4 ms·

Trying to stop these people feels like an exercise in futility. Having voiced my opinion to my own representatives over and over again it becomes very dishearte

Trying to stop these people feels like an exercise in futility. Having voiced my opinion to my own representatives over and over again it becomes very disheartening not seeing any change for the better. If only people didn't discard morals at the first sight of power and money. Having said all that, I would encourage more people to talk to their representatives regarding these issues. It goes without saying that unless the people have a voice then their desires won't be heard.

PythonicAlpha 12y ago
> Having said all that, I would encourage more people to talk to their representatives regarding these issues. It goes without saying that unless the people have a voice then their desires won't be heard. I can't emphasis this enough. The trouble is, that far to many people stand by and are silent.
- LunaSea 12y ago
  I think that the first part of socceroos's comment is more or less the answer to why people stand by silently.
  - ctchocula 12y ago
    This sounds like a coordination problem [1]. If only one person writes a letter to their representative, it doesn't do anything and that person is the only one who comes out at a loss of x hours of their time. No policies are changed and everyone is stuck in a bad situation. If a significant portion of the representative's constituency sends letters and the net political effect overcomes the amount of donations the representative gets from intelligence companies, maybe they will actually begin an initiative for policy change. Everyone is better off, but it's hard to convince a critical mass of people that think it will succeed. [1] http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems
    - bmelton 12y ago
      Or possibly it's the bystander effect at play? This strikes me as somewhat less nefarious, and slightly more likely, given how unmotivated our nation tends to be to act on things more important than voting for American Idol winners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
sopooneo 12y ago
If we assume people, even good people, will generally discard morals at the first sight of money and power what can we do to make the system work anyway? Would some way of forcing transparency fix this underlying problem?
- Omniusaspirer 12y ago
  It's not a question of transparency, it's a question of how you can most remove the human element from government. There ought to be quantifiable measures of success that you can use to say "this is a good government" and "this is a bad government". We've demonstrated pretty well throughout history that humans when aggregated into large groups are basically incompetent- especially when power and money are involved.
- socceroos 12y ago
  Transparency is one of the keys - a very effective key. However, even transparency requires all actors to behave honourably in their transparency (not skewing the truth with white noise, not misdirecting the public to slip through unwanted policy, not manipulating or deleting data, etc). Also, there always comes a point in government where a certain level of information must remain secret (such as spy activity between states and within criminal organisations). If we were to force government transparency, I think we would see a marked rise in stonewalling due to 'national security' - the phrase itself is so general that anything could be under it's wing.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    A big part of transparency where there are legitimate purposes for secrecy is protection of whistle-blowers.
    - socceroos 12y ago
      Good point. Funnily enough, we see these basic protections being eroded systematically.
- rvn1045 12y ago

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

> Having said all that, I would encourage more people to talk to their representatives regarding these issues. It goes without saying that unless the people have a voice then their desires won't be heard. I can't emphasis this enough. The trouble is, that far to many people stand by and are silent.

LunaSea 12y ago
I think that the first part of socceroos's comment is more or less the answer to why people stand by silently.
- ctchocula 12y ago
  This sounds like a coordination problem [1]. If only one person writes a letter to their representative, it doesn't do anything and that person is the only one who comes out at a loss of x hours of their time. No policies are changed and everyone is stuck in a bad situation. If a significant portion of the representative's constituency sends letters and the net political effect overcomes the amount of donations the representative gets from intelligence companies, maybe they will actually begin an initiative for policy change. Everyone is better off, but it's hard to convince a critical mass of people that think it will succeed. [1] http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems
  - bmelton 12y ago
    Or possibly it's the bystander effect at play? This strikes me as somewhat less nefarious, and slightly more likely, given how unmotivated our nation tends to be to act on things more important than voting for American Idol winners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

sopooneo 12y ago

If we assume people, even good people, will generally discard morals at the first sight of money and power what can we do to make the system work anyway? Would some way of forcing transparency fix this underlying problem?

Omniusaspirer 12y ago
It's not a question of transparency, it's a question of how you can most remove the human element from government. There ought to be quantifiable measures of success that you can use to say "this is a good government" and "this is a bad government". We've demonstrated pretty well throughout history that humans when aggregated into large groups are basically incompetent- especially when power and money are involved.
socceroos 12y ago
Transparency is one of the keys - a very effective key. However, even transparency requires all actors to behave honourably in their transparency (not skewing the truth with white noise, not misdirecting the public to slip through unwanted policy, not manipulating or deleting data, etc). Also, there always comes a point in government where a certain level of information must remain secret (such as spy activity between states and within criminal organisations). If we were to force government transparency, I think we would see a marked rise in stonewalling due to 'national security' - the phrase itself is so general that anything could be under it's wing.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  A big part of transparency where there are legitimate purposes for secrecy is protection of whistle-blowers.
  - socceroos 12y ago
    Good point. Funnily enough, we see these basic protections being eroded systematically.
rvn1045 12y ago