The Presumption Of Innocence
Why government should not enjoy the presumption of innocence, but rather should operate under the presumption of guilt...
In the UK we have a tradition that people accused of a crime should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
It is, however, a mistake to apply this to non-human entities such as corporations, or governments, and we do not apply it to corporations...
After all, we have government to regulate businesses, so they do not succumb to the perverse-incentives of the market, such as forming cartels, or committing fraud...
Businesses have to account for every action they take, and every penny they spend, because businesses operate under the presumption of guilt.
To prove their innocence, businesses have to account for every action they take, and every penny they spend. They have to keep records of what they have done.
But isn't government also subject to similar perverse-incentives?
Should We Trust Government?
Does government have strong incentives to get things right and do a good job?
Government is there to serve the people, so it says, but does it really want to?
Is serving the public government's primary-concern?
What Does Government Really Want?
Government is made up of people who earn their living from the state.
Government, like any job, is staffed by people whose livelihood depends on their salary.
They want to keep their jobs, so they can provide for their families.
The main motivation of everyone employed by government is to keep their jobs, to continue to be paid.
So, the primary concern of government is to continue to exist.
No Problems, No Need For Government
If we lived in a world where there were no problems, where everyone got along ok, crime was rare, and poverty didn't exist, there would be no need for a large permanent government. What would they do?
In that peacful world, there would be no need for constant legislation, no need for a professional police force, lawyers or politicians.
People could form ad-hoc councils on the rare occasion they needed to resolve any problems that arise, plan infrastructure projects, or deal with crimes.
"Minarchism" is how the UK used to operate. It is generally recognised that when Britain was at its greatest, it had a "night-watchman state".
Government is only needed when there are problems to be solved.
If there are no problems, there would be no need for government, and so it would cease to exist, which conflicts with it's primary-motivation: To continue to exist.
The more problems there are in society, the more people need government help, and so they give them more powers and money.
Government has a perverse-incentive to cause problems, not solve them.
Government's Dilemma
The more problems exist in society, the better it is for government.
If people are poor, insecure in their homes and jobs, unhealthy and badly-educated, they need help. So they call for more government, because government is ostensibly there to help.
Politicians always say they can solve these problems, they usually say they just need to make a few more laws, and raise taxes a little...
But if they actually solved these problems, then people would call for less government, and they might lose their jobs.
This is the dilemma that government faces: An internal conflict between it's stated aims, and it's actual aims.
Government desires to exist, and to grow. But if government solves problems, parts would cease to exist, and it would shrink.
So actually solving problems goes against government's prime-motivation - to exist.
Government has a strong perverse-incentive to create problems in order to justify it's existence.
The Police Need Criminals
If there was no crime, there would be no need for police.
If the police were 100% successful in eradicating crime, they'd just be kicking-around, doing nothing, and obviously wasting taxpayer's money.
On the other hand, if the police are ineffective and crime is rampant, people call for more police and give them more funding...
Of course, if the police are too ineffective, they they run the risk of being replaced, so there's a middle-ground to be found.
Police, as the enforcement branch of government, experiences the same dilemma as government as a whole.
The police-force has a strong perverse-incentive to allow, or create crime in order to justify it's existence.
The police-force has no incentive to eradicate crime, and make themselves redundant.
Government and Organised-Crime
Because of the perverse-incentives that bear-down on public officials, they are strongly encouraged to partner with criminal organisations.
This is simply the nature of the system itself. We have to be realistic.
Given power and unaccountability, people are incentivised towards corruption, enriching themselves and their social-circle.
Because of the incentive to create problems and allow crime, government is encouraged to either active or passive partnership with organised crime.
Government has no real incentive to solve problems, or reduce crime, their incentives are to create problems, and increase crime.
These perverse-incentives of power cannot be changed, they can only be moderated.
Government Must be Fully Accountable
Like any business or corporation, in fact rather worse than any business, the government experiences extreme incentives to do wrong.
This is why they must operate under the presumption of guilt, and must be able to prove their innocence - via record keeping.
Government has far more power than any business, and so it's standards of reporting should be at least as good as any business, and open to any investigation.
Government has to be held to account by it's citizens. There is no one else who can do the job.
The VETO is the first step in this process...
