3 ms·
All things in balance. The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give themselves a raise. Truly competing oligarchs (ironic, give
by ethbro 7y ago
All things in balance.
The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give themselves a raise.
Truly competing oligarchs (ironic, given article) are certainly more democratic than Russian-style oligarchy.
Edit: To the knee-jerk, I ask what the alternative is? Create a government-adjudicated omni-system to prevent democratic meddling, without loophole and completely impartial?
I personally think Citizens United should be repealed and caps put in place, but let's not kid ourselves that would solve the problem.
- TheDong 7y ago> The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give themselves a raise. The homeless deserve a raise (aka being housed). It's not a problem when a system fights to help the average man and those that are worse off. It's a problem when the system is only helping those that are already rich.
- hollander 7y agoThe strange thing is that the rich profit if the poor get more money to spend. But that's indirect and long term, and that is a difficult concept for many.
- ethbro 7y agoTax cuts and entitlement boosts are both raises, couched in the respective vocabulary of the two parties. One makes few friends (and attracts few votes) by pointing out that we cannot afford something.