RE: Corruption is the Worst Threat Humanity, and America Specifically, Faces Today
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I see your point with human rights for humans. Probably a good slogan because it is concise. Are you saying the liability protection of corporations should be removed, as in I could sue the CEO of Taco Bell for the hot coffee spilling on me? Or should I be allowed to sue the teenager who spilled it so that every paycheck she makes will be garnished until she pays off the judgement? Or, as in a criminal case, everyone involved up to a threshold chosen by our government corporation? Or, without government, do I approach the employee as she is leaving work and agree to a settlement the best way I see fit?
I'm looking for solutions to all the evil you laid out caused by corrupt humans facilitating more corruption through gaming laws that many times are instituted in good faith. The Declaration of Independence comes to mind where it says governments are instituted to protect our individual rights. Good to note that a corporation did not sign the letter; each signer put their own life on the line:
(Excerpt from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Unless you can show that some defect of the establishment selling coffee was responsible, I don't think such lawsuit should award damages. As a customer for hot coffee, I reckon you're responsible for your choices, and to be aware of the dangers of hot coffee. If you don't want hot coffee occasionally dumped on your lap, you should ensure your lap isn't under hot coffee being transferred from hand to hand. Now, if a company is selling tainted coffee they bought at a discount out the back of a truck, then I think you have a case for damages if you're injured by drinking their coffee, because they're responsible to ensure what they sell is what they tell people they're selling.
It is notable that the Declaration of Independence wasn't articles of incorporation. When the USA was created, it wasn't a corporation. I haven't dug into the legalese, but have read the statements of others that the US of A was incorporated in 1871, shortly after the Civil War. For the prior ~century of it's existence, it was not a corporation.
Communities, even nations, aren't corporations in which the residents are shareholders, and I don't have any shares of USA, despite being born here long after it's incorporation. The fact there are villages that remain unincorporated and the folks therein manage to build roads, pipe water to homes, and pipe sewage away from them shows that incorporation isn't necessary, and that societies can perform the necessary negotiations and operations to manage communal utilities without resorting to incorporation.
I think the answers you seek can be found in such unincorporated villages, by studying how such places create and provide utilities, for example. The people living there have to discuss amongst themselves such matters, and decide whether and how to provide them. However, such things are often put to votes, and majority rule can force folks into a kind of slavery to the majority, which isn't just. Even a bunch of people that all agree to force me to provide my land for their sewer pipe don't have that lawful authority, so democracy isn't inherently just, and it is necessary to prevent mob justice.
That's why America is a republic.
Thanks!
Edit: I am a big fan of the Declaration of Independence, and the thinking behind it. However I note a big gap between the bit about instituting government and government becoming destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. It seems to me obvious that institutions are inevitably infiltrated by criminals that corrupt the institutions, and that big gap is the lack of any idea how to prevent that from happening.
Jefferson, who largely wrote the Declaration of Independence, later said that we should have a revolution about every 20 years because of that problem. That rather contradicts the language in the Declaration of Independence, where it says that governments shouldn't be overthrown for trifles. So, rather than serial revolution, the founders tried to create a government in which mob justice could be prevented without violence, and yet the population could choose folks to represent them and craft laws that were just and prevented corruption.
They failed. Eventually (and I don't think it took 20 years) criminals infiltrated and corrupted government. How to prevent that corruption is the question of the age, and somewhere between chaos and totalitarianism is a means of enabling society to prosper and advance the blessings of civilization for all. We have a pretty good model in the pre-corporate USA, maybe in the pre-Constitution USA, and we should work out how to tweak those models in an effort to fix what went wrong with America.
Because it's borked now.
I'd point out that the advent of blockchain, of the Hive model, means we don't need representatives anymore. Those representatives are a weak and eminently corruptible link in the chain of liberty, and we should not be forced to delegate our votes [I am not saying Hive is perfect, because it's not, and a plutocracy isn't an acceptable government]. So, I recommend we dispense entirely with the legislative branch. Folks that want to delegate their votes to some fakir or guru can do that, but no one should be required to. That leaves us with the judicial and executive branches of government, and I don't think we need a President, nor permanent agencies that are crime magnets either.
Does anyone think the FDA, CDC, or DHS are doing good jobs? The DOJ? FBI, NSA, or CIA? All of these agencies - the entire executive branch of government - are corruption factories. A Fuera! (to quote a fiery but mostly peaceful Argentinian). That leaves us with the Judicial branch of government, direct democratic voting limited by human rights, and temporary contract employees that achieve whatever needs doing, building roads, pumping sewage, spying on us and reading our every email (maybe we don't need that bit?), etc.
All we need are courts? Thoughts?
This would have the legislative branch moved to the power players (those delegated by people). If they have enough votes then they need not have transparency, but it just might be the case where enough people do not delegate.
The executive also is redefined as the contractors you mention, hired by the judicial branch, not elected by the people. All this seems to just move the corruption magnet to that branch, like we see in South America lately. Bringing up competing branches to check each other was the solution in the US Consitution, with further checks in the state governments which have their own branches similarly checking each other. It is a strategic feat to corrupt so many competing branches like we have seen here.
The overarching check is supposed to be human decency, mostly backed by God-fearing people who are elected in fair elections by a populace that can hear uncensored political speech. So, the culture is important, as is dependable elections. Good culture being too difficult to define, perhaps an amendment can be agreed upon by enough states that can direct elections away from methods that are easily tampered with.
That's not how it works on Hive, and not at all what I intended to communicate. On Hive, which is the legislative model I am proposing, we, the People, each and all decide whether to upvote someone, or a proposal, and that upvote is the funds we delegate - the taxes we pay to fund the project - to pave a road, or pay some AI to collect all our emails and read them. No judicial branch applies to that function.
The purpose and activities of the judiciary I did not mention changing. We do need courts. I don't state we need judges, but we do need courts and juries can rule on law and matters brought to courts for judgement. I neither believe we need the Bar association, which is a form of government itself, although legal representatives are indeed necessary, because law can be a complex matter (even if we discard non-common law and return to principles that juries can adjudicate based on common law, which can be known and understood by normal people).
However, even dialing that back, courts are notoriously corrupt. To my knowledge, this corruption is primarily through judges and bar attorneys, which I have just mentioned being rid of, but juries have also been known to be corrupted, intimidated, and tampered with. Nothing is perfect.
We don't, and probably cannot have, dependable elections. I have seen video of election watchers expelled from vote counting rooms, boxes of ballots that were concealed while election watchers were present and brought out after they were expelled, and then they turned out to have only Biden votes in them, and Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election. Since that fraudulent election, numerous court challenges have been brought against it, but the courts are as corrupt as the state governments that counted the fake ballots, so elections as we presently conduct them are not dependable.
Hive isn't a replacement for that, because I know of Hive users that have in excess of 10k accounts, so they can vote early and vote often. It's just as corruptable as political elections, and worse, all the votes are stake weighted, so the more money you have on Hive the more your vote(s) count. @ned proposed 1a1v before he gave up on Hive, took the money for the Founder's stake, and ran, but he never revealed a functional mechanism the restrict voting to actual individual human beings.
I do not wish to delegate my vote. I do not accede to being represented. Forcing me to allow someone else to represent me is a form of slavery, and I do not consent. The legislative system of representation is obsolete, and Hive proves we do not need it anymore. Neither do I need government agencies - particularly when every government agency we can name is proved to have been corrupted and to represent the interests of the corporations they are supposed to be regulating. Every service provided by a government agency can be provided under contract by a private company, and I can choose to pay for such service voluntarily if I want that service. If I don't want it forcing me to pay for it is, again, slavery, and I do not consent.
But I see no means of replacing courts with private contractors. Being rid of judges and the Bar enables juries to rule on cases brought to court, criminal and civil, and while juries aren't perfectly corruption proof, they are a hell of lot more resistant to corruption than judges and bar attorneys, and I will have to settle for that until someone proposes something better.