5 ms·

> I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserv

> I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. I’m tracking that you don’t agree but it might be more helpful for you to consider why I might feel that way instead of dismissing my perspective as cartoonish. > The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. Sure, maybe. They’d probably prefer to get the same money with less effort. > They don't like the influence fundraising has on politics. They would rather focus on solving issues. It's possible to make progress on this issue, just like has been done before. I’m not sure how. Campaign finance already has the unintended consquence of inhibiting the free speech of citizens by limiting their ability to purchase advertisements prior to an election. And they politicians still get bribed. What solution do you envision? Further restrictions on political speech? Prohibiting people from donating to causes they support? > You may be a person who slavishly follows their economic incentives, in which case I'm sorry for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking everybody works like that. People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure. I’m pretty sure the politicians who collect a six figure annual salary from the treasury in addition to their laundered campaign contributions are quite attuned to financial incentives. The part where they claim otherwise is just marketing and its quite naive to take that at face value.

wpietri 6y ago
If you don't want to be thought cartoonish, you should not say cartoonish things. For example: > People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure. That's just absurd. Every day people make choices between maximizing revenue and other things they value. If everybody was so slavishly devoted to economic incentives, we'd have no teachers or nurses. I'm no expert, but I haven't heard of many teachers dying of exposure because they have other values than money. This is also cartoonish: > What solution do you envision? Further restrictions on political speech? Prohibiting people from donating to causes they support? This is already a well-discussed space. Other countries do fine. In the past, the US did better. We can do better again. If you really want to understand it, go do the work. But since it looks like you don't, I don't think it's worth my time to spoon-feed you something you could look up perfectly well.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > That's just absurd. Every day people make choices between maximizing revenue and other things they value. If everybody was so slavishly devoted to economic incentives, we'd have no teachers or nurses. I'm no expert, but I haven't heard of many teachers dying of exposure because they have other values than money. Thats a ridiculous strawman. Teachers follow economic incentives, thats why they demand a paycheck for their labor. > This is already a well-discussed space. Yes, and people still insist on pushing authoritarian restrictions on people because they seek to control other people’s behavior. > Other countries do fine. Them move to those countries. Not everyone here agrees that they are doing fine. > If you really want to understand it, go do the work. But since it looks like you don't, I understand that you can’t prevent rich people from spending their money to support causes without also restricting poor people from doing the same, and that the specifics about how those restrictions are made and enforced are the result of a product that the rich people have wildly disproportionate influence over, and the media that informs you of all of this is likewise beholden to oligarchs. So historically, these programs always result in a consolidation of power by oligarchs that is marketed to the public as “giving power to the people” and despite this issue being heavily discussed, no one seems to want to discuss this inconvenient fact.

wpietri 6y ago

If you don't want to be thought cartoonish, you should not say cartoonish things. For example: > People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure. That's just absurd. Every day people make choices between maximizing revenue and other things they value. If everybody was so slavishly devoted to economic incentives, we'd have no teachers or nurses. I'm no expert, but I haven't heard of many teachers dying of exposure because they have other values than money. This is also cartoonish: > What solution do you envision? Further restrictions on political speech? Prohibiting people from donating to causes they support? This is already a well-discussed space. Other countries do fine. In the past, the US did better. We can do better again. If you really want to understand it, go do the work. But since it looks like you don't, I don't think it's worth my time to spoon-feed you something you could look up perfectly well.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> That's just absurd. Every day people make choices between maximizing revenue and other things they value. If everybody was so slavishly devoted to economic incentives, we'd have no teachers or nurses. I'm no expert, but I haven't heard of many teachers dying of exposure because they have other values than money. Thats a ridiculous strawman. Teachers follow economic incentives, thats why they demand a paycheck for their labor. > This is already a well-discussed space. Yes, and people still insist on pushing authoritarian restrictions on people because they seek to control other people’s behavior. > Other countries do fine. Them move to those countries. Not everyone here agrees that they are doing fine. > If you really want to understand it, go do the work. But since it looks like you don't, I understand that you can’t prevent rich people from spending their money to support causes without also restricting poor people from doing the same, and that the specifics about how those restrictions are made and enforced are the result of a product that the rich people have wildly disproportionate influence over, and the media that informs you of all of this is likewise beholden to oligarchs. So historically, these programs always result in a consolidation of power by oligarchs that is marketed to the public as “giving power to the people” and despite this issue being heavily discussed, no one seems to want to discuss this inconvenient fact.