Hacker News
points by tomaskafka 1 day ago | 0 comments
As long as there are people who allocate billions with a sign of the pen, with zero personal responsibility and skin in the game, there will be whole industries dedicated to swaying their hand.
[–] godelski 1 day ago
I think everyone understands this already. But there's also a big difference between making it easy for industries to sway politicians and difficult. That's what actually matters.

To put it another way, I still put a lock on my door even though lockpicks exist. I still use passwords on my accounts even though people could guess or brute force them.

Don't trivialize things to uselessness

[–] estearum 1 day ago
Right, and there can be laws that make their efforts more or less effective.

For example, we could behead people convicted of corrupting or being corrupted. That would be a significant deterrent.

[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
> we could behead people convicted of corrupting or being corrupted

This has historically done nothing for corruption and everything for one-party rule.

[–] cael450 1 day ago
Yeah, all we really need to do is pass laws that make some of this corruption actually illegal instead of "constitutionally protected speech."
[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
We need to amend the Constitution to strike pardon power and give the Congress the power to pass property taxes (aka wealth taxes) and regulate donations to campaigns, candidates, parties and partisan causes.

We also need law establishing mandatory retirement for Congressmen and judges, including justices, and a system where each President appoints (with Senate consent) one and only one justice to SCOTUS. Finally, yes, pass McCain-Feingold, pass a SCOTUS ethics bill and make corruption charges easier to bring.

[–] InitialLastName 1 day ago
> a system where each President appoints (with Senate consent) one and only one justice to SCOTUS.

This is my only significant disagreement with you. This should be two justices:

1) An 18-year (9*2) term is more compatible with age limits than a 36-year term

2) Each Senate class gets to participate in the appointment of one justice.

[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
> 1) An 18-year (9*2) term is more compatible with age limits than a 36-year term 2) Each Senate class gets to participate in the appointment of one justice

I like No. 1.

No. 2 seems overcomplicated compared with staggering retirements in the way Art. 1 § 3 cl. 2 staggers the Senate. The Senate is also more diverse than the Presidency; limiting the latter would check against some dirty tricks.

[–] kown7 1 day ago
While I like the sentiment, the law of unintended consequences will most likely strike back hard.
[–] estearum 1 day ago
I don't think this is necessarily a good policy. I'm saying it's obviously blatantly untrue to suggest that just because people will always want to corrupt public officials, that they will be equally successful in all possible universes.

It's also untrue to suggest that any intervention will necessarily create a worse outcome than the status quo.