3 ms·

We should demand and work towards good public institutions that do their job. It's perfectly consistent to say "this is a job that legitimate democratic institu

by Certhas 4mo ago

We should demand and work towards good public institutions that do their job. It's perfectly consistent to say "this is a job that legitimate democratic institutions should perform" and complain that currently the legitimacy of institutions is undermined. Let's take your argument to it's extreme point: The state should never regulate anything because the state might be bad! This is structurally the same fallacy as "people shouldn't be allowed to do anything, because some people are bad!".

franktankbank 4mo ago
Avoid walls when walking in hallways.
derangedHorse 4mo ago
> Let's take your argument to it's extreme point: The state should never regulate anything because the state might be bad! I'm not convinced you understand the sentiment of the parent comment. It's that one should consider all possible scenarios of one's actions when making requests of a powerful entity they can't control. The mechanics of government make it such that once something is under their control, it'll be more effort to remove those controls than what it took to initially add them. It should also be expected that legitimate regime changes can put people in power that current lobbyists may disagree with. Lobbyists should then be conscious that by lobbying for regulation, they implicitly trust that the will of the people will always align with what they think is best for the industry being regulated in the long term (otherwise they wouldn't be lobbying or would do so in a way that confines the power to the current administration).
- Certhas 4mo ago
  I can control government more than I can control Google or Anthropic. Also your argument is along the lines of thinking I argue for: You say I shouldn't lobby for regulation I believe is beneficial because a future government might change the regulations to make them not beneficial. This implicitly assumes that the future government wouldn't implement the non-beneficial regulations if the current government doesn't do the beneficial ones. Possibly! But this is arguing that we should firmly establish principles, values and precedents that future administrations will feel bound by. And that I would agree with: Regulations and governance should arise from principles (practical details and grey areas will always require a ton of messy detailed negotiations, but within the confines of principles!). One of the things the current US administration has done is to show that it is possible to disregard principles if you are powerful with no consequences. You can lie about elections being fraudulent, watch your supporters storm parliament and get reelected a few years later. But if principles don't matter to those in power then the conclusion is actually the opposite of what you say. While your allies are in power you should use power however you can to further your interests, because when others are in power they will not feel bound by your restraint, and at least they first have to undo your work.
  - ifyoubuildit 4mo ago
    > I can control government more than I can control Google or Anthropic How true is this really? With the government, you can vote in various elections, or contact your representatives, and when it comes to important issues that will do exactly squat. You can also buy politicians or legislation, or run yourself, if you have the wealth and connections to do so. With corporations, you can vote with your dollars, which again on important issues will probably do squat. Or you can try to get hired and change the company from within. Or if you have the wealth, you can buy the company (partially or wholly), or start a competitor and win in the marketplace. In both situations there are options, and most of them are basically impossible for the small folk.
    - bombcar 4mo ago
      The illusion of control is stronger with modern democratic governments-but while it’s true that if we all voted for Vermin Supreme, he’d rule, it’s also true if we all stopped using Google they’d die quickly. But neither is a realistic outcome. And neither do you personally have anything remotely near “control”. The reason everyone argues about this stuff online is that’s literally the only power we have. However, the same effort and energy spent elsewhere can reap much, much bigger dividends down the line.
      - TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
        Governments are local/national policy infrastructure. So are big corporations. Only one gives users any kind of democratic influence over policy. And voting does make a difference. Ask New York.
    - notahacker 4mo ago
      1 small guy changing stuff is basically impossible. But 100 million small folk sufficiently annoyed with something changes a government (for better and for worse), whilst having basically zero influence over a corporation (they're not the customer, they don't have enough buying power for a hostile takeover, they certainly don't have the wherewithal to destroy them by launching a competitor... which they probably don't even want to if they think what the corporation does is bad). The exception, of course, is that if the corporation bothers that many small people that much, a government might get around to listening to the small people's arguments more than the corporation's.
rglullis 4mo ago
I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment, but context and scale matters. The damage a corrupt institution can make is far bigger than some "bad" individual can do on their own.
_heimdall 4mo ago
This extreme makes the question meaningless. A government isn't a government if it can't regulate and has no authority. Its fundamentally different to say governments or individuals should have no power or freedom. By design, governments have the winning end of a power imbalance and limiting them helps protect those on the losing end. Limiting those already on the losing end makes it worse for almost everyone (assuming the government is a small portion of the population).
- PaulHoule 4mo ago
  There’s a certain argument that people are just in over their heads for a society as large and complex as our and we just can’t cut it. Nothing that won’t be fixed by overshoot.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
    Don't worry. AI will fix that. I repeat - don't worry.
    - PaulHoule 4mo ago
      AI doesn’t have skin in the game
  - cindyllm 4mo ago
    [dead]
- inigyou 4mo ago
  We're supposed to be giving governments the winning end because if they don't have it, robber barons will. Supposed to.
  - bombcar 4mo ago
    A huge part of the problem is that we’ve made everything so big that we have a choice between the dragon and the hydra. Fight for localization.
glimshe 4mo ago
You essentially made the libertarian argument without realizing it. According to this line of thinking, we should leave as little as possible in the hands of government exactly because it's either bad already or it will eventually be bad. We should then apply an exceptionally high bar to government responsibilities. These would be things that would be even worse in private hands (police for a simple example).
- baq 4mo ago
  The fallacy of the libertarian argument is the assumption that it’s possible to have a small distributed government trivially doesn’t hold in presence of bigger adversarial monolithic governments elsewhere.

by Certhas 4mo ago

franktankbank 4mo ago

Avoid walls when walking in hallways.

derangedHorse 4mo ago

> Let's take your argument to it's extreme point: The state should never regulate anything because the state might be bad! I'm not convinced you understand the sentiment of the parent comment. It's that one should consider all possible scenarios of one's actions when making requests of a powerful entity they can't control. The mechanics of government make it such that once something is under their control, it'll be more effort to remove those controls than what it took to initially add them. It should also be expected that legitimate regime changes can put people in power that current lobbyists may disagree with. Lobbyists should then be conscious that by lobbying for regulation, they implicitly trust that the will of the people will always align with what they think is best for the industry being regulated in the long term (otherwise they wouldn't be lobbying or would do so in a way that confines the power to the current administration).

Certhas 4mo ago
I can control government more than I can control Google or Anthropic. Also your argument is along the lines of thinking I argue for: You say I shouldn't lobby for regulation I believe is beneficial because a future government might change the regulations to make them not beneficial. This implicitly assumes that the future government wouldn't implement the non-beneficial regulations if the current government doesn't do the beneficial ones. Possibly! But this is arguing that we should firmly establish principles, values and precedents that future administrations will feel bound by. And that I would agree with: Regulations and governance should arise from principles (practical details and grey areas will always require a ton of messy detailed negotiations, but within the confines of principles!). One of the things the current US administration has done is to show that it is possible to disregard principles if you are powerful with no consequences. You can lie about elections being fraudulent, watch your supporters storm parliament and get reelected a few years later. But if principles don't matter to those in power then the conclusion is actually the opposite of what you say. While your allies are in power you should use power however you can to further your interests, because when others are in power they will not feel bound by your restraint, and at least they first have to undo your work.
- ifyoubuildit 4mo ago
  > I can control government more than I can control Google or Anthropic How true is this really? With the government, you can vote in various elections, or contact your representatives, and when it comes to important issues that will do exactly squat. You can also buy politicians or legislation, or run yourself, if you have the wealth and connections to do so. With corporations, you can vote with your dollars, which again on important issues will probably do squat. Or you can try to get hired and change the company from within. Or if you have the wealth, you can buy the company (partially or wholly), or start a competitor and win in the marketplace. In both situations there are options, and most of them are basically impossible for the small folk.
  - bombcar 4mo ago
    The illusion of control is stronger with modern democratic governments-but while it’s true that if we all voted for Vermin Supreme, he’d rule, it’s also true if we all stopped using Google they’d die quickly. But neither is a realistic outcome. And neither do you personally have anything remotely near “control”. The reason everyone argues about this stuff online is that’s literally the only power we have. However, the same effort and energy spent elsewhere can reap much, much bigger dividends down the line.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
      Governments are local/national policy infrastructure. So are big corporations. Only one gives users any kind of democratic influence over policy. And voting does make a difference. Ask New York.
  - notahacker 4mo ago
    1 small guy changing stuff is basically impossible. But 100 million small folk sufficiently annoyed with something changes a government (for better and for worse), whilst having basically zero influence over a corporation (they're not the customer, they don't have enough buying power for a hostile takeover, they certainly don't have the wherewithal to destroy them by launching a competitor... which they probably don't even want to if they think what the corporation does is bad). The exception, of course, is that if the corporation bothers that many small people that much, a government might get around to listening to the small people's arguments more than the corporation's.

rglullis 4mo ago

I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment, but context and scale matters. The damage a corrupt institution can make is far bigger than some "bad" individual can do on their own.

_heimdall 4mo ago

This extreme makes the question meaningless. A government isn't a government if it can't regulate and has no authority. Its fundamentally different to say governments or individuals should have no power or freedom. By design, governments have the winning end of a power imbalance and limiting them helps protect those on the losing end. Limiting those already on the losing end makes it worse for almost everyone (assuming the government is a small portion of the population).

PaulHoule 4mo ago
There’s a certain argument that people are just in over their heads for a society as large and complex as our and we just can’t cut it. Nothing that won’t be fixed by overshoot.
- TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
  Don't worry. AI will fix that. I repeat - don't worry.
  - PaulHoule 4mo ago
    AI doesn’t have skin in the game
- cindyllm 4mo ago
  [dead]
inigyou 4mo ago
We're supposed to be giving governments the winning end because if they don't have it, robber barons will. Supposed to.
- bombcar 4mo ago
  A huge part of the problem is that we’ve made everything so big that we have a choice between the dragon and the hydra. Fight for localization.

glimshe 4mo ago

You essentially made the libertarian argument without realizing it. According to this line of thinking, we should leave as little as possible in the hands of government exactly because it's either bad already or it will eventually be bad. We should then apply an exceptionally high bar to government responsibilities. These would be things that would be even worse in private hands (police for a simple example).

baq 4mo ago
The fallacy of the libertarian argument is the assumption that it’s possible to have a small distributed government trivially doesn’t hold in presence of bigger adversarial monolithic governments elsewhere.