Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game theory’s cure for corruption

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#71

Post by jessaustin »

_lce0 wrote: post #12

> The results were startling. By making a few alterations to the composition of the justice system, corrupt societies could be made to transition to a state called ‘righteousness’ . In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. They were everybody. When virtually all of society stood ready to defend the common good, corruption didn’t pay. Is this saying that the justice system is the problem, not l…

That's a pretty fine distinction you're attempting to draw. The portion of the "justice system" that is not police, is instead made up of people who interact with police several times a week. Most citizens are not in either of those groups.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#72

Post by jessaustin »

notahacker wrote: post #67
abecedarius wrote: post #37

We don't have to speculate about how widespread power of prosecution might work out; there's history. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./Englan... http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

TLDR: despite Friedman's best attempts to spin otherwise, not very well, unless you have a particular fondness for punishments being either extremely draconian or purely financial and think justice is improved if the likelihood of punishment is more closely related to the wealth and connections of the accuser.

...justice is improved if the likelihood of punishment is more closely related to the wealth and connections of the accuser.

Eh, modern justice systems have their fair share of that.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#73

Post by bayesianhorse »

jessaustin wrote: post #64
spcoll wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Over most of human hunter-gatherer prehistory, the population was not generally resource-constrained. (Rather, it was constrained over the long term by catastrophes, which could be related to resources, diseases, genetics, culture, or some combination.) Therefore, most of the time, banishment did not lead to starvation or even necessarily isolation. One just walked for some time, until one was alone or in more accept…

Banishment is most certainly a punishment. Just imagine never being allowed to speak with almost all the people you met in your entire life.

Hunter Gatherers also find a strength and safety in numbers, even if only in avoiding the fatility of personal "catastrophes" like a broken limb.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#74

Post by notahacker »

jaideepsingh wrote: post #53
cies wrote: post #24

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 would love to hear more about this "legalize one side of the corruption" proposed solution. Can you elaborate? 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…

A logical consequence of legalising one side of the corruption is that a mutual incentive to conceal its occurrence no longer exists, which makes corrupt agreements more difficult to reach as well as more likely to be exposed.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#75

Post by logfromblammo »

wyager wrote: post #63
jobu wrote: post #20

It seems like the ubiquity of small recording devices that nearly anyone could own and use (like a cellphone) will have a larger impact on corruption than anything else we could do. You may not have any direct power over the cop that just shook you down for a few hundred, but discretely recording that interaction and posting it on YouTube is likely to end his career in any society.

It seems like many of the cops who are filmed brutalizing people end up on brief suspension, and then back at their jobs shortly after. For filming police to be effective, we need more regularly enforced punishments (like actually being fired) for police brutality.

Those who are actually fired are sometimes discovered working as a cop in another nearby jurisdiction shortly thereafter.

If you really want to punish a rotten cop, you need to prevent him from being rehired.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#76

Post by alwaysdoit »

kps wrote: post #18

> 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…

Interesting. I wonder what it would be like if Police Duty was mandatory service that everyone was required to perform, either like Jury Duty is supposed to work, or as a mandatory service for young people.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#77

Post by gdrulia »

Maultasche wrote: post #27

Have everyone empowered to dispense justice is an interesting proposition, but there's a big difference between insects and people. People aren't all logical, analytic creatures, especially when they operate in groups. They tend to act on emotion rather than logic and it often isn't clear which information is factual and which is rumor. People tend to be susceptible to groupthink, and often go with the crowd. Having…

>Not everyone agrees what is correct behavior and what isn't, so what would be acceptable to one person would not be acceptable to another.

That!

If there would be one set of rules that everyone would agree, then this idea could work. It works in ants, because there is no ambiguous ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

You could think that law suppose to be that set of rules that suppose to tell you what is right and what is wrong. But is not that simple, law doesn't ask you whether you agree with it, you just must comply with it. So if you disagree that listening to pirated mp3 is a unlawful, you might as well do it without feeling guilt. And even when law is already forced upon you, disputes still arise and disagreements has to be solved in court, simply because you cannot cover every possible situation in the rules.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#78

Post by notahacker »

jessaustin wrote: post #72
notahacker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TLDR: despite Friedman's best attempts to spin otherwise, not very well, unless you have a particular fondness for punishments being either extremely draconian or purely financial and think justice is improved if the likelihood of punishment is more closely related to the wealth and connections of the accuser.

...justice is improved if the likelihood of punishment is more closely related to the wealth and connections of the accuser. Eh, modern justice systems have their fair share of that.

I haven't argued otherwise. But modern accusers aren't expected to pay for the costs of the prosecution and the witnesses, or enforce fine collection via escalating blood feud, and relatively few people would argue reverting to such a system would improve the chances of the likelihood and level of punishment being closely associated with actual guilt.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#79

Post by hasenj »

This only works if all members of the population share the exact same set of values. Even then, it might be undesirable.

Mob stoning individuals for extra martial sex is an example of this behavior.

I don't think that would be desirable ..

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#80

Post by jbhatab »

hasenj wrote: post #79

This only works if all members of the population share the exact same set of values. Even then, it might be undesirable. Mob stoning individuals for extra martial sex is an example of this behavior. I don't think that would be desirable ..

There could easily be modern manifestations of this too. Mob beatings for a 1 percenter that they deemed corrupt. Humanity will always find a way to get too outraged over something.
Post reply on HN