Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 11:53am PT
|
Since Citizens United has effectively entrenched our current system even deeper, there don't seem to be a plethora of potential solutions being offered up these days. Mostly complicit resignation and cynicism.
Citizens United did no such thing. It had nothing to do with lobbying, for instance. The issue in Citizens United was whether a corporation could air an ad critical of a presidential candidate within sixty days of the election. It was an issue of regulation of political speech because of its content and the identity of who wanted to say it. The majority found that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech" meant what it said. The dissent found that "abridging freedom of speech" did not occur if the party seeking to speak was a party the government didn't want to speak.
It's no accident that the dissent was about four times as long as the majority opinion. It takes a lot of effort to say that words mean what they don't say.
And no, I don't think that Lessig's proposed reforms make things better than they are now. I simply don't trust any government run by anyone but God to decide the content of permissible political debate.
John
Edit: Apogee, this entire argument centers around the proper use of money in society. "We the People" are now hundreds of millions of us, and the way we communicate our opnions, wants and needs implicates economic matters. The OP's argument rests on an assumption that the current system, which requires money to communicate effectively, needs to change. That's a fair opinion, but the only way to evaluate it requires that we consider the other options in communicating our positions and making determinations.
That inquiry, in turn, requires that we consider both the economic issues (what resources do we need to communicate effectively, and what is the optimal way of doing so) and philosophical issues (i.e. what is "fair?") The Founders set up a system of limited representative government. That always involves a trade-off between commuication and corruption. The Founders resolved that conflict in favor of communication, but at that time, the size of government was sufficiently small that the gains from influencing legislation were rather modest.
Now, the scope of gain by influencing legislation is enormous, because we've given -- through our representative government -- much greater power to the government over matters affecting our lives. For that reaosn, Lessig and you could be right. My inherent mistrust of government leads me to the opposite conclusion, but I don't think you're irrational for seeing it differently.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 11:54am PT
|
Well, seeing as how God isn't going to be showing up anytime soon, I guess we have to find our own way to deal with it, don't we?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 11:57am PT
|
our Representative government is supposed to be about the people first.
Well, only in a limited sense. Most people in the US today think that "about the people" means something like: "Serving my interests and desires."
The founders thought of government as protecting negative rights, rather than supplying positive desires.
Here's a thought: To be eligible to vote, you cannot be sucking on the federal teat. If you, as an individual, are directly getting welfare, food stamps, government subsidized housing, or other such "milk" from the teat, you don't get to vote.
To paraphrase de Tocqueville, "The American experiment in democracy will last just until the people realize that they can vote themselves entitlements."
Talking about "lobbying" by the people, when people can successfully lobby for more and more entitlements, your nation is doomed. It takes decades for the doom to accumulate, but it becomes inevitable.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 11:58am PT
|
oh for Christ's sakes
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 11:58am PT
|
And your alternative would be, then (madbolter)?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 12:09pm PT
|
I personally think it is painfully obvious that labor is not valued at it's free-market rate in our current system, and that theft is outright rewarded. You seem to liken that to "acquiring capital" and "the means of production".
I absolutely agree. Members of governmental employeee' unions get far more than what a free market would pay, and steal it from the rest of us through their purchase of the legislature and government generally. When those who allege that private money corrupts government do something to deal with the obvious theft and conflict-of-interest from public employee unions, then I may conclude that they're serious about fixing the corrupting effect of money in government generally.
Of course, in the truly private sector, where anyone is free to go into business, the choice of obtaining a return solely by labor or some other means is up to the individual. As long as individuals remain free to enter or leave businesses as they choose, long-term, systematic exploitation in those secotrs remains unlikely.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 12:30pm PT
|
"So it was the right thing to enfranchise corporations rather than fix the problems with the unions and lobbying in general?"
It appears to me that the SCOTUS (and John) don't read that much into the Citizen's United decision. They seem to look at this from a simplistic, idealistic principle without much regard for the realities of how it plays out in today's USA.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 01:17pm PT
|
And your alternative would be, then (madbolter)?
I think I answered that. Those drawing entitlements have a vested interest in voting themselves yet more and more entitlements. And the whole political landscape changes to more and more cater to the (ever increasing) number of these voters.
Take entitlement-voting out of the system, and you return to voting in the interests of the nation rather than endless deficit-spending (17 trillion and counting).
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
|
"voting in the interests of the nation"
Nation = mass of individuals
Individuals are going to vote in their own interests, right?
Therefore,
'Voting in the interest of the nation' = voting in your own interests (& vice versa)
Right?
And....what exactly do you define as 'entitlements'? The standard definition tends to circulate around SS or Medicare, etc.....but are roads & highways 'entitlements'? Schools? Military & defense?
Every one of those areas have lobbyists promoting their interests.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 02:01pm PT
|
apogee=genius :)
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 02:05pm PT
|
You're too kind.
I'm thinking more like 'Genuis'.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
|
Apogee posted Individuals are going to vote in their own interests, right?
People more tend to vote their identities, not their interest. That's why so many cash strapped Americans vote Republican and so many well-to-do Republicans think they are the underdog.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 02:19pm PT
|
Individuals are going to vote in their own interests, right?
Of course. The problem emerges when large groups of individuals can form factions and ultimately majority factions. In a democracy or republic, majority faction is the end. We are almost there at present, as we are approaching half the country that sucks on the teat.
There is a huge difference between individual, direct entitlement-distribution and general public goods, such as roads, etc.
And calling SS an "entitlement" really conflates the issues. Most people drawing SS will never get back out of that system what they paid into it. It has been the most outrageous Ponzi scheme in human history. That system needs to be fully funded for some particular period of time, take no new "payers" (i.e.: more people getting fleeced), and then end when everybody presently on it dies off. We make good on our present commitments but don't add to those commitments.
People that paid into SS are ENTITLED to get back what they can from it! That is not even close to the same thing as saying, "People are entitled to housing, food, health care, etc., even if they can't/won't pay for it."
It is the second sense of "entitlement" to which I refer. Tax credits just because you're poor? Sorry. No. Tax credits just because you're poor and keep pumping out the kids? Sorry. Double, triple no! Illegal alien that manages to pump out a kid on American soil and then jump on the welfare roles? Infinitely NO! You don't get to vote yourself a fuller and fuller teat at taxpayers' expense just because you and a huge pile of people like you CAN. If you don't PAY taxes to keep this nation running, then you do not have the long-term best-interests of this entire nation fundamentally at heart. And that is the sense in which "people voting their interests" implodes.
People that KNOW that money doesn't grow on trees, and that the piper DOES have to get paid, do not "vote their interests" in such a way as to full-on kill the golden goose. Entitlement-voters DO.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 02:28pm PT
|
Well, I'm with you in respect to Medicare & SS...those aren't 'entitlements' in my book, either, as individuals have paid into them expecting to receive the benefits that were part of the deal. Fact is, though, as far as politics is concerned, SS & Medicare are the textbook definition of 'entitlements'.
You and John E will have to work out your differences as to when coalescing individuals become a faction or majority faction (or however you want to define it). John seems to see this quite differently, saying (if I remember correctly) that lobbying groups are nothing more than a bunch of individuals with a common interest.
And anyway....isn't the concept of 'majority faction', in essence, the simple principle behind our democratic election process?
Are tax credits the only example of 'entitlements' that you can offer?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
|
curious, Madbolter
what do you propose instead of Social Security?
secondly, a question:
what is the name of the Federal Legislation that you refer to that gives "welfare" to people who are in this country illegally?
seriously, I would like to look this up and read about it
thanks in advance
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
|
madbolter posted It is the second sense of "entitlement" to which I refer. Tax credits just because you're poor? Sorry. No. Tax credits just because you're poor and keep pumping out the kids? Sorry. Double, triple no! Illegal alien that manages to pump out a kid on American soil and then jump on the welfare roles? Infinitely NO! You don't get to vote yourself a fuller and fuller teat at taxpayers' expense just because you and a huge pile of people like you CAN. If you don't PAY taxes to keep this nation running, then you do not have the long-term best-interests of this entire nation fundamentally at heart. And that is the sense in which "people voting their interests" implodes.
Nevermind that poor people vote in overwhelmingly tiny numbers, the amount of myths that you are required to believe in for anything in that paragraph to be taken seriously precludes a proper rebuttal.
I will say, just to keep a shred of decency going in this terrible conversation, that we should in fact be helping poor people because it is the right thing to do.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
|
And anyway....isn't the concept of 'majority faction', in essence, the simple principle behind our democratic election process?
No, not quite. A "faction" exists to magnify its own interests at the expense of the fundamental rights (such as property rights) of those not party to the faction.
So, majorities do ultimately rule in a democracy or republic. But they do not become a "faction" until their rule becomes rights-violating. Federalist Paper 10 was greatly concerned with this problem, as the founders saw it as the greatest weakness in a democratic/republican form of government.
Are tax credits the only example of 'entitlements' that you can offer?
In 2010 the federal department of Health and Human Services (as just one example department) had a budget that was almost 20% of the US GDP. That department oversees everything from Medicare to medical research grants. Good things!
However, rolled in there in almost impossible-to-tease-out fashion is (according to their site) also: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF; Child Support Welfare; Energy or Utility Assistance; Food Stamps; Medical Assistance Program; and others. In typical euphemistic fashion, it is said: "The US Dept of Health and Human Services oversees a variety of state welfare programs available for those in need across the country. These programs are regulated by the individual states to ensure the right people are getting welfare help that they need."
So, let's skip the ambiguous word "entitlement" and go straight to "welfare," which is more widely understood to mean "sucking on the teat."
And HighDesert's idea, "just because it's right," is both an actual reversal of what the founders meant by "right," and it is an utterly arbitrary approach to outright theft.
Let's say that a guy comes up to you, Norton, and says, "Hey buddy. Can you spare a buck?"
I would assume from your comments that you ALWAYS give money. In fact, you ALWAYS give money to EVERY homeless person or beggar you see. Without exception. I mean that! NO exceptions! "Because it's right."
If you make ANY exceptions, then you have destroyed your own perspective in actual practice. WHATEVER basis you employ to make a single exception, THAT exception is one that you took upon yourself and helped yourself to the idea that it is sometimes legitimate to not give EVEN THOUGH "it is right."
Perhaps you just didn't have the money at that time.
Perhaps you were in some way suspicious of a particular beggar.
Perhaps you felt that you had "helped enough" that day.
Whatever your reason for making ANY exception, you helped yourself to some principle of legitimacy for NOT helping.
Now, two points:
1) Whatever principle of legitimacy that was, it can be writ large and applied across the nation to all taxpayers.
2) When the government FORCIBLY takes money from taxpayers TO "help" because "it's just right," there can be NO exceptions.
When the feds get into the welfare game, they necessarily violate the property rights of individuals by taking the fruits of one man's labors and giving it to another. The individual has NO choice in the matter, and this GUTS the entire basis of property rights. It is outright theft, plain and simple.
IF it is ALWAYS "just right" to help EVERYBODY that "has a need," then individuals SHOULD indeed ALWAYS help.
But it is NOT the case that it is ALWAYS right to do so, and it is NOT the case that individuals should ALWAYS help. You yourself recognize this FACT, because you yourself do NOT always help everybody you see that needs help. Individual freedom of choice is critical here, and it is the very thing that the feds eliminate when they engage in taxpayer-funded welfare.
Finally, the inevitable comparison between "working together" to "solve the poverty problem" or "help those in need" and the idea of public works projects, such as dams, roads, etc., is flatly ridiculous.
As an individual, I join a government for two primary reasons: to have a powerful entity help me protect my inalienable rights; and to have a collective work on projects that benefit me directly that I cannot perform all by myself.
In both cases, I submit to governmental authority and agree to pay taxes BECAUSE both forms of submission directly benefit me.
In the case of welfare, I am FORCED to pay an arbitrary amount of money to people I would not otherwise be willing to support, and that payment provides neither protection of my inalienable rights nor produce a product I could not otherwise produce on my own and that directly benefits me.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
|
Jammer, you and Gary share the same view on the value of labor. You eliminate an essential ingredient in acquiring capital. It is not enough merely to labor for it. You need to spend less than you make. Deferred gratification enriches economies. Unless you reward that deferred gratification, you will have no incentive to accumulate capital.
John, you're correct that capital needs to accumulate in order to advance an economy. But what purpose does the capitalist serve? Why must this capital be concentrated into the hands of a few individuals?
Capital does not create labor, labor creates capital. At least that's what some Republican president said once:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
 Abraham Lincoln
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 03:27pm PT
|
what do you propose instead of Social Security?
That people plan for their own retirement and suffer the consequences if they don't have impulse control and thereby squander their futures on immediate gratification.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 03:27pm PT
|
Government of Ukraine Collapses
Today the Ukrainian government resigned. The prime minister Yatsenyuk, or “Yat” as affectionately called by Victoria Nuland who put Yat into office, resigned along with the entire Cabinet. The parliament refused to vote the harsh conditions demanded by the IMF. I am not sure what this means. Perhaps it is just a tactic to force the parliament to do as the IMF says. Or perhaps Yat, Washington’s stooge, has realized that IMF or no IMF, Ukraine’s economy is imploding and wants to get out of the blame.
The point for now is that I checked the BBC, the New York Times, and CNN and there is not one word about the collapse of the government of Ukraine.
I did notice that the BBC, now a reliable element of Washington’s Ministry of Propaganda, reported, as if it were true, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf’s claim that the Russian military is shelling Ukrainian forces. When Harf tried this out today on a roomful of journalists, they laughed her out of the room. Evidence, evidence! they demanded. Why, Harf was asked, do you think something is made true by you saying it!?
So, as usual, real news is missing from the Western press, but fake news is reported.
Professor Michael Chossudovsky has provided an account of the collapse of the Ukrainian government on Global Research. http://www.globalresearch.ca/collapse-of-ukraine-government-prime-minister-yatsenyuk-resigns-amidst-pressures-exerted-by-the-imf/5393168 |
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!