4 ms·

Or we prevent politicians from being bought out. Otherwise this can apply to anything and everything as it already does. Farm policies that help bust small farm

Or we prevent politicians from being bought out. Otherwise this can apply to anything and everything as it already does. Farm policies that help bust small farmers in favor of corporate farmers as an example. Then what we end up with is no government (which is fine with me but detestable by many) and local organizing.

reedjosh 5y ago
Yes, this is a general argument against government. Government always tends towards corruption, so allowing it the total control of anything ends badly.
- willvarfar 5y ago
  And places without strong government also tend towards corruption. There was an interesting article on HN yesterday about the failure of nation building in Afganistan https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799
- dv_dt 5y ago
  Allowing total control of anything with no input from those affected ends badly. It is independent of if that concentration takes the form of a corrupted government or capital accumulation or a warlord. Of those only a democratic government at least has the theory of responding to those governed. Either forms tend to be a hierarchical application of power with few checks.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
I hope I'm alive to see the day voters scrutinize politicians whom take lobbiest contributions. There are websites that lay it all out, but not many people bother to do our homework, including myself. I have heard the insurance industry lobbiests, and not just medical insurance, pretty much control my state (California).
- tcmart14 5y ago
  Me too. But people are too busy caring whether or not a D or R is present next to the name and what social policies are pushed. Who cares about economic policy when I really just want others to be forced to live with the morals I have? And in some cases, some voters do see those corporations and wealthy as people who should lead society. Like they they will actually admit it, but it can be seen from actions and comments.

reedjosh 5y ago

Yes, this is a general argument against government. Government always tends towards corruption, so allowing it the total control of anything ends badly.

willvarfar 5y ago
And places without strong government also tend towards corruption. There was an interesting article on HN yesterday about the failure of nation building in Afganistan https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799
dv_dt 5y ago
Allowing total control of anything with no input from those affected ends badly. It is independent of if that concentration takes the form of a corrupted government or capital accumulation or a warlord. Of those only a democratic government at least has the theory of responding to those governed. Either forms tend to be a hierarchical application of power with few checks.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

I hope I'm alive to see the day voters scrutinize politicians whom take lobbiest contributions. There are websites that lay it all out, but not many people bother to do our homework, including myself. I have heard the insurance industry lobbiests, and not just medical insurance, pretty much control my state (California).

tcmart14 5y ago
Me too. But people are too busy caring whether or not a D or R is present next to the name and what social policies are pushed. Who cares about economic policy when I really just want others to be forced to live with the morals I have? And in some cases, some voters do see those corporations and wealthy as people who should lead society. Like they they will actually admit it, but it can be seen from actions and comments.