Comments on: The partisan self-interest behind political donations regulation

By: Son of the Ratpack

Son of the Ratpack — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:40:40 +0000

John and Don, you really are just like two Trots arguing over an obscure point of doctrine. You probably can’t see it never (I presume) having hung around the far left, but the resemblance is uncanny.

Anyway, I apologise for interrupting. please carry on.

By: Don D'Cruz

Don D'Cruz — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:29:50 +0000

I’m hardly surprised that John Humphreys can’t find any arguments for greater transparency.

That’s fine. Nothing will change his mind so that is fine.

But I do know how the public and media feel about the issue of transparency and that is really all that matters.

He can wage his “War against Transparency” but after a while it all appears just a bit absurd.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:30:57 +0000

Most big NGOs started out as small NGOs and then grew. Compliance and regulatory costs disproportiately effect smaller organisations (both business & NGOs) and so they create a barrier to entry which undermines the natural evolution of the market and civil society.

Indeed, public choice theory predicts that larger firms should lobby *for* increased government regulation in some instances, as they reduce competition and the regulators are often “captured” by the regulated.

With regards to transparency and efficiency helping NGOs to get the trust of donors, that is probably true. Consequently, many NGOs will naturally trend towards providing the amount of transparency and efficiency that is demanded. Unfortunately, we do not have the same trend with government which is able and willing to hide their activities and maintain a bloated bureaucracy precisely because they don’t have to answer to donor base.

Also, none of this justifies greater transparency for the donors.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:31:46 +0000

No. You’re lying. We hate the bums

By: Jason Soon

Jason Soon — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:28:39 +0000

S of R – there’s no hatred. We just like to play rough.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:05:04 +0000

There is polite yet robust debate at Catallaxy.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:24 +0000

S of R – You should try Catallaxy.

By: Son of the Ratpack

Son of the Ratpack — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:07:43 +0000

Don, I’m just observing. I certainly don’t care. It’s not my fight.

By: Don D'Cruz

Don D'Cruz — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:55:07 +0000

This isn’t hatred, Son of the Ratpack, It’s just a bit of sledging. You obviously don’t play cricket. You really are quite a sensitive soul, aren’t you?

As for the surnames, I don’t know. Would you like me to refer to you as ‘Son’ or ‘Ratpack.’?

By: Son of the Ratpack

Son of the Ratpack — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:37:51 +0000

Wow! I haven’t seen anything like this since observing, many years ago, two Trotskyist sects go at each other. I knew that liberals and conservatives were different, but I didn’t realise they hated each other’s guts (just like different species of Trots).

Don (may I call you Don?) why do you address people by their surnames?