3 ms·

You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!

by jonknee 10y ago

zo1 10y ago
Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people. Edit: grammar.
- jonknee 10y ago
  Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.
geofft 10y ago
It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money. It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote. In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.

You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!

by jonknee 10y ago

You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!

zo1 10y ago

Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people. Edit: grammar.

jonknee 10y ago
Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.

geofft 10y ago

It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money. It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote. In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.