3 ms·

"Doing her job and obeying the law" is not an excuse. "Doing her job" would have been to tell MIT (or whoever was responsible for this affair to end up on her d

by rolux 14y ago

"Doing her job and obeying the law" is not an excuse. "Doing her job" would have been to tell MIT (or whoever was responsible for this affair to end up on her desk) to go away. Even though I am aware that's not how becoming a "career prosecutor" in the US justice system works. Remains the fact that none of the bright minds that congregate under news.ycombinator.com seems to have the slightest idea how "attacking the laws" is supposed to work. Apart from maybe a vague theory of erosion that appears far less convincing than pretty much anything most people here would dare to argue in the context of, say, a business plan.

jacquesm 14y ago
It's essentially a problem of corruption. If you want to 'beat the system from within', for instance by joining the political stage or by becoming insanely wealthy through some corporate scheme so you can use your power to lobby you will end up being such an integrated part of the system that arguing against it will argue to a large extent against your own interest. That's why the situation persists. If you could convince large numbers of voters to vote their own interests instead of being tricked into voting based on inconsequential talking points you'd end up with Ralph Nader for president instead of a democrat or a republican. Fix that and you can fix everything else with relative ease. But that's a very hard problem to fix, if it is even possible. So you get individual fighting windmills at a level that they can relate to instead.
- rolux 14y ago
  So if that was the venture you wanted me to support ("convince voters to vote their interest, and thus for a very different type of president" - seems to be a venture with a "media" or "campaign funding" angle, and I agree, it's a hard problem), then my question would be: How do you assure that president will not be corrupted or compromised as well? How will he be able to tell every single person who is invested in the laws you're trying to attack (from corporate interests that are so huge that they're usually awarded cabinet posts to the sheer drag of gigantic bureaucracies invested in existing career paths) to go away? How can he practically reach the most powerful political position without sacrificing this very ability? Plus: Imagine what would be the smartest, most malicious attacks on your plan. How would you counter them? (Edit: None of these are rhetorical questions, of course. I do believe these laws have to be attacked. But if you asked me, maybe I'd rather invest in something like the study of political tectonics, earthquakes. Why do they happen so rarely, what makes them so destructive, and how can one provoke them?)
- roc 14y ago
  It's not so much corruption as an inevitable extension of the incentive structure. If you tried to change a DA's office from the inside, you'd get about as far as if you tried to change an investment bank from the inside: you'd be fired, because your moral approach would have a definite negative impact on the number they use to measure your productivity. You'd never get past making copies unless you assimilated. And even if you went 'deep undercover' and didn't assert your morality until you reached a position of influence, you'd simply be bounced from that spot, as you (and now your entire office or division) continued to deliver 'worse' numbers than those who would replace you.

by rolux 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

It's essentially a problem of corruption. If you want to 'beat the system from within', for instance by joining the political stage or by becoming insanely wealthy through some corporate scheme so you can use your power to lobby you will end up being such an integrated part of the system that arguing against it will argue to a large extent against your own interest. That's why the situation persists. If you could convince large numbers of voters to vote their own interests instead of being tricked into voting based on inconsequential talking points you'd end up with Ralph Nader for president instead of a democrat or a republican. Fix that and you can fix everything else with relative ease. But that's a very hard problem to fix, if it is even possible. So you get individual fighting windmills at a level that they can relate to instead.

rolux 14y ago
So if that was the venture you wanted me to support ("convince voters to vote their interest, and thus for a very different type of president" - seems to be a venture with a "media" or "campaign funding" angle, and I agree, it's a hard problem), then my question would be: How do you assure that president will not be corrupted or compromised as well? How will he be able to tell every single person who is invested in the laws you're trying to attack (from corporate interests that are so huge that they're usually awarded cabinet posts to the sheer drag of gigantic bureaucracies invested in existing career paths) to go away? How can he practically reach the most powerful political position without sacrificing this very ability? Plus: Imagine what would be the smartest, most malicious attacks on your plan. How would you counter them? (Edit: None of these are rhetorical questions, of course. I do believe these laws have to be attacked. But if you asked me, maybe I'd rather invest in something like the study of political tectonics, earthquakes. Why do they happen so rarely, what makes them so destructive, and how can one provoke them?)
roc 14y ago
It's not so much corruption as an inevitable extension of the incentive structure. If you tried to change a DA's office from the inside, you'd get about as far as if you tried to change an investment bank from the inside: you'd be fired, because your moral approach would have a definite negative impact on the number they use to measure your productivity. You'd never get past making copies unless you assimilated. And even if you went 'deep undercover' and didn't assert your morality until you reached a position of influence, you'd simply be bounced from that spot, as you (and now your entire office or division) continued to deliver 'worse' numbers than those who would replace you.