4 ms·

Peel it back even more: how does any State not fall victim to monied interests? This is usually handwaved away by socalists in the sense that everything is hand

by hypeatei 10mo ago

Peel it back even more: how does any State not fall victim to monied interests? This is usually handwaved away by socalists in the sense that everything is handled by "independent commissions" that can totally not be corrupted. The solution is really to keep the scope of government small so that any corruption isn't detrimental to the populace, and they can handle it in the next election.

ModernMech 10mo ago
That's not a solution, that just removes an opponent of monied interests from the table entirely, it's exactly what they want. The only thing these people want more than a government they can capture is a government so small they can replace it entirely.
dpark 10mo ago
> The solution is really to keep the scope of government small Of course. Politically active billionaires are always famously lobbying for large government and more regulations.
nielsbot 10mo ago
Small government leads to big capitalism which is its own kind of tyranny. Our current problems are not because government is too big. Powerful regulation which answers to the people is the answer.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
  Small government goes against the original and deepest Capitalist thinkers, who all pushed that strong government oversight was a REQUIRED part of Capitalism to keep it healthy and in balance.
the_gastropod 10mo ago
Which countries on the planet do you think are the least corrupt? What does their system of government look like?
- RajT88 10mo ago
  There's a lot of these lists, but it's interesting the differences in who tops the list: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-corrupt-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-cor...
  - ethbr1 10mo ago
    There's more than one type of government that can resist corruption, since much that drives corruption is extra-governmental (populace education level, media environment, trust in institutions, wealth equality, etc). So it's unsurprising there are different optimal anti-corruption government types for different combinations of those qualities.
    - the_gastropod 10mo ago
      Yes. But, I don’t think a single one of those “least corrupt” top contenders could be described as: > The solution is really to keep the scope of government small so that any corruption isn't detrimental to the populace, and they can handle it in the next election. Which was kind of my point. In reality, the least corruptible types of governments tend to be ones libertarian-skewing Americans would crassly describe as socialist.
      - ethbr1 10mo ago
        I'm not an expert, but aren't Switzerland and Singapore pretty lightweight governments?
        RajT88 10mo ago
        Singapore is strange place - aside from being a city-state. You'll get sent to the gulags for being in possession of a joint, but prostitution is legal. I know a guy who once got in a bar fight there, and he immediately packed up and went to the airport. I wouldn't exactly call it lightweight government.
overfeed 10mo ago
> Peel it back even more: how does any State not fall victim to monied interests? Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate), or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high). Edit: if the above are too extreme, another approach would be firm and consistent application of anti-competitive laws, resurrecting the fairness doctrine, and stop pretending that artificial constructs have human rights.
- SR2Z 10mo ago
  > or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high). This seems like a great way for the monied interests from WITHIN the party to just take full control. > Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate) The reason why this worked is because FDR oversaw the US during a period of incredible change and after the Great Depression. It's not like the tax rate was responsible for his successes.
  - overfeed 10mo ago
    > This seems like a great way for the monied interests from WITHIN the party to just take full control. Politicians already have political power in every country and political system. The blatantly corrupt ones get the death sentence if their provincial or central committee patron can't save them, and those get culled every decade or so, so you can't go overboard.
  - kurikuri 10mo ago
    > > or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high). > This seems like a great way for the monied interests from WITHIN the party to just take full control. They already do in the US, so this is a non-response. > > Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate) > The reason why this worked is because FDR oversaw the US during a period of incredible change and after the Great Depression. It's not like the tax rate was responsible for his successes. Once again, this is a vacuous response. If the claim was “high taxes caused the change during FDR’s time,” “There was change” is not an alternative explanation to that claim. If we took the counter-factual claim, do you think the period would have been as transformative if the tax rates weren’t high?
RajT88 10mo ago
That's a solution. Another would be to enshrine in law independent watchdog agencies whose goal is to win trophies for rooting out corruption, reducing waste, preventing or breaking up harmful monopolies, etc.
- jdietrich 10mo ago
  How valuable are those trophies compared to bribes, or the tacit bribes of cushy "consultancy" roles? How do you stop lobbyists from gutting those regulators - what use is a fiercely independent regulator that has no resources? Good governance is hard.
  - RajT88 10mo ago
    Getting money out of politics is the hardest part. I am not sure how the US will find the political will short of getting burned badly enough for partisans to align on reform. How bad does it have to get?
    - ethbr1 10mo ago
      The apt question is 'How bad for whom does it have to get?' Because the 00s+ US government is in no way propped up by all stakeholding groups in equal amounts.
- dpark 10mo ago
  > win trophies for rooting out corruption Many a corrupt government has touted their anti-corruption activities that inexplicably seem to snare almost exclusively their political opponents.
TFYS 10mo ago
That's no solution, since once someone has corrupted said small government, the obvious next step is to use the influence to increase its size and power.
Teever 10mo ago
But theres a balance to be struck there — keep the government too small and weak and it is susceptible to corruptive forces from domestic and foreign enemies alike. So imho it isn’t enough to simply keep government ‘small’ —it is also important to keep it the size proportionate to other potential threats. It’s also important to keep in mind that size is but one dimension and is only being used as a proxy for power which is the ultimate factor that matters — a government of one person with control of WMDs can be much more of a threat than a large government without WMDs.
_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
This solution is anti-capitalist. Capitalism by it's design, and as outlined by it's original and deepest thought leaders requires strong and decisive government oversight to keep it in check and keep it healthy. Being against strong government oversight is to be against a working, Capitalist system and against traditional Capitalist thought.
- hattmall 10mo ago
  Strong and decisive don't mean huge expenditures and picking winners. Our government does so much more than governing. Capitalism needs a government that sets and enforces rules in the face of market failures. It doesn't mean a government that redistributes trillions of dollars.

ModernMech 10mo ago

That's not a solution, that just removes an opponent of monied interests from the table entirely, it's exactly what they want. The only thing these people want more than a government they can capture is a government so small they can replace it entirely.

dpark 10mo ago

> The solution is really to keep the scope of government small Of course. Politically active billionaires are always famously lobbying for large government and more regulations.

nielsbot 10mo ago

Small government leads to big capitalism which is its own kind of tyranny. Our current problems are not because government is too big. Powerful regulation which answers to the people is the answer.

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
Small government goes against the original and deepest Capitalist thinkers, who all pushed that strong government oversight was a REQUIRED part of Capitalism to keep it healthy and in balance.

the_gastropod 10mo ago

Which countries on the planet do you think are the least corrupt? What does their system of government look like?

RajT88 10mo ago
There's a lot of these lists, but it's interesting the differences in who tops the list: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-corrupt-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-cor...
- ethbr1 10mo ago
  There's more than one type of government that can resist corruption, since much that drives corruption is extra-governmental (populace education level, media environment, trust in institutions, wealth equality, etc). So it's unsurprising there are different optimal anti-corruption government types for different combinations of those qualities.
  - the_gastropod 10mo ago
    Yes. But, I don’t think a single one of those “least corrupt” top contenders could be described as: > The solution is really to keep the scope of government small so that any corruption isn't detrimental to the populace, and they can handle it in the next election. Which was kind of my point. In reality, the least corruptible types of governments tend to be ones libertarian-skewing Americans would crassly describe as socialist.
    - ethbr1 10mo ago
      I'm not an expert, but aren't Switzerland and Singapore pretty lightweight governments?
      - RajT88 10mo ago
        Singapore is strange place - aside from being a city-state. You'll get sent to the gulags for being in possession of a joint, but prostitution is legal. I know a guy who once got in a bar fight there, and he immediately packed up and went to the airport. I wouldn't exactly call it lightweight government.

overfeed 10mo ago

> Peel it back even more: how does any State not fall victim to monied interests? Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate), or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high). Edit: if the above are too extreme, another approach would be firm and consistent application of anti-competitive laws, resurrecting the fairness doctrine, and stop pretending that artificial constructs have human rights.

SR2Z 10mo ago
> or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high). This seems like a great way for the monied interests from WITHIN the party to just take full control. > Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate) The reason why this worked is because FDR oversaw the US during a period of incredible change and after the Great Depression. It's not like the tax rate was responsible for his successes.
- overfeed 10mo ago
  > This seems like a great way for the monied interests from WITHIN the party to just take full control. Politicians already have political power in every country and political system. The blatantly corrupt ones get the death sentence if their provincial or central committee patron can't save them, and those get culled every decade or so, so you can't go overboard.
- kurikuri 10mo ago
  > > or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high). > This seems like a great way for the monied interests from WITHIN the party to just take full control. They already do in the US, so this is a non-response. > > Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate) > The reason why this worked is because FDR oversaw the US during a period of incredible change and after the Great Depression. It's not like the tax rate was responsible for his successes. Once again, this is a vacuous response. If the claim was “high taxes caused the change during FDR’s time,” “There was change” is not an alternative explanation to that claim. If we took the counter-factual claim, do you think the period would have been as transformative if the tax rates weren’t high?

RajT88 10mo ago

That's a solution. Another would be to enshrine in law independent watchdog agencies whose goal is to win trophies for rooting out corruption, reducing waste, preventing or breaking up harmful monopolies, etc.

jdietrich 10mo ago
How valuable are those trophies compared to bribes, or the tacit bribes of cushy "consultancy" roles? How do you stop lobbyists from gutting those regulators - what use is a fiercely independent regulator that has no resources? Good governance is hard.
- RajT88 10mo ago
  Getting money out of politics is the hardest part. I am not sure how the US will find the political will short of getting burned badly enough for partisans to align on reform. How bad does it have to get?
  - ethbr1 10mo ago
    The apt question is 'How bad for whom does it have to get?' Because the 00s+ US government is in no way propped up by all stakeholding groups in equal amounts.
dpark 10mo ago
> win trophies for rooting out corruption Many a corrupt government has touted their anti-corruption activities that inexplicably seem to snare almost exclusively their political opponents.

TFYS 10mo ago

That's no solution, since once someone has corrupted said small government, the obvious next step is to use the influence to increase its size and power.

Teever 10mo ago

But theres a balance to be struck there — keep the government too small and weak and it is susceptible to corruptive forces from domestic and foreign enemies alike. So imho it isn’t enough to simply keep government ‘small’ —it is also important to keep it the size proportionate to other potential threats. It’s also important to keep in mind that size is but one dimension and is only being used as a proxy for power which is the ultimate factor that matters — a government of one person with control of WMDs can be much more of a threat than a large government without WMDs.

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago

This solution is anti-capitalist. Capitalism by it's design, and as outlined by it's original and deepest thought leaders requires strong and decisive government oversight to keep it in check and keep it healthy. Being against strong government oversight is to be against a working, Capitalist system and against traditional Capitalist thought.

hattmall 10mo ago
Strong and decisive don't mean huge expenditures and picking winners. Our government does so much more than governing. Capitalism needs a government that sets and enforces rules in the face of market failures. It doesn't mean a government that redistributes trillions of dollars.