3 ms·
Every one of the 50 states and the fed having provisions for special arrangements doesn't, to me, say that the arrangements themselves are common, only that cor
by daenz 5y ago
Every one of the 50 states and the fed having provisions for special arrangements doesn't, to me, say that the arrangements themselves are common, only that corruption is common.
I agree, if Florida attempted to kill all of the special arrangements, it would definitely appear less biased to people (although impractical, it could still be purely political cover). If you're making the case that targeting Disney's special privileges vs the other company's special privileges is what makes it unfair, I could get behind that more than other arguments that I've seen. But my response to that would be to expand the removal of these privileges. Since that is far less likely to happen, I'm comfortable with using politically motivated reasons (of any side, I don't care who does it and why) to accomplish it.
- Volundr 5y ago> Since that is far less likely to happen, I'm comfortable with using politically motivated reasons (of any side, I don't care who does it and why) to accomplish it. I cannot begin to fathom this position. Your describing "you can negotiate special privileges if you have enough influence, but only if you never speak against me" as less corrupt than "you can negotiate special privileges if you have enough influence".
- daenz 5y agoYes, I believe the former is a less corrupt position in a democracy, because it has a natural balance: the opposing side will work to remove those special privileges. In the latter, there is no check to balance it, so it is more corruptible.