Originally Posted By: sinij


I think this is part of human condition, you can't talk about elimination here, rather lessening impact of corruption. As to regulation, you have to balance the need to diminish plutocracy vs. controlling direct destructive behavior. Idea of a corporation and maximizing of profits above all forces society down regulation path, corporation social construct completely lacks internal controls and can only operate "for greater good" within rigid regulatory framework.


Well you are correct in saying that corruption will never go away totally, and I never meant to imply as much in such absolute terms.

I think a major difference between us here, is the use of prior restraint. Perhaps in some instances with particularly volatile/harmful materials, such as toxic sludge - prior restraint may be applicible and the sludge should be controlled and accounted for throughout its lifecycle. But in general, I think overuse of prior restraint is harmful - people should only be prosecuted if they commit a real harm.

In other words, if you need to have enough capital to hire three teams of lawyers, compliance consultants and accountants to cover your ass just to set up and perform a simple business function without going to jail... you are reinforcing the paradigm of the ruling investor class / 1%. This is why your general philosophy doesnt seem to make much sense to me much of the time. You say we need to free up the power of the rest of the populace, from the top elite classes. Ok - I am with you there. But at least the way you word your solutions seems to want to implement processes that actually reinforce and institutionalize the power of said classes.

Or in other words, I think you advocate a level of control that the general public is incapable of following and managing properly. Rather, I think laws and regulations should focus on particular pain points and be very clear, limited, and focused.

Dump toxic waste? Ok goto jail. Commit Fraud? Ok, same. And there are plenty of other things of course that should be prohibited and enforced. But we should also be careful not to go overboard.

Finally, I do not think that operating "for the greater good" should be something required or expected of people of corporations. It just so happens, that when people or corporations act to create economic value without violating the natural rights of others in the process- that the "greater good" just happens to benefit. But expecting people to live for others is something I think is wrong. Live for yourself, govt should be there as a collective means to protect rights - not force one person or groups opinions on morality on the rest. That is how conflict get started in the first place. Over any significant timescale, no govt manages that level of involvement in society with equanimity. Once you start down that path, societal inequality and upheaval become inevitable.

Originally Posted By: sinij

I don't think this system could be fixed from within, with less (or more) regulation, but only by decoupling it from political system. For example criminalizing lobbying, forbidding corporate and anonymous political contributions, and setting and enforcing personal contribution maximums will result in much better elected government capable of creating rational policy that leads to reasonable regulation. If this is not enough, then direct representation is within our technological reach.


I am with you for your first sentence. Decoupling business success from govt is absolutely needed. Though I think your solution is mostly too complicated to work in real terms.

I agree that political contributions should absolutely not be anonymous. While I do not think that free speech should be prohibited, including the ability of wealthy people to buy as many advertisements spreading their opinion as they wish - free speech and anonymous political donations are not the same thing.

I also agree that corporate contributions are not kosher. The money should first pass into the hands of individuals, and the donations of said individuals disclosed when they are in excess of a certain amount.

One thing though that I cannot agree with, is your concept of direct representation. I disagree that we have the technology to safely pull it off, and I also do not think that popular sovereignty is good governance. Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Republicanism (as in the concept, not the modern political party) is the only way to go - with representation + strict Constitutional rules limiting govt and protecting basic rights. Where we have gone wrong, is not due to any lack of direct representation but rather the erosion of our Constitutional protection over time via sophistry, wordplay, and a general attitude that popular or mob will is of greater importance than the protections the Founders tried to bestow upon us.

Originally Posted By: sinij

Interesting. Where you see a utopia driven by intellectual pursuits, I see dystopia of 99% living in the slums and 1% taking conspicuous consumption to new unprecedented levels. If all the wealth (and power) concentrated in 1%, who and more importantly with what money, are going to pay for all these new and novel activities. We already see RIAA and the likes creating various Mikey Mouse laws to control flow of entertainment, imagine if this is taken to a whole new level with a control over all flow of information!


Well, I wouldnt overstate what type of utopia you think I see. For the record utopia is impossible, I was simply pointing out that people do not stop working or finding ways to create value simply because the old ways of doing things change. So I think your doom and gloom scenario of hordes of useless people due to factory jobs continuing to go away is overstated. Historically,

Now as far as the RIAA... you are certainly onto something. The difference, is I see your "progressive" agenda as having created that reality and continuing to encourage those practices.

This is exactly the type of laws and regulation that I fear and am opposed to. Govt control over the flow of information is certainly something we need to avoid at almost any cost.

Last edited by Derid; 10/11/12 05:24 PM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)