These principles aren't rules people can break. They're structural features that change the incentive architecture itself. Each principle attacks one or more terms in the corruption equation: Opacity + Diffused Accountability + Misaligned Incentives = Systemic Harm.
Traceability of Decisions
Every decision involving public resources or potential harm must trace to named individuals who bear personal liability. Not committees. Not agencies. Not "the process." People with names, faces, and consequences.
The Problem It Solves
When accountability diffuses across systems, no one person faces consequences for catastrophic decisions. "The agency approved it." "The committee decided." "Standard procedure was followed." These phrases are accountability vaporizers—turning individual responsibility into institutional fog.
How It Works
- Public Database: All consequential decisions logged with full attribution—who decided, when, based on what information, and what liability they accepted.
- Immutable Records: Time-stamped, blockchain-verified or equivalent. No retroactive editing of decision rationales.
- Named Individuals: "Dr. Jane Smith, Dr. Robert Chen, and five others approved this drug on March 15, 2024. If deaths result from undisclosed side effects, here is their liability."
- Decision Thresholds: Clear triggers for when traceability is mandatory (e.g., budgets over $1M, policies affecting >1000 people, any use of force).
Implementation Example
FDA drug approval: Instead of "The FDA approved Drug X," the public record shows: "Approval granted by: Dr. Jane Smith (lead reviewer), Dr. Robert Chen (safety analysis), Dr. Maria Rodriguez (clinical trials assessment), [list continues]. Approval date: March 15, 2024. Decision made based on: [linked documents]. Personal liability: Joint and several for material misrepresentation or data suppression."
Historical Contrast: The 2003 Iraq War was authorized by 296 House members and 77 Senators. Yet when the stated rationale (WMDs) proved false, no individual bore personal consequences. Traceability would have meant: "These specific individuals voted yes based on these specific claims. When claims proved false, here are the consequences."
Common Objections
"This will paralyze decision-making!" No—it will paralyze reckless decision-making. Good-faith decisions with documented reasoning remain protected. The fear is only for those who decide without due diligence.
"What about classified decisions?" Traceability still applies—names recorded in classified logs, released after declassification period. National security doesn't require anonymity, just temporary confidentiality.
Mandatory Skin in the Game
Those who decide must bear the consequences of their decisions. This isn't punishment—it's alignment. When decision-makers can externalize risk onto others while keeping upside for themselves, corruption is the rational choice.
The Problem It Solves
The most catastrophic decisions in history share a pattern: those who decided bore no personal cost when things went wrong. War is declared by those who never serve. Financial instruments are approved by those who don't hold them. Pharmaceuticals are fast-tracked by those who don't take them. This asymmetry makes recklessness profitable.
How It Works
- Military Force: Vote for war? You or your immediate family serves in combat roles for the duration. No exemptions for age or medical conditions that arose after the vote. If you're too old to serve, your voting eligibility is limited to defensive wars only.
- Pharmaceutical Approval: Approve a drug? You take it (or have your family take it) at the same dosage prescribed to the public. For vaccines, your children are in the first cohort. Personal stake in safety.
- Financial Regulation: Approve a financial instrument? You must hold a significant portion of your net worth in it for a minimum lock-up period. Skin in the game for systemic risk decisions.
- Policy Design: Design welfare requirements? Live on welfare-level income during the policy trial period. Design education standards? Your children attend schools subject to those standards.
Implementation Example
Congressional war authorization: "I, Senator Jane Smith, vote in favor of military action in [country]. I acknowledge that this vote commits me [or my child, John Smith] to immediate enlistment and deployment to a combat role for the duration of this engagement or until age/medical factors prevent service. I accept that this obligation cannot be waived, bought out, or substituted."
Historical Contrast: In 2003, of the 373 Congress members who voted to authorize force in Iraq, fewer than 5 had children in military service. The asymmetry was complete: they decided, others died.
Common Objections
"This is impractical for complex decisions!" Complexity doesn't eliminate incentives—it obscures them. The principle scales: match the decision-maker's exposure to the scale of public exposure. Local zoning decision? Live near the project. National healthcare policy? Use the public option.
"What if someone has no children for the military provision?" Then the personal obligation falls on them, regardless of age. If they're medically unable to serve in combat, they serve in non-combat support roles for equivalent duration. The point is non-transferable personal stake.
Radical Transparency of Power
All exercises of public power must be visible in real-time. Not FOIA-able years later after heavy redaction. Not leaked by whistleblowers at great personal cost. Transparent by default, by design, by law.
The Problem It Solves
Opacity enables corruption. When decisions happen in darkness, accountability becomes impossible. "Transparency" that arrives two years later via FOIA request, 40% redacted, is controlled opacity—the illusion of accountability without the substance.
How It Works
- Government Contracts: Every contract, fully public, searchable by vendor, amount, date, and approver—at the moment of signing. No delays, no redactions except for specific national security needs (with independent oversight).
- Official Communications: All emails, memos, meeting minutes archived and public. Encryption prevented by design for official communications. Personal devices prohibited for official business.
- Financial Flows: Every dollar from tax collection to expenditure tracked in real-time public ledger. Blockchain or equivalent technology ensuring immutability.
- Lobbying: Every meeting between elected officials and lobbyists recorded (audio/video), transcribed, and published within 24 hours. Every dollar from every donor publicly tracked. No exceptions.
Implementation Example
Real-time government spending portal: Any citizen can search by department, project, vendor, date range. Example: "Defense Department contracts with Boeing: $234M contract signed March 15, 2024, approved by [names], for [specific systems], paid in [schedule]. Performance metrics: [live updates]." Searchable, sortable, downloadable.
The Asymmetry Is Intentional: This is transparency of power, not surveillance of citizens. Public officials wield power over others—that power must be transparent. Private citizens living their lives have the opposite relationship: maximum privacy. The powerful should fear exposure; the powerless should fear surveillance. We reverse that.
Common Objections
"National security requires secrecy!" Yes—for operational details, temporarily. Not for decision-making processes, contracting, or rationales. Transparency with time-delays for specific classified information, with sunset provisions and independent review.
"This will overwhelm people with information!" The point isn't that everyone reads everything—it's that anyone can. Journalists, researchers, activists, and concerned citizens can dig deep. Searchability and data tools make it manageable. The alternative—opacity—concentrates information power among the corrupt.
Structural Barriers to Violence
War and state violence must require active, ongoing, broad consent—not passive delegation. The current system makes war easy and peace hard. We reverse that.
The Problem It Solves
The most catastrophic failures of accountability involve violence: wars of choice, police brutality, civilian casualties accepted as "collateral damage." Once violence is authorized, it perpetuates through inertia. Ending it requires political will that never materializes because the costs are diffuse and delayed.
How It Works
- No Standing Authorization: Every use of military force expires after 90 days unless explicitly re-authorized by the same voting threshold that initiated it. No exceptions. Peace is the default; war requires constant renewal.
- Direct Citizen Involvement: Offensive military actions require not just congressional approval but direct citizen referendum with >60% threshold. Defensive responses to attacks can be immediate but must be ratified within 30 days.
- Personal Liability for Unlawful Violence: Any official who authorizes violence against civilians in violation of law faces personal criminal liability, prosecuted by independent body. "Following orders" is not a defense for decision-makers.
- Mandatory Post-Action Review: Every use of force automatically triggers independent investigation. Findings public. Those responsible for violations face consequences, regardless of rank.
Implementation Example
Military engagement authorization: "This authorization for military force in [location] expires on [90 days from today]. Renewal requires: (1) Majority vote in both legislative chambers, (2) Updated justification addressing outcomes to date, (3) Skin-in-the-game obligations remain active for any legislator voting to renew. Automatic sunset if not renewed. No retroactive extensions."
Historical Contrast: The 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) was used to justify military operations for over two decades, across multiple countries, against enemies that didn't exist when it was passed. Automatic sunset provisions would have forced ongoing democratic deliberation rather than indefinite executive discretion.
Common Objections
"This handcuffs us in emergencies!" No—emergency defensive responses are still immediate. This only prevents open-ended offensive operations that drift from stated purposes. If the mission is legitimate, renewing authorization should be easy.
"Public referendums on military action are dangerous!" More dangerous than unchecked executive power? The fear is that citizens won't support wars elites want. That's not a bug—that's the point. If you can't convince the citizenry that war is necessary, maybe it isn't.
Sortition for Oversight
Replace captured career regulators with randomly selected citizens who have real power. You can't lobby someone who doesn't know they'll be selected until after the decision point.
The Problem It Solves
Regulatory capture is inevitable when the same people regulate an industry for decades. They're captured by relationships, by revolving-door job prospects, by ideological alignment with industry interests. Even well-intentioned regulators become socialized into the industry's perspective.
How It Works
- Random Selection: Citizens selected by lottery (like jury duty) to serve on regulatory oversight panels. Selection happens after the issue is defined but before any lobbying can target them.
- Real Power: These panels have subpoena authority, independent investigative budgets, and the power to compel testimony under oath. Not advisory—binding authority.
- Short Terms: Service measured in months, not years. No career regulators. Serve, decide, return to normal life. No long-term relationships to corrupt.
- Full Support: Expert staff to educate the panel, but decision-making power remains with citizens. Think of it as a grand jury with regulatory teeth.
- Legal Immunity: Citizen regulators have immunity for good-faith decisions made in their oversight role. Can't be sued or threatened into compliance.
Implementation Example
Pharmaceutical approval oversight: Twelve citizens randomly selected serve for six months. They receive full expert briefings from FDA staff, hear from industry representatives, review clinical trial data, and can compel testimony from researchers. They vote on approval recommendations. Their decisions are binding unless overridden by supermajority of elected officials (who must publicly justify the override with traceability and skin-in-the-game provisions).
Ancient Precedent: Athenian democracy used sortition extensively—many government positions were filled by lottery, not election. The logic: elections favor the wealthy, charismatic, and connected. Random selection creates panels that actually represent the populace and cannot be systematically captured.
Common Objections
"Regular citizens don't have the expertise!" Neither do elected officials, yet they make these decisions constantly. The difference: sortition panels get expert briefings but aren't captured by experts. They ask the questions non-experts ask: "Who profits from this? What are the risks? Would I want my family subject to this?"
"This is too slow!" Initial implementation requires setup, but ongoing operation can be faster than current systems—no drawn-out confirmation hearings, no political posturing, no revolving door negotiations. Select, brief, decide, done.
"What about corruption of randomly selected citizens?" Much harder to corrupt someone selected randomly after the issue is defined, serving for only a few months, with no long-term career in regulation. Would-be corruptors would have to bribe a constantly rotating pool of unknown citizens—expensive and legally risky.