The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state.

As @Jack Cummins has hinted to, the Department for Work and Pensions are notoriously bad.

Before appealing a PIP (disability benefit) decision to a judicial tribunal, you lodge a reconsideration request with the state - approximately 22% of the time they overturn their original decision. Of those that are then appealed to an independent judicial tribunal, approximately 70% are won by the claimant.

And you cannot go to the tribunal until they have reconsidered their decision. People go for years waiting for reconsideration - all this period without an income, and many die after being declared "fit for work" waiting for reconsideration.

A warrant should always be present when conducting infringements on people's properties or information. It's foundational in order to behave as a state of law rather than a state of power.

The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I know what you mean, but I don't think that actually makes sense. The purpose and 'interest' of that state is, in part, to deliver statutory services including benefits. So it isn't in the state's interests to not deliver those services. Of course it has to balance its commitments. The big failure of the state in the UK and elsewhere is the redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle economic classes to the already rich.

You can't have a body independent of the state deciding how a state will spend its money - that would be a disaster.

Tories are in power for the bulk of the time. Do you believe they are more interested in providing services or cutting public spending? I would argue that their overriding interest is cutting public spending, and they are biased by this.

The stats speak for themselves:

Before appealing a PIP (disability benefit) decision to a judicial tribunal, you lodge a reconsideration request with the state - approximately 22% of the time they overturn their original decision. Of those that are then appealed to an independent judicial tribunal, approximately 70% are won by the claimant.

And you cannot go to the tribunal until they have reconsidered their decision. People go for years waiting for reconsideration - all this period without an income, and many die after being declared "fit for work" waiting for reconsideration. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Tories are in power for the bulk of the time. Do you believe they are more interested in providing services or cutting public spending? I would argue that their overriding interest is cutting public spending, and they are biased by this. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree. But the state is more than the executive. There are tensions within a state, like the tension between a Tory government and its obligation to deliver services. It's parliament and the judiciary's role to prevent Tories completely screwing benefits in an excess of Tory classism. An elected Tory government has a mandate to reallocate spending away from benefits to an extent, but never to scrap them altogether. In a democracy, that's just tough luck on benefit recipients. Yes, there is a conflict of interest between benefit claimants and a Tory government, but managing that by providing an extra-state safeguard would be anti-democratic and indeed unconstitutional - parliament would not be sovereign. The solution is to win the policy argument.

I didn't know what we were arguing about, but looking back I see it now. That's my fault - I misspoke. I meant the conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the non-judicial parts of the state (namely the executive and the "independent" public bodies the executive appoints the head of).

Oh, indeed, I agree

The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You are talking about the UK. Similar problems occur in the US. But given the state's dominance, what is the solution?

Ineffective, abusive, and unresponsive behavior by agencies may be built-in by design. The behavior of ostensibly non-political agencies, such as disability, unemployment services, or food inspections may be strongly flavored by past or current political party agendas.

Socially conservative politicians tend to be suspicious of working class peoples claims, for instance. It's an old example, but in the 1980s, AIDS patients who were often in very bad health found it difficult to claim disability benefits, thanks to the frank hostility of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Or disputed unemployment claims tend to be resolved against the worker.

What Donald Trump is doing in Washington is aimed at crippling government programs, many of which deliver pretty obvious public goods, so that they will not be able to deliver effective services in the future, or function at all.

My point is that the cure for ineffective state services is political. At other times, it was political will that produced good-to-excellent state services. Elections have consequences.

For me it is obvious, since we had a case in the Netherlands that touches on this exact subject, the end result of which was thousands of families being crushed by the government apparatus for wrongs they had not committed. — Tzeentch

Robodebt on steroids in Australia. Turned out the Aus Federal govt method of calculation was illegal.
Life in the checks and balances of nations.

sad smile

To be honest, I am not sure of the exact threshold; but I do lean towards the people over the government. I do believe, to relate to the OP, that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in, on, or with their private property as long as they, within that private property, create the privacy. So letting the government willy-nilly enter into people's bank accounts is a no-no: that gives them entirely too much power.

Applied ethically, I think educating the people and arming them is the best solution against tyranny and injustice. I am not saying we get rid of the police or the justice system, but I wouldn't rely on it heavily like China does.

The government would argue it's not going to be will-nilly. They are only going to do it when they have reasonable suspicion of overpayment.

Surely you trust government to get this right? They have such a good track record :roll:

The government would argue it's not going to be will-nilly. They are only going to do it when they have reasonable suspicion of overpayment.

:lol:

Applied ethically, I think educating the people and arming them is the best solution against tyranny and injustice. — Bob Ross

I struggle to imagine how that could work out well.

That's how it works in the US, and it has worked fine.

With a better reason than 'reasonable suspicion', yes. No one who benefits from the state should have a carte blanche on funds they receive from the state.

I have a disabled wife, and we've had similar things happen (though, they have not gone into bank accounts) which has left us in terrible circumstances. But it was correct to do so. We were overpaid.

With a better reason than 'reasonable suspicion', yes. — AmadeusD

Shouldn't this be checked by a judge to make sure government is not abusing its power?

Also surely, yes. I would want a system of court order to create the avenue to do the deed, as it were.
I'm also not entirely sure it's going to help. Quite a number of beneficiaries (potentially a majority) are dishonest about their income, out going and circumstance. These things would create other crimes which could be adequately seen to without the above suggestion.