5 ms·

I have to ask: have you ever looked at the Koch brothers' actual views? Because I have a hard time reconciling your strawman description with http://www.thedai

I have to ask: have you ever looked at the Koch brothers' actual views? Because I have a hard time reconciling your strawman description with http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/koch-bros-to-bankroll-prison-reform.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/koch-bros-t... as just one example. Or http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemency-the-issue-that-obama-and-the-koch-brothers-actually-agree-on/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemenc... or http://cjonline.com/news/2015-10-15/forfeiture-reform-aligns-likes-billionaire-charles-koch-aclu http://cjonline.com/news/2015-10-15/forfeiture-reform-aligns... for that matter. Those are not rich people problems they're trying to address there... In fact, I would argue that in the area of criminal justice they are _precisely_ trying to do more to protect the poor from the wealthy. Now I agree that on some issues they do want to remove government functions that I would prefer remained in place. But that's not the sum total of what they're doing, and while I disagree with them rather strongly on a lot of their views and preferred policies I agree with them quite strongly on some others. As does the ACLU, and our current president, for that matter.

hackuser 10y ago
There are equally strong objections to their attempt to dominate the political system by spending billions of dollars, from the local to the national level on an extensive range of elections and organizations.[0] At one point, they were planning to spend approximately as much as the Republican Party on this election cycle (they don't seem to like Trump, so maybe they backed off a little, but I don't know).[1] Why should two voters have so much more influence than 310 million others? It's anti-democratic. I also think this the parent post presents an overly-moderated depiction of their views - but I'm too busy to look it up myself right now.[0] Certainly the existence of a few things I agree with among their extensive activities wouldn't mean much. [0] Wikipedia, which I wouldn't put much faith in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Ko... and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Maze_of_Money.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Maze_of_Money.png [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-network-announces-889-million-budget-for-next-two-years/22363809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/koch-...
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  > Why should two voters have so much more influence than 310 million others? Our political funding system is broken, I agree. So is our general electoral system: elections are _way_ too long, which makes them more expensive, of course. > I also think this the parent post presents an overly-moderated depiction of their views By no means am I saying that everything, or most of, or a large part of, what the Koch brothers do or think is good. I'm just saying that the claim that all their political activity is guided by the basic principle "let's see how much we can screw poor people" is a caricature, and not a terribly accurate one, and providing one simple counterexample. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to like them personally, the sum total of their activities, or any particular activities. All I'm asking for is that we don't jump from "these people are doing a bunch of stuff I disagree with" to "these people are pure evil, so anything they do must be evil, hence anything they are involved in is evil by association and must be fought against". Unfortunately, this last bit of reasoning is far too common in politics recently, all across the political spectrum. Just like the related "This organization is good, so whatever it does must be good" line of reasoning that seems to be so common... and usually indicates that the organization should be terminated before it does some serious harm. :(
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I agree, caricatures and knee-jerk reactions are not useful and not informative. It prevents finding common ground, which is essential to democracies moving forward (a good thing - I want my fellow citizens, even those who disagree, to have a say).

hackuser 10y ago

There are equally strong objections to their attempt to dominate the political system by spending billions of dollars, from the local to the national level on an extensive range of elections and organizations.[0] At one point, they were planning to spend approximately as much as the Republican Party on this election cycle (they don't seem to like Trump, so maybe they backed off a little, but I don't know).[1] Why should two voters have so much more influence than 310 million others? It's anti-democratic. I also think this the parent post presents an overly-moderated depiction of their views - but I'm too busy to look it up myself right now.[0] Certainly the existence of a few things I agree with among their extensive activities wouldn't mean much. [0] Wikipedia, which I wouldn't put much faith in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Ko... and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Maze_of_Money.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Maze_of_Money.png [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-network-announces-889-million-budget-for-next-two-years/22363809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/koch-...

bzbarsky 10y ago
> Why should two voters have so much more influence than 310 million others? Our political funding system is broken, I agree. So is our general electoral system: elections are _way_ too long, which makes them more expensive, of course. > I also think this the parent post presents an overly-moderated depiction of their views By no means am I saying that everything, or most of, or a large part of, what the Koch brothers do or think is good. I'm just saying that the claim that all their political activity is guided by the basic principle "let's see how much we can screw poor people" is a caricature, and not a terribly accurate one, and providing one simple counterexample. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to like them personally, the sum total of their activities, or any particular activities. All I'm asking for is that we don't jump from "these people are doing a bunch of stuff I disagree with" to "these people are pure evil, so anything they do must be evil, hence anything they are involved in is evil by association and must be fought against". Unfortunately, this last bit of reasoning is far too common in politics recently, all across the political spectrum. Just like the related "This organization is good, so whatever it does must be good" line of reasoning that seems to be so common... and usually indicates that the organization should be terminated before it does some serious harm. :(
- hackuser 10y ago
  I agree, caricatures and knee-jerk reactions are not useful and not informative. It prevents finding common ground, which is essential to democracies moving forward (a good thing - I want my fellow citizens, even those who disagree, to have a say).