= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clarity comments on Open thread, Nov. 09 - Nov. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (175)
Hypothetically, say I'm an independent politician, or a politician from a minor party, in a Governments senate. The ruling party or their opposition has promised me a diplomatic appointment after my term in parliament ends in return for my support in certain things. Given that politicians frequently lie, and if I leave parliament I will have minimal media clout thereafter, can I somehow use a smart contract or some kind of political manoeuvre to ensure compliance without revealing the nature of the agreement prematurely, which may damage the clout of my associates and political allies?
I don't think you have a good model of politics. Politics is about people. A promise like this isn't made by "the ruling party" but by individual politicians of that party.
Political cooperation also frequently comes with the sharing of documents and other secrets that are not for public consumption.
So...what exactly is wrong with my question?
What are you trying to achieve by posting these very specific hypothetical situations? The common theme seems to be "how one can adequately protect oneself, given future plans that somehow undermine one's present position" but the specific circumstances vary too much.
Wow, I didn't realise that commonality. I'll have to think this through for a bit.
I'm plainly trying to understand my strategic environment. The question isn't really that much of an abstraction from reality. I currently work in politics (but I'm not a politician nor work for the hypothetical senator).
I was especially thinking of a previous comment (maybe in another open thread) about a hypothetical PhD researcher working for industry but interested in revealing some confidential information later on. Having seen that comment which seemed to lack awareness of the kinds of legal agreements that are made in such cases, when I saw this one I wondered whether it was another "outsider" hypothetical with a more general goal.
I work in research, not in politics so I can't offer any suggestions on this one.
Ah yes, the 'would this constitute inside trading' hypothetical. Yes, that was also an NOT abstraction of a real situation, perhaps maybe, plausible deniability. I think I'm just privy to a lot of risk taking behaviour by people who are willing to risk current positions for future ones.
One area to explore would be the concept of smart contracts, currently best exampled by experiments with blockchain technology - Ethereum and transparency in prediction markets would have places to start. One possible solution to a real-world non-criminal application of that problem would be to hire a neutral third party with appropriate confidentiality trust - like a lawyer - to create an agreement, witness it, and hold it in trust.
This becomes less reliable when you start delving into the ethical problems outlined by other responders if you're trying to create something deniable, but you can probably work around that with an 'if-then' agreement with a lawyer and a pre-sealed envelope.