- 26 Nov 2012 21:03
#14115463
I disagree. The vast majority of North Americans do not know or care about the issues of indigenous people. Thus, the wishes of the majority could have no effect.
You are suggesting that a system where people may profit from exposing the crimes of others is as effective as a system where there is a direct reward from exposing crimes of others.
This is not the case. To get back to indigenous people, they mobilised and effected political action without a significant number of the electorate caring or even noticing.
There is no reason to assume that the incentives of the competing rich people are any more aligned to the interests of the common people.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Eran wrote:I wouldn't say "vast" majority, but sure, only when most people accept it is the basis for the legitimate use of force.
Precisely, of course, as is the case for your system. Native American rights (not to mention those of African Americans) weren't protected just because government (or even a Constitution) was in place. It took a majority of people deciding that it is illegitimate to use force against Native Americans (or African Americans) in particular ways for those practices to end.
I disagree. The vast majority of North Americans do not know or care about the issues of indigenous people. Thus, the wishes of the majority could have no effect.
Possibly. But more importantly, private entities (whether for and not-for profit) would "dig dirt" on other actors. We have that already, with journalists, activists and advocacy groups exposing corporate (as well as governmental) malfeasance.
In the society I anticipate, many if not most people would buy insurance against crime. That would make it in the interest of insurance companies to ensure that crime is fairly and effectively prosecuted.
You are suggesting that a system where people may profit from exposing the crimes of others is as effective as a system where there is a direct reward from exposing crimes of others.
Not as bad as today's situation. Today, you can only mobilise political action if a significant number of the entire electorate cares about your issues. In a free society, it is enough that a much smaller number of people in a similar position exist for an entrepreneur to identify that as a niche market that can be served.
This is not the case. To get back to indigenous people, they mobilised and effected political action without a significant number of the electorate caring or even noticing.
Perhaps. But government is an all-or-nothing proposition. Once captured, people are at its mercy. A private police force might serve some wealthy people, but then other members of society aren't required by law to fund it. They can throw their money to competing police forces, better positioned to serve their interests.
There is no reason to assume that the incentives of the competing rich people are any more aligned to the interests of the common people.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...