3 ms·

> but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote. I wouldn't call any political system which allows Citizens United or any form of lob

by ionised 11y ago

> but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote. I wouldn't call any political system which allows Citizens United or any form of lobbying fair. It overshadows and taints the entire electoral and representative processes.

ddingus 11y ago
That is unfair. However, we can still remedy that through the vote. Motivating people to actually do that is a political problem. Our process is just in this way. Lazy / uninformed people getting the product of those behaviors is arguably just, given the process does provide meaningful remedies. It's an interesting dynamic. I do see it as somewhat self-correcting. When it gets ugly enough, the process does allow for meaningful reform. Right now, social progress is good. Good enough to provide motivation for preserving the status quo. Economic pressures continue to mount, but many people still have options, and what we value as people varies widely. Many don't need or want much, but they value social equality, consideration as people, etc... very highly. Can the deal be made sweet enough for the peeps to accept an entrenched oligarchy? Who knows? My point though, on fairness, is the process in the USA is allowing that question to be posed, and posed fairly. Sure, the people are being flooded with a lot of misinformation, but most of those people are completely free to talk among themselves, gather, organize, vote... too. I will recognize voting rights attacks as unfair. Alabama recently closing DMV offices in poor / black counties is unacceptable. Problems do exist, but so do remedies when people do organize and act. They have to value doing that first though. More and better advocacy is needed.
- hga 11y ago
  "However, we can still remedy that through the vote" Only indirectly, you're talking about striking "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." from the end of the First Amendment, and for Citizens United, heavily abridging the freedom of speech and the press. To do that, you've got to go thorough the amendment process, or a constitutional convention, both of which require buy in from 3/4ths of the governments of the states. To which we elect representatives and governors, but....
  - ddingus 11y ago
    Indeed we do. What is worth what? That's the question put before us. That we have it, and a meaningful, plausible, non violent answer is just. Not easy, mind you. And the ones who benefit are powerful and seek to advance that power too. We let them get there. We are going to have to value a remedy enough to check that, or we get what we get. Edit: And to put a bit sharper point on that, look at how people regard politics. Most of us, and this is my anecdotal experience talking, just don't have time for it. Why not? Scenarios like this are direct artifact of a disinterested populace. If more of us put just a few percent of our free time into basic political action, we could very quickly remedy many things. What is worth what? Seems that entertainment, play, hobbies, etc... are worth more than a better state of governance is. Even more intriguing is the impact people under 30 can actually have! Not only do they have the time, but they stand to benefit in their lives the most! They quite simply will be living in improved times. The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they are not likely to see. How fucked up is that?
    - hga 11y ago
      The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they are not likely to see. How fucked up is that? Well, seeing as how I turn 55 in less than 2 months, I'm inclined to say "probably less fucked up that you think" ^_^. Wisdom is often comes with age, and I think I've seen enough and learned enough that I can make much better decisions than I could when I was under 30. (I grant that I'm not the normal case, was politically aware by Nixon's 2nd election in 1972 (knew it was important he win in 1968, but not really why). And I study history, a lot, this comment is being made as a break from reading yet another book about the Manhattan Project.) As for the disinterested populace, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. The American "leave me alone" and "live and let live" attitudes have a lot to say for them. Especially since they rapidly adjust when things get really bad....
      - ddingus 11y ago
        I'm nearing that range too. It's not that I think older people are ill informed. They too have time, and they have experience. Your last point rings true. It's why I say the process is just. People find the difficulty of change for something like Citizens United difficult. That's as intended. If it's really bad, then more of us will care, and it will get changed.

by ionised 11y ago

ddingus 11y ago

That is unfair. However, we can still remedy that through the vote. Motivating people to actually do that is a political problem. Our process is just in this way. Lazy / uninformed people getting the product of those behaviors is arguably just, given the process does provide meaningful remedies. It's an interesting dynamic. I do see it as somewhat self-correcting. When it gets ugly enough, the process does allow for meaningful reform. Right now, social progress is good. Good enough to provide motivation for preserving the status quo. Economic pressures continue to mount, but many people still have options, and what we value as people varies widely. Many don't need or want much, but they value social equality, consideration as people, etc... very highly. Can the deal be made sweet enough for the peeps to accept an entrenched oligarchy? Who knows? My point though, on fairness, is the process in the USA is allowing that question to be posed, and posed fairly. Sure, the people are being flooded with a lot of misinformation, but most of those people are completely free to talk among themselves, gather, organize, vote... too. I will recognize voting rights attacks as unfair. Alabama recently closing DMV offices in poor / black counties is unacceptable. Problems do exist, but so do remedies when people do organize and act. They have to value doing that first though. More and better advocacy is needed.

hga 11y ago
"However, we can still remedy that through the vote" Only indirectly, you're talking about striking "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." from the end of the First Amendment, and for Citizens United, heavily abridging the freedom of speech and the press. To do that, you've got to go thorough the amendment process, or a constitutional convention, both of which require buy in from 3/4ths of the governments of the states. To which we elect representatives and governors, but....
- ddingus 11y ago
  Indeed we do. What is worth what? That's the question put before us. That we have it, and a meaningful, plausible, non violent answer is just. Not easy, mind you. And the ones who benefit are powerful and seek to advance that power too. We let them get there. We are going to have to value a remedy enough to check that, or we get what we get. Edit: And to put a bit sharper point on that, look at how people regard politics. Most of us, and this is my anecdotal experience talking, just don't have time for it. Why not? Scenarios like this are direct artifact of a disinterested populace. If more of us put just a few percent of our free time into basic political action, we could very quickly remedy many things. What is worth what? Seems that entertainment, play, hobbies, etc... are worth more than a better state of governance is. Even more intriguing is the impact people under 30 can actually have! Not only do they have the time, but they stand to benefit in their lives the most! They quite simply will be living in improved times. The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they are not likely to see. How fucked up is that?
  - hga 11y ago
    The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they are not likely to see. How fucked up is that? Well, seeing as how I turn 55 in less than 2 months, I'm inclined to say "probably less fucked up that you think" ^_^. Wisdom is often comes with age, and I think I've seen enough and learned enough that I can make much better decisions than I could when I was under 30. (I grant that I'm not the normal case, was politically aware by Nixon's 2nd election in 1972 (knew it was important he win in 1968, but not really why). And I study history, a lot, this comment is being made as a break from reading yet another book about the Manhattan Project.) As for the disinterested populace, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. The American "leave me alone" and "live and let live" attitudes have a lot to say for them. Especially since they rapidly adjust when things get really bad....
    - ddingus 11y ago
      I'm nearing that range too. It's not that I think older people are ill informed. They too have time, and they have experience. Your last point rings true. It's why I say the process is just. People find the difficulty of change for something like Citizens United difficult. That's as intended. If it's really bad, then more of us will care, and it will get changed.