Transparency: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''By disclosing uneditable transaction data from the inception of political or business organisations you can make it a lot more trustworthy.''' | |||
Imagine you were given a ring which makes you invisible. What would you do? Would you rob a bank or anonymously help a homeless person? Its argued that the majority of people would choose the former. i.e. humans are primarily selfish in nature. However, what of the opposite? | |||
Imagine this time instead of the ring hiding the you from everyone, so you can do some mischief, the ring shows everything that you do to everyone. An anti-gyges, its the principle of CCTV if you are watched, recorded and published openly you are unlikely to do anything wrong. This should be the minimum we expect from someone in political office. If you are in public office, you should disclose all transactions. In practice however, it is very difficult, in Australia this is done, to an extent. Data is published by the AEC, for [[political transparency]], but in a poor format, and there is a glaring loophole, dark money can funnel in if the donations are below $9,000. If a mining company, gambling company or optician company want to have their priorities represented all they need to do is make a shell company which donates several $8,999 donations. | |||
Like tax havens, there are a bevy of lawyers present when transparency laws are put through parliament. Anyone put in any position of power needs to be fully transparent. Once this is in place action can be taken... | Like tax havens, there are a bevy of lawyers present when transparency laws are put through parliament. Anyone put in any position of power needs to be fully transparent. Once this is in place action can be taken... | ||
Revision as of 01:44, 10 February 2022
By disclosing uneditable transaction data from the inception of political or business organisations you can make it a lot more trustworthy.
Imagine you were given a ring which makes you invisible. What would you do? Would you rob a bank or anonymously help a homeless person? Its argued that the majority of people would choose the former. i.e. humans are primarily selfish in nature. However, what of the opposite?
Imagine this time instead of the ring hiding the you from everyone, so you can do some mischief, the ring shows everything that you do to everyone. An anti-gyges, its the principle of CCTV if you are watched, recorded and published openly you are unlikely to do anything wrong. This should be the minimum we expect from someone in political office. If you are in public office, you should disclose all transactions. In practice however, it is very difficult, in Australia this is done, to an extent. Data is published by the AEC, for political transparency, but in a poor format, and there is a glaring loophole, dark money can funnel in if the donations are below $9,000. If a mining company, gambling company or optician company want to have their priorities represented all they need to do is make a shell company which donates several $8,999 donations.
Like tax havens, there are a bevy of lawyers present when transparency laws are put through parliament. Anyone put in any position of power needs to be fully transparent. Once this is in place action can be taken...