[dkjaudyeqooe]

This is the sort of bureaucratic nonsense people actually rail against.

You're assuming you'd get something truthful or informative out of that process, when in reality you'll get the opposite due to the inherit (dis)incentives.

[vkou]

Right, I guess we should throw up our hands and let the dictator of the week run things as he sees, with no oversight.

If it meaningfully impacts the public, the public should have input. The input doesn't need to be binding, but it needs to be taken into consideration. Representative government is not a once-every-four-years exercise, nor is it something that should only be accessible to the mega-rich.

There's an entire process for this among many rule-making agencies in every level of government, across the world. It serves as, at minimum, a public record of objections and concerns, and at times that public feedback identifies a problem that the rule-drafters failed to address.

It doesn't, and can't prevent outright malice by a capricious autocrat, who only works to make his backroom friends happy. But it does make a public record of that malice.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

there's no oversight needed when the government does a lot less

If there's no loose budget, there's far fewer things that go into the black budgets.

[XorNot]

This is how Russia works. This is why the Russian government does what it does and why the people let it happen.

Because obviously nothing can ever change, so don't even try. How silly of of you citizen, to imagine even trying to fix corruption.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

That's not what I'm talking about. It's the notion that if you get the corrupt to justify their actions that you'll somehow avoid corruption.

Fixing corruption involves people refusing to put up with corruption.