4 ms·

Wisconsin even gave Foxconn concessions they didn’t ask for, mainly around environmental impact. https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/07/02/the-state-of-politics-fo

Wisconsin even gave Foxconn concessions they didn’t ask for, mainly around environmental impact. https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/07/02/the-state-of-politics-foxconn-deal-has-divided-the-state/ https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/07/02/the-state-of-politics-...

extralego 8y ago
Democracy is the only solution: Vote for politicians willing to refuse corporate donations. See justicedemocrats.com for details on how to do your part.
- germinalphrase 8y ago
  Unfortunately, Wisconsin has been “very effectively” gerrymandered to protect the status quo majority. Gerrymandering is anti-democratic. We need to develop a better way.
- geofft 8y ago
  Since tomorrow is the 4th of July, it's perhaps worth remembering that democracy also relies on the implicit credible threat of revolution. Without that threat, what is the motivation for politicians to remain honest?
  - grzm 8y ago
    In a democracy the threat of being voted out of office can be a sufficient threat: one doesn’t require the threat of revolution.
    - geofft 8y ago
      The threat isn't against the politicans - new politicians can always be bought, or simply ineffective. The threat is against the people doing the buying.
    - ataturk 8y ago
      I disagree. Mao said "power emanates from the barrel of a gun." Force is all the state knows and government at all levels has grown enormously since the 1950s and is now an unruly beast. The people are not speaking with one voice, but if they did, and there was a real threat, the bureaucrats and the pols would listen. They are spineless opportunists, after all.
    - vertexFarm 8y ago
      It is obviously and demonstrably not. We have outrageous amounts of corruption, up to the point that it's been outright legalized. The amount of pay-for-play in our legal system and filthy regulatory capture by the regulated industries themselves in the US is incredible. The risk/reward situation is not balanced at all. There is such an obscene amount to be gained, and the only repercussion is to lose a cushy job. They get to fall back on a nice executive gig on the other side of the revolving door. Do we hold other criminals to those standards and lay out that kind of weak punishment? And even when it comes to being voted out, there's all sorts of gerrymandering and bad-faith efforts to obfuscate and soft-rig US elections. Everyone should absolutely vote, that much is true. You should always vote, even if you think it doesn't matter because they've successfully gamed the system. You still gotta vote to make it as difficult as possible to manipulate results. But voting alone is not going to cut it one day. Other civil efforts are needed to keep a democracy from becoming corrupt. A lot of people have bought into this myth that most civil progress is bloodless, but despite MLK and Gandhi's good efforts it has taken a lot of toil and death to make society even remotely acceptable and fair, to make it even superficially resemble a meritocracy. It didn't happen by itself or through voting. It took real work.
    - opportune 8y ago
      It does if your only choices don’t represent you. And because of FPTP, the choices you do have are incredibly “sticky” There is also the problem of when a group is very upset with the government but constitutes a minority. I see this as a problem with the government effectively being a gerontocracy
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > perhaps worth remembering that democracy also relies on the implicit credible threat of revolution. No it doesn't. It's precisely the opposite. In fact, any "credible threat of revolution" only serves the purposes of those who want to put an end to any semblance of democracy.
    - geofft 8y ago
      Is your position that the treason of 1775 put an end to any semblance of democracy in the US?
      - vertexFarm 8y ago
        I wanted to add something which is rightfully controversial and unpopular because it comes from an entirely different and somewhat naïve era. It's easy for us to overlook in this day and age what kind of context they had in 18th-century America. They didn't have much of a concept of a revolutionary dictator, a monstrous autocrat who emerged out of a popular revolution. Back then, dictators and despots already ruled everything through heredity and divine right. The dictators who arose from revolutions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were an out-of-context problem at the time. To them, assassination didn't carry connotations of Kennedy or Franz Ferdinand. It was a wilder and more violent age. Probably one that shouldn't be emulated. But it's astounding how rarely it's acknowledged that the second amendment was meant to act as a violent deterrent against our own government. It isn't to defend against home invaders, or hunt, or whatever. Of course the staunchest supporters of the second are often the very ones voting in the crooks they should be ousting, or at least acting as a deterrent for. That part of our central legal document exists explicitly to facilitate credible threats of assassination as one of our government's checks and balances, and we like to dance around that ugly fact. At this point it obviously doesn't work the way things did in the 1700s, like most things from three centuries ago. We now know that method doesn't end well, and alternatives should absolutely be pursued until there's no other option. But today we also live in a time when the most massive and damaging crimes done by those in government--or the pseudo-government of industry--carry no punishment at all except an abstract (and impotent) threat of being voted out of office in a few years. And our absurdly low approval rating / incumbency ratio should show us that there's something deeply wrong with that avenue. I think more people should be concerned about the implications of extremely low approval ratings combined with near-perfect rates of re-election. This casts a doubt about democratic legitimacy that we cannot deny or brush away. I think at least serious prison time should be on the table. And of course I mean the real prisons that we send normal criminals to. But that is unheard of. We need to acknowledge that checks and balances have already failed in a very fundamental way.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  On some level this solution feels over simplistic, like saying the solution to teen pregnancy is telling teens to not do things that lead to pregnancy. At what point do we admit that, regardless how good of an idea something is in theory, its a failure in practice?
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Well, sure, it's fine to say that simply voting isn't enough, but what else do you propose?
    - geofft 8y ago
      There's the old saying that there are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. We're on box 2, but don't forget about the others.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Please don’t make this partisan.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    But it is partisan. I can understand wanting to escape from politics from time to time, but unfortunately it is and continues to be a major force in our lives.
    - garmaine 8y ago
      Are you saying that Democrats don't take corporate money? Bollucks. Campaign finance reform is a non-partisan issue. Don't make it into one.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        I am saying the part where the Republican government of Wisconsin gave away a waiver for environmental regulations to a large company is partisan.
garmaine 8y ago
Is “concessions they didn’t ask for” weird? That seems like normal bidding in a competitive market.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  Yes, it's weird. It's just a right wing anti-environmental tactic. In order to permanently circumvent some environmental protection they don't like (clean air, clean water, endangered species) they make a deal with some private entity and then years down the road they throw up their hands and say "there's nothing we can do about it because of this contract." Because contracts are enshrined in Article I of the Constitution, they have a strong case. It's really bad that people can be held in perpetuity to the terms of a contract made by a single bad mayor or governor, but that's American jurisprudence for you.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    But contracts aren't supposed to have provisions in them that are against the law.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      They can, but they're not enforceable.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    It is blatantly false to claim that a mayor can circumvent the EPA or any state level environmental agency by simply signig a contract. That's not how anything works...
    - bytematic 8y ago
      With a company as big as foxxconn, the federal government is in on the deal too
    - ebikelaw 8y ago
      It's quite demonstrably true that contracts have been used to constrain government action over and over again in US history. See for example Reclamation water contracts in the west vs. all manner of conservation laws.

extralego 8y ago

Democracy is the only solution: Vote for politicians willing to refuse corporate donations. See justicedemocrats.com for details on how to do your part.

germinalphrase 8y ago
Unfortunately, Wisconsin has been “very effectively” gerrymandered to protect the status quo majority. Gerrymandering is anti-democratic. We need to develop a better way.
geofft 8y ago
Since tomorrow is the 4th of July, it's perhaps worth remembering that democracy also relies on the implicit credible threat of revolution. Without that threat, what is the motivation for politicians to remain honest?
- grzm 8y ago
  In a democracy the threat of being voted out of office can be a sufficient threat: one doesn’t require the threat of revolution.
  - geofft 8y ago
    The threat isn't against the politicans - new politicians can always be bought, or simply ineffective. The threat is against the people doing the buying.
  - ataturk 8y ago
    I disagree. Mao said "power emanates from the barrel of a gun." Force is all the state knows and government at all levels has grown enormously since the 1950s and is now an unruly beast. The people are not speaking with one voice, but if they did, and there was a real threat, the bureaucrats and the pols would listen. They are spineless opportunists, after all.
  - vertexFarm 8y ago
    It is obviously and demonstrably not. We have outrageous amounts of corruption, up to the point that it's been outright legalized. The amount of pay-for-play in our legal system and filthy regulatory capture by the regulated industries themselves in the US is incredible. The risk/reward situation is not balanced at all. There is such an obscene amount to be gained, and the only repercussion is to lose a cushy job. They get to fall back on a nice executive gig on the other side of the revolving door. Do we hold other criminals to those standards and lay out that kind of weak punishment? And even when it comes to being voted out, there's all sorts of gerrymandering and bad-faith efforts to obfuscate and soft-rig US elections. Everyone should absolutely vote, that much is true. You should always vote, even if you think it doesn't matter because they've successfully gamed the system. You still gotta vote to make it as difficult as possible to manipulate results. But voting alone is not going to cut it one day. Other civil efforts are needed to keep a democracy from becoming corrupt. A lot of people have bought into this myth that most civil progress is bloodless, but despite MLK and Gandhi's good efforts it has taken a lot of toil and death to make society even remotely acceptable and fair, to make it even superficially resemble a meritocracy. It didn't happen by itself or through voting. It took real work.
  - opportune 8y ago
    It does if your only choices don’t represent you. And because of FPTP, the choices you do have are incredibly “sticky” There is also the problem of when a group is very upset with the government but constitutes a minority. I see this as a problem with the government effectively being a gerontocracy
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > perhaps worth remembering that democracy also relies on the implicit credible threat of revolution. No it doesn't. It's precisely the opposite. In fact, any "credible threat of revolution" only serves the purposes of those who want to put an end to any semblance of democracy.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Is your position that the treason of 1775 put an end to any semblance of democracy in the US?
    - vertexFarm 8y ago
      I wanted to add something which is rightfully controversial and unpopular because it comes from an entirely different and somewhat naïve era. It's easy for us to overlook in this day and age what kind of context they had in 18th-century America. They didn't have much of a concept of a revolutionary dictator, a monstrous autocrat who emerged out of a popular revolution. Back then, dictators and despots already ruled everything through heredity and divine right. The dictators who arose from revolutions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were an out-of-context problem at the time. To them, assassination didn't carry connotations of Kennedy or Franz Ferdinand. It was a wilder and more violent age. Probably one that shouldn't be emulated. But it's astounding how rarely it's acknowledged that the second amendment was meant to act as a violent deterrent against our own government. It isn't to defend against home invaders, or hunt, or whatever. Of course the staunchest supporters of the second are often the very ones voting in the crooks they should be ousting, or at least acting as a deterrent for. That part of our central legal document exists explicitly to facilitate credible threats of assassination as one of our government's checks and balances, and we like to dance around that ugly fact. At this point it obviously doesn't work the way things did in the 1700s, like most things from three centuries ago. We now know that method doesn't end well, and alternatives should absolutely be pursued until there's no other option. But today we also live in a time when the most massive and damaging crimes done by those in government--or the pseudo-government of industry--carry no punishment at all except an abstract (and impotent) threat of being voted out of office in a few years. And our absurdly low approval rating / incumbency ratio should show us that there's something deeply wrong with that avenue. I think more people should be concerned about the implications of extremely low approval ratings combined with near-perfect rates of re-election. This casts a doubt about democratic legitimacy that we cannot deny or brush away. I think at least serious prison time should be on the table. And of course I mean the real prisons that we send normal criminals to. But that is unheard of. We need to acknowledge that checks and balances have already failed in a very fundamental way.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
On some level this solution feels over simplistic, like saying the solution to teen pregnancy is telling teens to not do things that lead to pregnancy. At what point do we admit that, regardless how good of an idea something is in theory, its a failure in practice?
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Well, sure, it's fine to say that simply voting isn't enough, but what else do you propose?
  - geofft 8y ago
    There's the old saying that there are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. We're on box 2, but don't forget about the others.
garmaine 8y ago
Please don’t make this partisan.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  But it is partisan. I can understand wanting to escape from politics from time to time, but unfortunately it is and continues to be a major force in our lives.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Are you saying that Democrats don't take corporate money? Bollucks. Campaign finance reform is a non-partisan issue. Don't make it into one.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I am saying the part where the Republican government of Wisconsin gave away a waiver for environmental regulations to a large company is partisan.

garmaine 8y ago

Is “concessions they didn’t ask for” weird? That seems like normal bidding in a competitive market.

ebikelaw 8y ago
Yes, it's weird. It's just a right wing anti-environmental tactic. In order to permanently circumvent some environmental protection they don't like (clean air, clean water, endangered species) they make a deal with some private entity and then years down the road they throw up their hands and say "there's nothing we can do about it because of this contract." Because contracts are enshrined in Article I of the Constitution, they have a strong case. It's really bad that people can be held in perpetuity to the terms of a contract made by a single bad mayor or governor, but that's American jurisprudence for you.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  But contracts aren't supposed to have provisions in them that are against the law.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    They can, but they're not enforceable.
- djrogers 8y ago
  It is blatantly false to claim that a mayor can circumvent the EPA or any state level environmental agency by simply signig a contract. That's not how anything works...
  - bytematic 8y ago
    With a company as big as foxxconn, the federal government is in on the deal too
  - ebikelaw 8y ago
    It's quite demonstrably true that contracts have been used to constrain government action over and over again in US history. See for example Reclamation water contracts in the west vs. all manner of conservation laws.