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

The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 653 posts

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#481

Post by vharuck »

technothrasher wrote: post #209
pintxo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at the same time, the budget for justice system needs to increase. It should be most probably the strongest branch of the government. Delayed justice is one of the most common ways of injustice. The judical branch should very much NOT be a part of the government itself, but a fully separate branch. > Corruption within private companies is irrelevant, as the main ones to suffer from it are usually shareholders.…

> The judical branch should very much NOT be a part of the government itself, but a fully separate branch. If you don't give that entirely separate branch any executive power, it cannot enforce its rulings. If you do give it separate executive power, there is nothing to rein it in when it becomes corrupt.

I was thinking about this yesterday. For the US system, what if the top roles of an independent Prosecutorial Branch were appointed by the Judicial Branch, but Congress would control them by using the budget and impeachments? The President could still work with the appointees on setting the overall agenda and priorities. Executive control could be enforced with allowing or denying cooperation with executive agencies.

But Prosecutorial would have to be its own branch to avoid the current SCOTUS crushing on the "unitary executive" theory.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#482

Post by iso1631 »

macNchz wrote: post #351
prometheus76 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is the majority of people. So the government very well can be against 49% of the people and it would still fit your definition. If 100 people were about to embark on a journey on a ship, what makes you think 51 of them know who should run the ship if none of them have ever even been on a ship?

There are a variety of ways that democratic governments are structure that make this an inaccurate characterization of how things work. The US, for example, apportions representatives and votes for President in a way that overweights less populated states, and there are various aspects of parliamentary systems that help avoid landing in a two-party system where a simple majority gets the say in everything—they force…

> , Constitutional systems will enumerate the rights of its citizens such that they cannot simply be taken away by a simple majority of any body.

Only if those are enforced. The wealthiest are the ones with the power, as they can pay for the guns.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#483

Post by dragonwriter »

yboris wrote: post #383
whatever1 wrote: post #150

Power corrupts, end of story. Democracy (limited terms), taxation and anti-monopoly regulation are examples that show a path to cure the disease. Nobody should be trusted with too much power for too long.

Sortition may be what you're looking for: "sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors at random, i.e. by lottery, in order to obtain a representative sample". No one can amass power because it's short term and random. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

People can amass power in a system with sortition, but those people don't amass it in the role of office holders (in those offices subject to sortition.) Of course, the office holders aren't the people amassing the most durable political power in the current system, either.

If you don't think officeholders that are randomly chosen amateurs in the field that are guaranteed to be out of it in short time aren't very often going to be extremely vulnerable to manipulation by people whose interests are stronger, more permanent, and durable, then you haven't thought things through very well, IMO.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#484

Post by tekne »

idiotsecant wrote: post #465
viscousviolin wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a potentially big problem for sure. It reminds me of stories I've heard about the public education system in some of the Scandinavian countries. From what I remember off the top of my head, Finland has a system where private educational facilities do not exist. Meaning that, if rich or otherwise elite people want their kids to receive a good education, they need to support the public education facilities their o…

Yes, I suppose there exists an egalitarian and well adjusted hypothetical society where we could find good leaders by random draw. I just don't think we live in anything resembling that society and I'm not sure whether such a society is possible once you reach a certain population size. I think it's a nice idea, but I'm not sure how we get from here to there

Bit of a nerd-snipe, but I wonder about the idea of sortition of a set of candidates -- say 200 -- out of a larger voting pool, and then voting for one of the randomly selected candidates.

Then you get "at least approx. top 1%" -- but it's still not necessarily an entrenched elite.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#485

Post by nradov »

roryirvine wrote: post #445
5o1ecist wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If that happened, it would be classed as assault in the UK - is it the same in America? And, if so, is Gates likely to be investigated by the police?

Yes, that would be considered a criminal act in most or all US states. Depending on the exact facts of the case it could be prosecuted as fourth-degree assault (misdemeanor), or it could fall under other statutes covering food adulteration or delivery of prescription drugs. I am answering in general terms and have no knowledge of what happened with Gates. A police investigation seems unlikely because so much time has passed (possibly exceeding the statute of limitations) and it would be hard to find admissible evidence.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#486

Post by nicoburns »

alphazard wrote: post #399
nicoburns wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them, and for their own taxes to go down. That's not true at all. I make a good salary as a software engineer, I absolutely think I ought to be taxed a little more than I am, and would gladly pay that money to live in the better society I believe that would create. I believe this attitude is pretty common in many parts of the world. That being said, I do th…

> That's not true at all. I make a good salary as a software engineer, I absolutely think I ought to be taxed a little more than I am, and would gladly pay that money to live in the better society I believe that would create. This confusion is precisely why the middle class has less power than ever before. You and many others have been sold a meme that your tax dollars are in service to a greater good, and you are a…

> If everyone turned off the news, and totally ignored the messaging around taxes and government programs and just looked at their own cash inflows and outflows to/from the government, the middle class would retain far more power than they do.

Are you only counting material benefit that you personally get from the government rather than the benefit that other less well off people get in your calculations? Because if my tax dollars enable otherwise less well off people to live a lifestyle closer to my own, then I would consider that a benefit to me and a large part of the intended outcome of that taxation.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#487

Post by viscousviolin »

abecode wrote: post #468
viscousviolin wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard about lottocracy/sortition for the first time not long ago and I quite like the idea. The last time was when I heard a professor talk about it, and I was recommended reading the book "Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections" by Guerrero [0]. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/217981747-lottocracy

I just had a nice trip to Venice and I was curious about it's history. Supposedly, the Venice republic lasted almost 1000 years, basically from after the fall of Rome to Napoleon based on a weird lottery system for choosing the Doge.

I've never read up on the republic of Venice, but after quickly scanning the Wikipedia article on its election procedure... that is a strangely large number of voting rounds and lotteries.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#488

Post by taco_emoji »

5o1ecist wrote: post #436
palata wrote: post #278

> If only Bill Gates and Larry Summers had had my mom to go to for advice, they could’ve saved themselves a lot of grief. Well it looks like Bill Gates had his wife for advice, and apparently his not following it played a part in ending his marriage.

[flagged]

i just had to go and google this. now that's something i wish i could un-read

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#489

Post by AngryData »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #438
nicoburns wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if Elon spent $100B on a mission to Mars or whatever it is that he cares about, would you really have reason to object to that Of course I would. It shouldn't be up to Elon how that money (and the capital/labour they command) gets spent. It should be up to all of us. And if I want it spent on libraries or healthcare instead of space exploration then I should get my equal say in that.

Maybe this is me being a dumb peasant, but I can't imagine where I would get the right to have a say in that. How is it different from me looking at my neighbor in his bigger house with his nicer car and deciding that those should be mine instead? Or my neighbor with a smaller house wanting my stuff?

There is a pretty big difference in scale. How would you feel if you could barely afford ramen and your neighor was using prime steaks as fire wood?

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#490

Post by mulmen »

anigbrowl wrote: post #473
jMyles wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a bunch of specific exceptions, violence is handled by the states, so it depends on the state in which it occurred. My best guess is that it's some kind of criminal offense in all 50.

Isn't use of the internet to facilitate crimes commonly cited as a reason for federal prosecution, on the grounds that all internet communications involve interstate commerce?

That would be strange because not all Internet communications involve interstate commerce.
Post reply on HN