a critical mass of politicians (we'll say mass varies by each politician's power). While there's already an implicit filter for those high mass politicians (fat cats ;) -- since you accumulate mass quickly -- the system's robustness is through the distribution of power among politicians. The whole political structure is designed to make it difficult to capture enough mass, and this is identical to the argument against authoritarian systems. So the constraining effectively reduces competition and can actually make mass accumulation cheaper and easier for companies that have the highest potential (and incentives) for abuse. So unless you got a counter argument that can convince me that this is of no concern, then I'm sticking to my original position.

jessriedel 3y ago
If we make murder illegal, only the people who are good at evading the police will be able to freely commit murder.
- godelski 3y ago
  I do not believe your comment is in good faith and thus is violating community standards. But yes, people that are good at evading the police are in fact able to "freely" commit murder. I'm not sure why you thought this would be be a convincing retort considering it is true by definition.[0] You do in fact have to be captured by police and subsequently prosecuted. I am glad that you do understand the most basic operating principle of the judicial system: you cannot imprison those who are not in your custody. (A bit tautological, don't you think?) [0] Assuming "freely" means "able to commit crime without judicial repercussions". I assume you don't mean "freely" in reference to having capacity as such a definition wouldn't be conditioned on legality.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    Your argument has the same form as the murder argument, and it is wrong for the same reason.
    - godelski 3y ago
      If you weren't aware, murder already is illegal. If you also weren't aware, some people get away with murder. Serial killers do exist. There are, in fact, serial killers who have never been caught. Several even famous to California. Do you not know who OJ Simpson is? Do we seriously have to drop examples of people who got away with crimes because they were good at not getting caught? Isn't that why Frank Abagnale is famous? You seriously think we've caught everyone? And instantaneously?
      - jessriedel 3y ago
        You're misunderstanding.