3 ms·

There are people who profess to believe that taxation is theft. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that their position has merit (it doesn't, but I'm wil

by lisper 3y ago

There are people who profess to believe that taxation is theft. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that their position has merit (it doesn't, but I'm willing to suspend disbelief) I still think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between being held up at gunpoint in a dark alley and being audited by the IRS. Likewise, there are people like you who profess to believe that acting in the interests of campaign donors is corruption. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that their position has merit (and it very well might) I still think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between voting for a bill because someone donated to your campaign, and voting for a bill because someone flew you to their hunting lodge in their private jet. There is a broad range of activities that can be labelled "corruption" but using the same word for all of them means intentionally discarding important information and nuance. There is a line -- not a sharp one, but a line nonetheless -- between "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system, and "corruption" that is not, and I choose to reserve the word "corruption", with its pejorative implications, for the latter and use some other word to refer to the former. There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work, for better or for worse. But fine, if you insist, I will refer to the former as "type 1 corruption" and the latter as "type 2 corruption". Type 1 corruption may be distasteful, but it is clearly legal. Type 2 corruption is nominally illegal, but rarely prosecuted, in no small measure because the line between the two is blurry and it's hard to prove that a given act was in fact type 2 corruption. This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary. AFAICT, Joe Biden has never engaged in type 2 corruption, which IMHO is the kind that matters. I don't like type 1 corruption any more than you do, but the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it -- because that includes every democratically elected official in the country.

lapcat 3y ago
> "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system > There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work > the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it See, this is exactly what I meant when I said, "It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption." I also said, "I don't buy that." In fact I vehemently disagree. I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the "type of ladder-climber" that I mentioned. It's possible to be "courageous" (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection. "Type 1 corruption", as you call it, is a deliberate choice. Your same argument could be made about business in general, that everyone in business must be unethical, because unethical businesspeople are more likely to succeed. But empirically it's untrue that everyone in business is unethical. Although there are indeed many, too many in business who are unethical, and perhaps they're more successful on average, there are also many people in business who refuse to throw out their principles for the sake of more cash. There are good people in the business world. What differentiates politics, in large part, is that it's not a free, competitive market; rather, it's a duopoly. Thus, if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation. There's a reason that our elections are so close, and that so many potential voters choose to sit them out entirely every cycle: the non-partisans don't see much practical difference between the two parties. There's a difference in rhetoric, but as far as taking significant action to help the majority of people, both parties do very little. Voters are not given the option of making big progress in solving societal problems; it's just a continual back-and-forth of replacing one party with the other in order to stop the latest horror. The electorate doesn't have much if any real hope, despite the empty promises of "hope" from the latest charismatic candidates; we've heard that rhetoric before and been disappointed. The only thing the parties offer is scaremongering: the other party is worse! Which may be true, but it's tiring, repetitive. In the end, the two parties can't help the public because they don't really want to help the public; above all, they want to help themselves to power and prestige. One of the dirty secrets is that powerful politicians love hobnobbing with wealthy business leaders. They don't really have to be forced to take the campaign contributions. It's one big, happy, exclusive, incestuous social club, with a revolving door between the public sector and the private sector. > This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary. I'm not buying this. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politicians were "holding back" in their level of "type 1" corruption before Citizens United, and it's not clear how Citizens United is relevant to "type 2" corruption. > that includes every democratically elected official in the country. I wouldn't go that far. I've seem some pretty good people. Though they usually don't ascend to the upper echelons of national politics.
- lisper 3y ago
  > it's not truly corruption I'm not taking a position on whether or not type 1 corruption is "truly corruption". That's just pointless quibbling over terminology. I'm just saying that these two things are different enough that they ought not to be conflated. > everyone in business must be unethical, because unethical businesspeople are more likely to succeed Yes, I think that's probably true. > empirically it's untrue that everyone in business is unethical How would you know? Part of the craft of business is making it appear that you are ethical even (especially!) when you aren't. > What differentiates politics, in large part, is that it's not a free, competitive market ROTFL. There are no free, competitive markets. Even in commerce the vast majority of industries are dominated and controlled by a very small number (often just two, sometimes one) of major players. > I've seen no evidence Have you looked? It's not hard to find. e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-corruption-pacs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-c...
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Wow, and I considered myself to be extremely cynical, as evidenced by my previous comment, but you take the cake. Nobody in politics is ethical, nobody in business is ethical, no market is competitive. I'm afraid that we live in different realities and cannot usefully communicate any further with such disagreement about basic facts. > I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politicians were "holding back" in their level of "type 1" corruption before Citizens United > Have you looked? It's not hard to find. e.g. > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-corruption-pacs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-c... I think you're missing my point. To take the first example, Paul Ryan was not somehow magically transformed in the year 2010 from a principled saint into a unprincipled villain by Citizens United. The ruling of course allowed much mischief to take place, but mischief requires the mischievous. It merely provided an opportunity to those who were already inclined to take advantage of it, like a kid in a candy store.
    - lisper 3y ago
      > Nobody in politics is ethical, nobody in business is ethical, no market is competitive. I didn't say any of those things. You came close on the third item, but the operative word there was "free", not "competitive". There are competitive markets, but they aren't free. If you want to dispute that, give me a counterexample. But if you're going to raise straw men then yes, perhaps it is time to call it a day.

by lisper 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

> "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system > There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work > the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it See, this is exactly what I meant when I said, "It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption." I also said, "I don't buy that." In fact I vehemently disagree. I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the "type of ladder-climber" that I mentioned. It's possible to be "courageous" (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection. "Type 1 corruption", as you call it, is a deliberate choice. Your same argument could be made about business in general, that everyone in business must be unethical, because unethical businesspeople are more likely to succeed. But empirically it's untrue that everyone in business is unethical. Although there are indeed many, too many in business who are unethical, and perhaps they're more successful on average, there are also many people in business who refuse to throw out their principles for the sake of more cash. There are good people in the business world. What differentiates politics, in large part, is that it's not a free, competitive market; rather, it's a duopoly. Thus, if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation. There's a reason that our elections are so close, and that so many potential voters choose to sit them out entirely every cycle: the non-partisans don't see much practical difference between the two parties. There's a difference in rhetoric, but as far as taking significant action to help the majority of people, both parties do very little. Voters are not given the option of making big progress in solving societal problems; it's just a continual back-and-forth of replacing one party with the other in order to stop the latest horror. The electorate doesn't have much if any real hope, despite the empty promises of "hope" from the latest charismatic candidates; we've heard that rhetoric before and been disappointed. The only thing the parties offer is scaremongering: the other party is worse! Which may be true, but it's tiring, repetitive. In the end, the two parties can't help the public because they don't really want to help the public; above all, they want to help themselves to power and prestige. One of the dirty secrets is that powerful politicians love hobnobbing with wealthy business leaders. They don't really have to be forced to take the campaign contributions. It's one big, happy, exclusive, incestuous social club, with a revolving door between the public sector and the private sector. > This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary. I'm not buying this. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politicians were "holding back" in their level of "type 1" corruption before Citizens United, and it's not clear how Citizens United is relevant to "type 2" corruption. > that includes every democratically elected official in the country. I wouldn't go that far. I've seem some pretty good people. Though they usually don't ascend to the upper echelons of national politics.

lisper 3y ago
> it's not truly corruption I'm not taking a position on whether or not type 1 corruption is "truly corruption". That's just pointless quibbling over terminology. I'm just saying that these two things are different enough that they ought not to be conflated. > everyone in business must be unethical, because unethical businesspeople are more likely to succeed Yes, I think that's probably true. > empirically it's untrue that everyone in business is unethical How would you know? Part of the craft of business is making it appear that you are ethical even (especially!) when you aren't. > What differentiates politics, in large part, is that it's not a free, competitive market ROTFL. There are no free, competitive markets. Even in commerce the vast majority of industries are dominated and controlled by a very small number (often just two, sometimes one) of major players. > I've seen no evidence Have you looked? It's not hard to find. e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-corruption-pacs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-c...
- lapcat 3y ago
  Wow, and I considered myself to be extremely cynical, as evidenced by my previous comment, but you take the cake. Nobody in politics is ethical, nobody in business is ethical, no market is competitive. I'm afraid that we live in different realities and cannot usefully communicate any further with such disagreement about basic facts. > I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politicians were "holding back" in their level of "type 1" corruption before Citizens United > Have you looked? It's not hard to find. e.g. > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-corruption-pacs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-c... I think you're missing my point. To take the first example, Paul Ryan was not somehow magically transformed in the year 2010 from a principled saint into a unprincipled villain by Citizens United. The ruling of course allowed much mischief to take place, but mischief requires the mischievous. It merely provided an opportunity to those who were already inclined to take advantage of it, like a kid in a candy store.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > Nobody in politics is ethical, nobody in business is ethical, no market is competitive. I didn't say any of those things. You came close on the third item, but the operative word there was "free", not "competitive". There are competitive markets, but they aren't free. If you want to dispute that, give me a counterexample. But if you're going to raise straw men then yes, perhaps it is time to call it a day.