4 ms·

I sympathize but the problem with that conclusion is "Who sets the ethical set of rules"? There's a lot of room for bottom-up using the democracy/capitalism co

by jbooth 16y ago

I sympathize but the problem with that conclusion is "Who sets the ethical set of rules"? There's a lot of room for bottom-up using the democracy/capitalism combination, provided you don't let those who have money at one particular point in time totally break the system through lobbying, rent-seeking and regulatory capture (fail).

anamax 16y ago
> There's a lot of room for bottom-up using the democracy/capitalism combination, provided you don't let those who have money at one particular point in time totally break the system through lobbying, rent-seeking and regulatory capture (fail). the "provided" applies to all systems and doesn't seem solvable. The only way to avoid it is to keep such things outside the political sphere.
- jbooth 16y ago
  What, money and regulation? Does this mean you're against corporations being able to spend money on political campaigns? ;)
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Does this mean you're against corporations being able to spend money on political campaigns? Corps and unions spend money on political campaigns because of ROI. No law will stop that as long as there is ROI, as long as there is some benefit to owning politicians. So, if you don't want them to do that, you need to take the R out of the system, you need to make it so that owning politicians isn't profitable.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Man, I love conservatives. So, you're proposing eliminating the ability of politicians to influence how laws are written? Got anything more specific than that? Or is this like the Republican budget proposal.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Man, I love conservatives. Huh? > So, you're proposing eliminating the ability of politicians to influence how laws are written? Not at all. I'm proposing opposing politicians who pass certain kinds of laws. The US also some mechanisms to keep certain things outside the political sphere. Perhaps they could be used.

by jbooth 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> There's a lot of room for bottom-up using the democracy/capitalism combination, provided you don't let those who have money at one particular point in time totally break the system through lobbying, rent-seeking and regulatory capture (fail). the "provided" applies to all systems and doesn't seem solvable. The only way to avoid it is to keep such things outside the political sphere.

jbooth 16y ago
What, money and regulation? Does this mean you're against corporations being able to spend money on political campaigns? ;)
- anamax 16y ago
  > Does this mean you're against corporations being able to spend money on political campaigns? Corps and unions spend money on political campaigns because of ROI. No law will stop that as long as there is ROI, as long as there is some benefit to owning politicians. So, if you don't want them to do that, you need to take the R out of the system, you need to make it so that owning politicians isn't profitable.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Man, I love conservatives. So, you're proposing eliminating the ability of politicians to influence how laws are written? Got anything more specific than that? Or is this like the Republican budget proposal.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Man, I love conservatives. Huh? > So, you're proposing eliminating the ability of politicians to influence how laws are written? Not at all. I'm proposing opposing politicians who pass certain kinds of laws. The US also some mechanisms to keep certain things outside the political sphere. Perhaps they could be used.