4 ms·
The fuzziness was primarily left to bureaucrats making best guesses, without any particular agenda. Of course there would be some bureaucratic capture going on,
by labster 1y ago
The fuzziness was primarily left to bureaucrats making best guesses, without any particular agenda. Of course there would be some bureaucratic capture going on, but shame would still work. Systems work best with some sort of fuzzy logic, which is what courts and bureaucrats provide. Regulations are not supposed to be a suicide pact.
What has changed here is that loyalty to the head of state is the primary determinant for all of the gray areas — and that guy can be as arbitrary and capricious as he wants. Context always matters; context is the difference between prerogative and corruption.
- parineum 1y ago> left to bureaucrats making best guesses, without any particular agenda. That's incredibly naive. Bureaucracies have agendas either intentionally (political appointments) or organically. The corruption may be more brazen and direct under Trump but the incentives have always been there
- InDubioProRubio 1y agoUsually industry insiders just switch jobs directly into the bureaucracy writing the laws?
- labster 1y agoThere is a revolving door between industry and bureaucracy, true. There is a problem with getting qualified people who are not conflicted financially and who are not bound by preconceptions. This problem is not particularly tractable, but granting all the decisions to the leader can only make it worse.
- _heimdall 1y agoGranting the powers to either is also an option, and a reasonable one in my opinion if our two options are granting decisions to those using the revolving door or the one person at the top (regardless of who that person is).
- rbanffy 1y ago> but shame would still work Unfortunately, we are waaaaay past that point.