Incentives under communism?

[Hygro]

IDK what it is like in your country but it is extremely common in Australia for someone in politics to push for policies that benefit the mining industry or the megacorporations that run most of our supermarkets and then by pure coincidence their party gets a large donation from said corporations and/or the politician retires to an extremely overpaid job in consulting for said corporations.


Maybe its not the most profitable outcome but most people don’t minmax their lives.

So you mean regulatory capture. And I agree that people will sell out for less than optimal, thousands. But most aren't going into politics because they want the money foremost. The payoff is terrible.

Do you disagree with me that most politicians are bought and sold?

Yes, I disagree.

 

[Lexicus]

Imo the problem is less that politicians are bribed than that almost none of them know how to respond to a capital strike.

 

[Akka]

It's nearly like we need a system that actually take into account that people won't just follow the script of how the system would like them to work.

(or in othe words : a system that isn't tailored to humans in general and not their idealized version of what the system value, is doomed to get corrupted and fail)

 

[Yeekim]

Because socially harmful professions like police, the military,

Tell you're Australian without telling you're Australian.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Tell you're Australian without telling you're Australian.

Mate, what the bloody hell are you talking about? Most Australians are much more supportive of the police and the military than I am.

 

[Narz]

What a utopian ideal free market capitalism is. Shame its never really been tried.

Pretty much.

Just human nature... the system/person/idea one is complaining about is total rubbish and destined for failure but the system/person/idea we support would work swimmingly if only it were given a proper chance (better understanding, better environment, whathaveyou)

 

[Yeekim]

Mate, what the bloody hell are you talking about? Most Australians are much more supportive of the police and the military than I am.

I guess one needs to have a whole continent to themselves with no aggressive neighbors within hundreds of miles to conceive of military as "socially harmful".
And I don't even know what's your issue with police, unless it is the convict legacy shining through.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I guess one needs to have a whole continent to themselves with no aggressive neighbors within hundreds of miles to conceive of military as "socially harmful".
And I don't even know what's your issue with police, unless it is the convict legacy shining through.

The military is a necessary evil. It's one of those things that the world would be better off without if they didn't exist. But they do. And since everyone else has one we each have to have one as well.

 

[Lexicus]

I guess one needs to have a whole continent to themselves with no aggressive neighbors within hundreds of miles to conceive of military as "socially harmful".

If you didn't have an aggressive Russia you could surely find better uses for the resources you devote to your military. That's what socially harmful means in this context. This is not difficult to understand; being deliberately dense is not helpful.

And I don't even know what's your issue with police, unless it is the convict legacy shining through.

Yeah, I mean, without the police who would laugh off your report of being sexually assaulted and then show up at your house to shoot your dog?

 

[Moriarte]

So you mean regulatory capture. And I agree that people will sell out for less than optimal, thousands. But most aren't going into politics because they want the money foremost. The payoff is terrible.

Most people going into politics are not in a position to direct large sums of money. Therefore, "most" argument is theoretically limited by the size of the trough. If and when some of them get to the top, a very small % of people, they are presented with interesting choices! The system itself favours fusion of capital and political forces. Happens every single time at the very top? Probably not. But there is built-in bias toward that activity, around it there is a community of people, who can become veery ingenious when it comes to organising capital flows so everyone concerned gets remunerated in as low key as possible.

Oligarchs are filthy rich, civil servants and politicians are dirt poor, in comparison. Oligarchs have interests, politicians hold keys to these interests. Fertile ground for various conspiracies. Even in China, where politicians can get shot/imprisoned for betraying public interest, some of them overcome the fear and still fudging do it. What happens in the rest of the world, where that fear is relegated to history, we can only imagine.

 

[Narz]

Most people going into politics are not in a position to direct large sums of money. Therefore, "most" argument is theoretically limited by the size of the trough. If and when some of them get to the top, a very small % of people, they are presented with interesting choices! The system itself favours fusion of capital and political forces. Happens every single time at the very top? Probably not. But there is built-in bias toward that activity, around it there is a community of people, who can become veery ingenious when it comes to organising capital flows so everyone concerned gets remunerated in as low key as possible.

Oligarchs are filthy rich, civil servants and politicians are dirt poor, in comparison. Oligarchs have interests, politicians hold keys to these interests. Fertile ground for various conspiracies. Even in China, where politicians can get shot/imprisoned for betraying public interest, some of them overcome the fear and still fudging do it. What happens in the rest of the world, where that fear is relegated to history, we can only imagine.

Perhaps most smaller politicians will not be directly bribed but they will still be subject to corrupted incentives and under pressure to conform.

 

[Yeekim]

If you didn't have an aggressive Russia you could surely find better uses for the resources you devote to your military. That's what socially harmful means in this context. This is not difficult to understand; being deliberately dense is not helpful.

Sure ... if only. As they say "If auntie had wheels, she'd be an omnibus".

Yeah, I mean, without the police who would laugh off your report of being sexually assaulted and then show up at your house to shoot your dog?

Someone doing their job poorly does not make the job itself "harmful".

 

[Akka]

Doctors are socially harmful too. If only there were no diseases, we wouldn't need to waste resources into healthcare. Damn harmful parasites !

 

[Lexicus]

Someone doing their job poorly does not make the job itself "harmful".

The job is to repress the working class with violence. It's like the military, in an ideal world it would not exist.

 

[Gorbles]

Someone doing their job poorly does not make the job itself "harmful".

Weird, that gets levelled at socialists all the time

 

[soundjata]

The job is to repress the working class with violence. It's like the military, in an ideal world it would not exist.

There are some nuances depending on the geography but in most case, yes.

I'll cite an emblematic example from 1984.
The 'iron lady' using mounted police force to fiercely repress workers movement (against the privatisation of public services etc...) in UK

Spoiler the job? :

 

[Yeekim]

The job is to repress the working class with violence. It's like the military, in an ideal world it would not exist.

What would you call the institution whose job it would be to react when one guy axe-murders another in a drunken quarrel? Or don't such things happen in your ideal world either?

Weird, that gets levelled at socialists all the time

There are, in fact, police forces which do their job reasonably well and enjoy high level of trust/support of population as a result.

Eesti elanikud usaldavad kõige rohkem päästet ja politseid

Eesti elanikud usaldavad kõige rohkem päästeametit ning politsei- ja piirivalveametit, vähenenud on usaldus Euroopa Liidu vastu.

www.postimees.ee

Google translate:

out of the twelve security policy-related institutions submitted for evaluation, 96.3 percent of Estonian residents trust the rescue agency, 87.4 percent trust the police and border guard agency, and 78.2 percent trust the defense force.

 

[Gorbles]

There are, in fact, police forces which do their job reasonably well and enjoy high level of trust/support of population as a result.

There are, in fact, socialists that don't fall into the stereotypes people apply to them. I'm just all for people being consistent in their opposition to generalisations, when they demonstrate a selective affinity for them.

 

[Lexicus]

What would you call the institution whose job it would be to react when one guy axe-murders another in a drunken quarrel?

I don't know, probably something like the Committee for Public Safety.

 

[Sarin]

I don't know, probably something like the Committee for Public Safety.

Are they authorized, trained and equipped to use force if necessary to protect people from the axe murderer? Are they authorized and trained to investigate those axe murders, determine who did it, detain the person and hand them to justice?