Everyone thinks when they have power, they’ll use it correctly, because they have (from their perspective) good intentions.
An ideal government with total surveillance is the best case. You get the benefits of low crime without the drawback of corruption and ideology.
The problem is in practice:
- Large institutions aren’t good at exercising fine control: even if the leaders have truly good intentions, corrupt mid-level employees and inaccurate data lead to bad outcomes.
- Good leaders seem to often pick bad successors, and unless they frequently pick better successors, someone will eventually pick a corrupt one.
- Corrupt leaders seem to be good at ousting or sidelining good leaders, more than vice versa, perhaps because good leaders are less passionate about gaining and keeping power.
Perhaps there are other reasons. Not just ideal governments, but even self-preserving governments don’t tend to last. Hence, although decentralization and privacy are never ideal, they should exist at least for backup, “just in case” (inevitably in practice) the centralized surveillance system goes rouge.
Just like sex, any kind of power exchange needs consent.
This whole idea that people are led or need to be led is wrong. Perhaps some people do but that's their problem, it shouldn't be mine. What politicians are is decision makers, not leaders.
We don't have time to vote on every single law personally, so we appoint temporary assistants who do it for us, based on our preferences. That's how it should work.
These assistants should work for us, not lead us. We should always have the power to override their decisions and to remove and replace them at any time. Of course, making this work in a practical manner, while satisfying constraints such as secrecy of votes, is difficult. I don't dispute that but we should be striving to find ways to get as close to this ideal as possible, not making politics into a career or treating it as a reality show.
And most certainly, these assistants ("leaders" as you call them) should not be picking their successors without our consent.
Personally I would still call that leading/being led*, nonetheless that is a great reframe and I agree.
It also helps make the point of what it means to say “society is breaking down” or “democracy is at stake” or “faith in institutions in decline.” What it really means is that those whom were thought of as leaders no longer have the consent of the followers, who are making their own decisions now- often to ill effect of any strangers around them
*cf servant leadership as one particularly clear conceptualization
Voting isn't necessarily a better system. The majority of people will very frequently give up rights in any given specific case that, in general, they hold dear. We're not rational actors.
And there are a lot of really weird discussions to be had about "consent," too. If we allow unlimited speech, that means that we're all subject to marketing and propaganda, and that's another thing that people are quite vulnerable to. Being convinced to vote via propaganda isn't really a great example of consent. But banning any speech that resembles propaganda is rife with problems.
Anyway, my point is that democracy/voting and free speech isn't necessarily the most free/consented-to form of government. I'm not sure what would take its place, though. I certainly wish I knew.
Dunno where parent said anything about democracy. Democracy and voting aren’t the same thing also they rejected the idea of voting on every law (democracy).
It seems inherent in your worldview that you lack faith in people to self govern (that is, for a person to govern themselves. Which would explain why you are at odds with the parent. I suggest you read a bit of Jefferson’s ideas of self governance, education, etc. There are tradeoffs as with everything else, I do think based solely on your short commentary here that there may be an opportunity for your perspective to be enriched however
> And most certainly, these assistants ("leaders" as you call them) should not be picking their successors without our consent.
Whether they pick them or you pick them, you still have the same problem.
Bad people often get into office. Politicians lie, major parties both run bad candidates, sometimes voters are of the inclination to just elect whoever they think will mount the strongest assault on the status quo.
Expecting that never to happen is a lot less pragmatic than setting things up ahead of time to mitigate the damage when it does.
> sometimes voters are of the inclination to just elect whoever they think will mount the strongest assault on the status quo
This is absolutely a thing and it's a thing because at some point, people notice how little power they actually have.
Every person's opinion is a point in N-dimensional space.
Representative democracy is describing that point (expressing their political opinion) by picking 1 point out of a handful of pre-determined options (parties/representatives). Some countries only have 2 real choices.
That's absolutely insane, no wonder people feel like their vote doesn't matter, they often can't even find a choice remotely close to their real preferences.
But the people in office need some power, enough to cause problems if they're bad. Otherwise you have the failures of no government: "might makes right", no coordinated projects, no defense, etc.; or another group (e.g. corporation) becomes the de-facto government.
Hence the root problem, that we haven't discovered a way to consistently have "good" government, whether it's a dictatorship or democracy. Perhaps with technology, we can invent a better form of government, e.g. a "super-democracy" where people vote on individual decisions (though even today I can imagine issues that would cause).
Until then, the key point I make is that you can have a government where some people ("leaders") do have more power than others, but not enough power for total control. The hopefully-realistic ideal is that the government has enough power to defend itself against an external threat always, and coordinate large projects when functioning well; but not too much so that, when functioning badly, essential internal systems are preserved, and when it's replaced (because as mentioned it will eventually collapse) the transition is minimally disruptive.
> But the people in office need some power, enough to cause problems if they're bad. Otherwise you have the failures of no government: "might makes right", no coordinated projects, no defense, etc.; or another group (e.g. corporation) becomes the de-facto government.
You can prohibit the government from doing things it should never do (e.g. mass surveillance) without prohibiting it from doing things it ought to be doing (e.g. enforcing antitrust laws).
The problem is we currently do the opposite: The government is doing mass surveillance but not antitrust enforcement.
>Otherwise you have the failures of no government: "might makes right", no coordinated projects, no defense, etc.; or another group (e.g. corporation) becomes the de-facto government.
We're pretty f-ing far from even having to think about those problems.
> Perhaps some people do but that's their problem, it shouldn't be mine.
In aggregate most people do need leadership. The kind of technocratic/managerial approach you suggest has led to the current societal problems we have: a vacuum of real leadership being filled by people willing to do it.
Whether it "should" or "shouldn't" be your problem is irrelevant to the reality.
Functioning democracies do yank out their elected representatives. Not randomly or even arbitrarily of course, but when they step egregiously out of line. Votes of no confidence, recall elections, impeachment, general strikes demanding resignation, and a smattering of other measures are crucial checks on the abuse of power. Electing someone to be untouchable for a set period of time is a recipe for malfeasance with examples going back as far as the invention of the term "dictator".
Re-read the comment I replied to and check if that comment was referring to everything being great already because those systems are in place or if they were calling for some kind of ad-hoc popular vote at any point during a mandate based on not liking the policies, rather than for egregious actions as you described. Your reply is theoretically correct but not what I replied to.
Note: An ideal government wouldn't define a bunch of victimless behaviour as a crime. Low crime would mean low murder, low car hijackings, etc - things that actually affect people.
Definitions differ person to person, but many things we consider benign today like sexual activities between consenting adults, racial integration, even free travel have at times and in places been considered crimes.
Today, homelessness is often criminalized. As is drug use even among otherwise productive law abiding citizens. Assisted suicide is often criminalized, even for terminally ill and suffering consenting adults.
I think it really depends on what you consider to be a victimless crime. I think nobody considers the same thing both to be a crime and a victimless crime. For example the article discusses adultery. There is obviously a third person harmed there, it only matters whether you care about that enough. Same with drug use. Drug use forces people to do other crimes and also invites people to take drugs that wouldn't otherwise, whether you consider these to be victims is on you of course.
Something like 98% of humanity partakes of caffeine which is very clearly an addictive drug with one of the higher measures of addictive potential among all drugs in most evaluations. Drug use isn't what drives people to commit crime. Lack of support systems do. Drug use is often a coping mechanism associated with lack of support systems.
To quote John Ehrlichman, Whitehouse counsel and assistant to President Nixon: “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities”
Disrupted communities lack support systems and further drive folks to criminality as a means of surviving.
Homosexuality and sodomy (i.e. sex without the intent of procreation) are clearer examples of criminalized sexual behavior between two consenting adults. I know some folks who'd like to outlaw them today in the US and they are currently outlawed elsewhere, but I believe what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
Not all drugs are created equal, withdrawal symptoms are different.
> Homosexuality and sodomy
They do affect the future population count and this will affect the pension of everyone. They also will result in persons not being born. You can say that this is way less of importance then the right to do whatever you want, but it is not without effect to others.
> Not all drugs are created equal, withdrawal symptoms are different.
Not in my experience. I have voluntarily withdrawn from caffeine, opiates (administered by a hospital), and cannabis. All experiences were remarkably similar. When I run support groups for folks who've used drugs, I recommend folks experiment with caffeine withdrawal to gain experience with the process. It requires at least two weeks of cessation.
> They do affect the future population count
Seems that you're assuming homosexual folks would otherwise procreate if forced into heterosexual relationships, which is quite a stretch. I also know quite a few homosexual couples who raise scads of children. And childless heterosexual couples. This argument doesn't hold water.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business :) Victimless as it were.
That said, should you find yourself in a health emergency, as I did, and hooked up to a dilaudid drip for weeks, as I was, you may find experience with the symptoms of withdrawal to be quite useful for getting yourself through the worst of it, as I did.
Withdrawal is part of the human experience you don't always have a choice to avoid. Fear, avoidance, and ignorance of it makes potentially involuntary encounters with drugs more dangerous. Besides fueling unnecessarily destructive policy decisions.
Preventing misuse does not necessarily mean everyone should do it, so I fail to accept your logic.
Anyways I didn't want to discuss that, my claim was that you either think of something as victimless or you think it is a crime. Your data point seams to only fit this claim. To disprove it you would need to find something you consider victimless, but still think it should be a crime.
Why is misuse of drugs bad? And don't say "because it's misuse" - that would be circular.
I agree that people who think drugs, anal sex, or whatever should be a crime, can also rationalize that someone is the victim. They're wrong, of course, but they still think it.
When you said:
> They do affect the future population count and this will affect the pension of everyone. They also will result in persons not being born. You can say that this is way less of importance then the right to do whatever you want, but it is not without effect to others.
It appeared that you were not just stating what those crazy people who think anal sex should be a crime think, but what you thought. That's why you got replies arguing against the idea that anal sex should be a crime. You could have made it clear if you were just stating the views that crazy people have.
> And don't say "because it's misuse" - that would be circular.
Well that's the meaning of misuse, if it weren't bad it wouldn't be misuse. You can only ask whether something is misuse or how bad it is, asking whether misuse is bad is questioning a tautology.
> Why is misuse of drugs bad?
Actually I was replying to this:
> By your logic, then, if sodomy and homosexuality were illegal, then adults of child bearing age would be legally required to have sex.
So I was talking about misuse of sexuality.
> I agree that people who think drugs, anal sex, or whatever should be a crime, can also rationalize that someone is the victim.
Yes that what I wanted to point out. I was merely enumerating examples from the Wikipedia article.
> but what you thought.
I do think homosexuality is bad and unnatural. (No don't tell me it occurs in animals, any behaviour occurs in animals.) I don't think it should be a crime, so I don't think my opinion affects other people.
------
If we were to talk about my opinion about drugs in general, I think as to them being bad, they are kind of at the same level as money. You shouldn't become attached to them. They are more dangerous the more likely you become attached to them.
For any specific drug, I find the smell of cannabis to smell dangerous and poisonous in a weird and unexplainable way. I would like it, if this would go away, so I am in favor of banning it again. I also heard of studies indicating a rise in schizophrenia especially among young people (<30) and I don't wish that to anybody, just because someone tries to make money. I also don't think it's smart to do that, if you already have a lack of young people. But I lack the knowledge to check this for soundness.
I wouldn't mind smoking to go away from public spaces, I hate when I'm forced to inhale this. But I can't judge if it is justified.
I think alcohol is grand-fathered in. I also think there are very different kind of alcoholic beverages and also very different kind of usages. There are cultures that regularly drink liquor before eating heavy food, because it has a positive impact on the digestive system, but this is only about a few milliliters, so it is more like medicine. There is also a bit of alcohol in every apple. I think alcoholic beverages are too fundamentally incorporated in our culture, so I would find it sad to see it go away. I wouldn't mind having additional restrictions on harder stuff.
I don't think coffee causes any larger issues.
I also think we don't need to discuss restricting access to sugar. Medical appliance of drugs is very restricted and constantly reevaluated.
I wish that large amounts of money would be more regulated, but I don't think we should touch the concept of private ownership. Also fashion or cars are the drugs of many, and now there is a large supply of non-physical drugs, but I don't know any non-restrictive policy that I want to support there.
I don't have experienced any other/harder drug and I prefer it to stay that way.
I do not now the meaning of something where badness != misuse.
> Well, friend, that's the meaning of natural. "Found in nature"
That's one meaning of nature. Other meanings are the nature of X, as in what is an intrinsic motivation or purpose, and natural law, but I guess you don't recognize that as valid concept.
Would you agree to "Killing others is natural"? You wouldn't expect "natural" to have the first meaning there either.
A lot of disagreements boil down to a different usage of a word, so "word games" are not fruitless in a discussion.
If it is important, then I would define misuse of a drug by motivation (high or low) and by application (whether the dose fits the motivation). misuse = low || dose != motivation; And I would say that this is bad, because low motivation doesn't satisfy the harm any drugs causes and a wrong does doesn't achieve the intended outcome.
None of this has any logical consistency, sorry. You weren't able to provide a rational argument for why using drugs is bad - only a circular one (it's bad because it's misuse; it's misuse because it's bad). I've heard this "nature of" and "natural law" line of argument before and it's very similar: strict heterosexuality is the nature of things because you said so despite all actual evidence to the contrary. There's no science experiment you can do to prove that, and many you can do to prove it wrong, but natural law proponents still insist it's true because they said so. "Natural law" / "nature of" is a meaningless word game.
Killing others is natural. That's a factual statement.
"I would define misuse of a drug by motivation (high or low) and by application (whether the dose fits the motivation)" is indecipherable, and therefore devoid of semantic content. It seems the war on drugs has created a problem of nobody knowing the slightest thing about drugs.
> None of this has any logical consistency, sorry.
Can you please counter any concrete logical step, instead of just dismissing it because you don't like it?
> You weren't able to provide a rational argument for why using drugs is bad - only a circular one
I stated that I consider misuse and badness to be that same thing, so no that was obviously not my argument. I told you what I consider to be the questions I would decide misuse on. Feel free to provide another definition.
> I've heard this "nature of" and "natural law" line of argument before and it's very similar
I don't expect you to agree with the philosophy of the scholastics, I only wanted to clarify my view.
> strict heterosexuality is the nature of things because you said
I think you again mistook "nature of a thing" to have a the meaning of everything the thing does do in nature. As such that would be an everything statement.
> "Natural law" / "nature of" is a meaningless word game.
No it's not. I don't accept you as the arbiter of philosophy, that just declares philosophy concepts to don't exist.
> There's no science experiment you can do to prove that, and many you can do to prove it wrong
The experiment is, do solely policy X in isolation with an isolated population. Do you like the outcome or not?
> [my definition] is indecipherable, and therefore devoid of semantic content.
Thanks. Can you please tell, what you don't understand, instead of declaring it to not have a semantic meaning?
> has created a problem of nobody knowing the slightest thing about drugs.
Could you please educate us on your mysterious knowledge about the nature of drugs? In case you somehow took that to be the case, I did not claim, that I consider any use of a drug to be misuse. I think I gave some examples in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45598978 .
I am serious. Maybe there is something lost in translation. My dictionary gives me:
disposition <n>, nature <n>, nature <n> of a person, nature <n> of a thing, temper <n>, mettle sb. is made of <n> [archaic], natural <adj>, quiddity <n>, particular nature <n> (of a matter), essence <n>, suchness <n>
The examples make me think, that English indeed does have this meaning of the word "nature", and it's only you who doesn't know this, but maybe you would prefer a different word?
> I do not now the meaning of something where badness != misuse.
Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement.
> A lot of disagreements boil down to a different usage of a word
Here you are making the same case yourself.
> Would you agree to "Killing others is natural"?
Happens all the time in nature, including the last time you ate a hamburger or some beans or bread. Happens also in self-defense and territorial disputes.
We also observe predators and prey co-existing peacefully in nature at times. I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding. Further, it's one which can only be argued by someone who's connection to their food ends at the grocery store. Wild that some folks have forgotten what they are giving thanks for at mealtime.
You may not consider animals or plants to be "others", but then you've only given me additional reason to discount your moral judgement as incomplete, narcissistic, and even further disconnected from the nature you invoke as justification.
> Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement.
The claim I stated that that started this thread was, that different definitions of badness are accompanied by different but respective definitions of misuse.
> Here you are making the same case yourself.
Yes? I used a word having some meaning in mind, you interpreted it with a different meaning, which obviously doesn't work. You pointed that out, so I pointed out, that that was not the meaning of the word I was using it for.
> I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding.
I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said.
That's what I was answering to, with "Killing others is natural". This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court. Because animals (including humans) can do and do something, does not mean we want to cater to that as a society. In fact restricting things, that might not even be bad in isolation, is what separates civilization from the undomesticated.
> Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a moral argument in court.
"I (accidentally) killed him, while trying to protect me." is very different from "Oh, killing is just (second) nature to me, I need the daily kick." When you need to have a serious threat to make you do something, then that thing is in fact not your nature.
> I think not.
I pointed out another example of that meaning of the word "nature" and you answered as if I made claims about morality of killing or slaughtering people/animals?
You state this like there aren't numerous other ways to fund these programs already.
We can start with actually taxing people with multiple piles of Scrooge McDuck money, as opposed to the current approach of cutting social programs that benefit millions of citizens to provide even MORE tax breaks for these "people".
Your statement:
> Homosexuality and sodomy
They do affect the future population count and this will affect the pension of everyone. They also will result in persons not being born. You can say that this is way less of importance then the right to do whatever you want, but it is not without effect to others.
===============================================================================
I assumed you were concerned with all social programs and not just your personal pension, hence the statement. Fixing pensions, while all other social safety net programs get gutted is not the way. Basic breeding by heterosexuals isn't the panacea you seem to believe it is, imo.
The real issue with US population growth is the insane world we live in. It's not "the gays failing to procreate". That's a laughable statement.
WTF would want to bring children into the world when literal criminals, rapists and alcoholics are running things, racism is on the rise and cheered, laws are optional for specific groups of people while abused for everyone else, SCOTUS is a complete parody of a court, Congress is run by wholly unserious people, prices of everything are rocketing up not because of genuine supply chain issues, or similar, but because of plain, old greed and much, much, much more.
Let's not forget that AI is being developed at a record pace to replace jobs, while shafting the working class, instead of being used to uplift everyone.
"The gays" were never the problem and never will be for population growth.
Yes, I was only talking about pensions, I don't think homosexuality has an effect on any other social security system.
Trying to fix pensions by forbidding homosexuality is laughable yes. There aren't even enough homosexuals for that to matter.
However a standard way to evaluate social norms is the categorical imperative. If everybody was homosexual we would have an issue there. But the only thing I wanted to say is that it does affect people, I didn't want to propose or defend any policy change.
Also I wasn't talking about money. This only gets you a portion of the future economy, the amount of young people decides how much economy there will be.
> WTF would want to bring children into the world when literal criminals, rapists and alcoholics are running things, racism is on the rise and cheered, laws are optional for specific groups of people while abused for everyone else, SCOTUS is a complete parody of a court, Congress is run by wholly unserious people, prices of everything are rocketing up not because of genuine supply chain issues, or similar, but because of plain, old greed and much, much, much more.
I don't live in the USA, so I don't think I should have opinions about your internal issues, but I do think you have a problem with authoritarianism there. But whose country hasn't so who am I to judge. However I do not understand this sentiment. How does it matter if the world is a shit show? When wasn't it that in the large scale of things? That seams to be the exception not the rule. It also completely fails to account, that people tend to have more children in darker times not less. Also how do you improve that world if not by raising children. You won't have any more lasting impact on the way of life of someone than on your children. "Science advances on funeral at a time." I think this applies to everything.
The categorical imperative always admits more than one possible rule. The rule that works here is that everyone should have sex with whatever gender they want to - not that everyone should be homosexual. Since most people are straight, the human race won't go extinct.
"It's bad to breathe molecule #346739572384143 of oxygen, because if everyone would breathe molecule #346739572384143 of oxygen, we'd all share the same lungs and be some kind of Siamese octbillionuplets"
The categorical imperative says: decide rules that would be good if everybody followed them, and then follow those rules. "Everyone should be homosexual" seems to be a bad rule, but "everyone should have sex with whatever gender they like" seems to be a good rule, so you should follow it. It doesn't say you shouldn't be homosexual because it would be bad if everyone was homosexual.
That would be more akin to say that everyone must sleep with the first lady, so no it's not the same thing at all. What I'm stating is more to decide whether you should breath a gas or a liquid.
> The categorical imperative says: decide rules that would be good if everybody followed them
No, it's a measure to decide which rules should can be considered good in the first place.
> "everyone should have sex with whatever gender they like"
If you think this a good rule, then you should also be content, with a world where everyone is homosexual. Are you?
> It doesn't say you shouldn't be homosexual because it would be bad if everyone was homosexual.
That's exactly what it says. It builds on the fact, that rules that only apply for some people, are generally considered to be unjust. If a rule is acceptable, it has to be still acceptable, if everyone would use it in the same direction. If you don't like that result, then either the rule is bad, or you accept different standards for different people. ("Rules for thee, but not for me.")
If inviting someone to take drugs is a crime because it harms others, then inviting someone to take drugs should be the crime - taking them yourself should not be. You could even stretch it to mean that taking drugs in public should be a crime (like how it is with sex) since other people might see you. But it doesn't justify making it illegal to take drugs in private.
> Although the acquisition, cultivation and possession, import and export (smuggling), and trade, as well as other forms of distribution of narcotics, are punishable under the Narcotics Act, this does not apply to mere consumption. The consumption of a drug meets the freedom of action and is therefore protected by the German constitution. Colloquially, this is also called “the right to get high”. Any prohibition or ban would be against the constitution and, therefore, is not enforceable. But since the offence of possession is already met by solely holding something in your hands, one of the above-mentioned actions is always going to be equally met when consuming a drug.
I think the law is defined that way, so that you don't do anything illegal, if someone points a gun at you and tells you to eat this powder or else... .
Think of smoking marijuana on your balcony at home. Society does not get better if we punish that more - or at all. That just shouldn't be a crime to begin with. You also shouldn't do it, because smoking is bad for you, but that's not a reason to make it a crime.
Though it may be that a better society makes fewer people want to smoke.
You do pay people growing plants that don't provide a good to society and you do alter your state of mind which affects others and you do destroy your health a cost which also payed by others.
Watching Netflix. You pay people streaming movies that don't provide a good to society and you do alter your state of mind which affects others and you do destroy your health a cost which also payed by others.
The argument you used earlier could be applied to literally anything, so if it's valid, literally everything should be a crime. I don't think the argument is valid.
You can't counter-argue that streaming movies is good for society, but growing plants isn't. I think it's the other way around, actually.
They do produce movies. I think comparing them to producing addictives to keep a mafia and money washing system operating is a bit disingenuous. I also think movies in general do not remove your ability to form clean thoughts, having goals in life and invoke hallucinations and make you paranoid.
Maybe I shouldn't have used a bunch of euphemisms that sound ridiculous when taken literally.
Some drugs are addictive. Some are not. Some are pretty benign. Do you drink coffee? Alcohol? Actually, alcohol is much worse for you than some illegal drugs are. So is Tylenol - that's actually one of the easiest drugs to fatally overdose on, and you can buy it over the counter. Perhaps each substance should be judged on its own merits and not whether it's legal or illegal.
There's a reason Plato's Republic looks authoritarian to people, because it models a city in which justice is the highest good, and justice and freedom are ultimately opposed to each other.
Since governments and laws exist to ensure justice, freedom will always be the price we pay.
Governments mostly exist to coordinate resource usage to out compete other societies.
Some amount of justice and welfare and roads, or whatever other things (varied by society and time period), are what they pay us so that our compliance is mostly voluntary and is therefore substantially more efficient.
You can bicker over exact word choice and the minute, but this general form is how it's always been from the present all the way back into the ancient world.
>There's a reason Plato's Republic looks authoritarian to people, because it models a city in which justice is the highest good, and justice and freedom are ultimately opposed to each other.
An ideal government with total surveillance is the best case. You get the benefits of low crime without the drawback of corruption and ideology. The problem is in practice:
- Large institutions aren’t good at exercising fine control: even if the leaders have truly good intentions, corrupt mid-level employees and inaccurate data lead to bad outcomes.
- Good leaders seem to often pick bad successors, and unless they frequently pick better successors, someone will eventually pick a corrupt one.
- Corrupt leaders seem to be good at ousting or sidelining good leaders, more than vice versa, perhaps because good leaders are less passionate about gaining and keeping power.
Perhaps there are other reasons. Not just ideal governments, but even self-preserving governments don’t tend to last. Hence, although decentralization and privacy are never ideal, they should exist at least for backup, “just in case” (inevitably in practice) the centralized surveillance system goes rouge.