51–60 of 119 posts
Pretty sure cops see other cops break laws far more serious than speeding and say nothing, every single week. How can you expect any cop to be honest if they watch others break the law and say nothing? You'll never change bad behavior if there is no penalty for that behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. They were everybody . Also in totalitarian dystopias. The thing is, before you get to who the police is (and it being everybody can be OK), it's more important to know what to police for and what is considered an offense.
Hunter-gatherer societies that did fit this model could be considered to be the ultimate totalitarian organizations. Extremely strict rules controlling every aspect of the life of the members, from birth to death, and no deviation ever tolerated, under pain of banishment or even death.
I thought the article was too lengthy/wordy, so I didn't read it all. I was curious if it described the same anti-corruption approach that I know was once suggested in India: "legalize one side of the corruption". That makes those in a corruption scheme think twice (or more) -- now both sides are equally punishable (thus create a bond by bribing/taking-bribe). That's also a game-theory approach to corruption!
The article is lengthy but ultimately boils down to what one of the other comments mentioned: Game theory predicts that corruption is inevitable when only a subset of the population is empowered to enforce societal norms. Hence, the only way to eliminate corruption is by empowering all of the members of a society to enforce societal norms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's a function of me living in a small town, but I have only once seen police doing anything dangerous while driving. I've NEVER seen one use his siren to get through a red-light, either. When they have the siren on, they're typically driving much faster than normal, but normally they're indistinguishable from a normal driver. The one incident I did see was a motorcycle officer do a U-turn across four lanes to…
Small town makes a big difference. What are the odds that a friend of a friend (or even a cousin) sees the cop do something stupid, compared to a large town? [edit] To put this in the context of the article, if a Cop does something publicly stupid in a small town, there will be a social penalty levied against them when they e.g. sit down for a beer next to someone who saw them do something stupid.
~35k population.
I have no idea who any police officers are, nor have I ever (knowingly) sat down next to one...anywhere. I occasionally see a group of them at Arby's or something, eating with each other at lunch.
FWIW I have a very wide social circle in town, here (I own a bar)--but it includes no police officers.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I can't shake the thought that this will simply lead to the formation of gangs/clans.
I think social media is a somewhat relevant corollary, where it self-polices content. I'd say sometimes--like HN--it's a success. Good behavior is encouraged & enforced. Bad behavior is punished. Other times--like reddit--not a success. The hive-mind is real there, and in particular well-mannered disagreement that is misaligned with the norm is punished pretty strongly there. Plus we all have heard how their investig…
> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. > They were everybody. Attributed to John Peel in his establishment of London Metropolitan Police: “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police , the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention…
> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. They were everybody . Also in totalitarian dystopias. The thing is, before you get to who the police is (and it being everybody can be OK), it's more important to know what to police for and what is considered an offense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In reality, I would think that such a system would result in mob violence, sometimes triggered by good information, but often triggered by hearsay and rumors. Basically what you see today on social media, where everyone is empowered to be an agent of "justice" (a public shaming and harassment-based justice system).
The Scarlet Twitter.
I thought the article was too lengthy/wordy, so I didn't read it all. I was curious if it described the same anti-corruption approach that I know was once suggested in India: "legalize one side of the corruption". That makes those in a corruption scheme think twice (or more) -- now both sides are equally punishable (thus create a bond by bribing/taking-bribe). That's also a game-theory approach to corruption!
I was looking close, because I think the topic is very interesting. They legalized paying bribes only for services that one'd have the right to have anyway. If a person get any kind of advantage over what they already have a right, it's not legal anymore.
Overall, I think it's a very well thought-out law, and completely not radical. The entire world should copy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Game theory predicts that corruption is inevitable when only a subset of the population is empowered to enforce societal norms. Hence, the only way to eliminate corruption is by empowering all of the members of a society to enforce societal norms.
Thank you. I really like that idea!
Pretty sure cops see other cops break laws far more serious than speeding and say nothing, every single week. How can you expect any cop to be honest if they watch others break the law and say nothing? You'll never change bad behavior if there is no penalty for that behavior.
That's a big part of what the article is about; so long as only the police can levy penalties against people for breaking the law, there will be police corruption.