• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Transparent government doesn't help

In one game you mean.

In real life bribery that is transparent is more easily dealt with.
 
How was the "leader" selected in this game? Did everyone just take turns?

Transparency only works if you can do something with the information. Such as vote the leader out of office. Or failing that, drive him out with pitchforks.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, I wonder if the participants were given statistical information about the payments. For example, how much is paid in average and what's the median payment and distribution. Using this data they could determine how much corruption there is overall, and whether they are themselves being screwed over. Even if the leader's bribes are not visible, a lot of other information can be gleaned from this kind of statistics.
 
Last edited:
laughing dog said:
If you bothered to read your own link, you'd know that is not what it claims to show. For example, from your link
Only full transparency, in which participants could see every transaction the leader engaged in (including bribes), restored contributions to something approaching the control situation.
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

And you failed to note that they pointed out that the bribes wouldn't be public even if the government's actions were.
 
I noticed that there was no punishment option for the leader for taking bribes.
"Strong leader only increases corruption". I think Putin should take a note :)
In real life partial transparency creates merely appearance of transparency.
Of course full transparency is impossible to achieve, leader can always become a member of board of directors after retirement or get paid giving lectures at WallStreet.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
If you bothered to read your own link, you'd know that is not what it claims to show. For example, from your link
.
Click to expand...

And you failed to note that they pointed out that the bribes wouldn't be public even if the government's actions were.
Click to expand...
Not only did you not read your own link, you did not even the quote in my post because "Only full transparency, in which participants could see every transaction the leader engaged in (including bribes), ) which clearly contradicts your post.
 
This is the key to understanding the study:
... the researchers recruited a bunch of people with a very low reputation for corruption: Canadians (some of the researchers were based at the University of British Columbia). But their Canadianness only got them so far. "Not surprisingly, when corruption could enter, it did," the authors write, "and cooperation deteriorated." When bribery was an option, the average contribution to the public pool dropped by a quarter.

The subjects did include people who had immigrated to Canada, including some from countries with a history of corruption, and these were somewhat more likely than native Canadians to engage in corruption. But the children of immigrants were even less likely to do so than people with a longer family history in Canada.
Click to expand...
In essence you had a jury trial, and someone got to select the jurors making up their own rules.

"Studies" like this are academic junk.
 
untermensche said:
Loren Pechtel said:
You miss the point--transparent government doesn't make the bribes transparent.
Click to expand...

In one game.

Not real life.
Click to expand...
The article specificly pointed that it is difficult to make the bribes transparent in real life. In a game it can be enforced by the scientists running it, but in real life there are always loopholes.
 
joedad said:
This is the key to understanding the study:
... the researchers recruited a bunch of people with a very low reputation for corruption: Canadians (some of the researchers were based at the University of British Columbia). But their Canadianness only got them so far. "Not surprisingly, when corruption could enter, it did," the authors write, "and cooperation deteriorated." When bribery was an option, the average contribution to the public pool dropped by a quarter.

The subjects did include people who had immigrated to Canada, including some from countries with a history of corruption, and these were somewhat more likely than native Canadians to engage in corruption. But the children of immigrants were even less likely to do so than people with a longer family history in Canada.
Click to expand...
In essence you had a jury trial, and someone got to select the jurors making up their own rules.

"Studies" like this are academic junk.
Click to expand...
The way I read that part was that the research was done locally near the university. Hence the participants were Canadian. The article's rationale is bullshit, but that doesn't mean the study is. At least not for this reason.
 
Jayjay said:
untermensche said:
In one game.

Not real life.
Click to expand...
The article specificly pointed that it is difficult to make the bribes transparent in real life. In a game it can be enforced by the scientists running it, but in real life there are always loopholes.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.

Trying to apply stupid games of any kind to real life is absolute nonsense.

But transparent government is not about seeing the bribes.

It is about seeing exactly where every piece of legislature begins.

Who exactly wants this law?

Today the answer 99 times out of a hundred is some wealthy special interest.

Who is demanding the government throw millions off their health insurance?

Actually nobody, not even the wealthy special interests.

This is just some madness to appease stupid apes and erase all the bad things that black man did.
 
Jayjay said:
joedad said:
This is the key to understanding the study:

In essence you had a jury trial, and someone got to select the jurors making up their own rules.

"Studies" like this are academic junk.
Click to expand...
The way I read that part was that the research was done locally near the university. Hence the participants were Canadian. The article's rationale is bullshit, but that doesn't mean the study is. At least not for this reason.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that exercises like this are always bullshit because it's a game, it's artificial. I went through numerous studies just like this my freshman year of college as a requirement. You simply make yourself available for a "study."

If anything is to be gleaned from such studies it is to quantify the behavior of those persons conducting the study and the overall behavior of the group in an artificial environment in which persons were instructed about the exercise, kinda like candid camera. And depending on the group you will get different results.

if you want real results put them on an island with provisions and tell them you will see them in ten years, or lock them away isolated with each other.
 
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
And you failed to note that they pointed out that the bribes wouldn't be public even if the government's actions were.
Click to expand...
Not only did you not read your own link, you did not even the quote in my post because "Only full transparency, in which participants could see every transaction the leader engaged in (including bribes), ) which clearly contradicts your post.
Click to expand...

I saw that part--you failed to note that they said that wouldn't happen in the real world. You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Not only did you not read your own link, you did not even the quote in my post because "Only full transparency, in which participants could see every transaction the leader engaged in (including bribes), ) which clearly contradicts your post.
Click to expand...

I saw that part--you failed to note that they said that wouldn't happen in the real world.
Click to expand...
No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.
Loren Pechtel said:
You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.
Click to expand...
Depends on the nature of the law.
 
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
I saw that part--you failed to note that they said that wouldn't happen in the real world.
Click to expand...
No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.
Loren Pechtel said:
You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.
Click to expand...
Depends on the nature of the law.
Click to expand...

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?

(Especially since bribes are illegal, any system that could make them public could also prosecute the people involved, thus rendering the issue moot.)
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.
Loren Pechtel said:
You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.
Click to expand...
Depends on the nature of the law.
Click to expand...

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?
Click to expand...
Public disclosure of finances. Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity.
 
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.
Loren Pechtel said:
You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.
Click to expand...
Depends on the nature of the law.
Click to expand...

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?
Click to expand...
Public disclosure of finances. Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity.
Click to expand...

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom