6 ms·
> assumption that legislators will always eventually give in to bribes and lobbying Yes this is my assumption. Not all legislators and not everytime, but on a
by Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
> assumption that legislators will always eventually give in to bribes and lobbying
Yes this is my assumption. Not all legislators and not everytime, but on a long enough scale eventually tenacious lobbying will find ones that will and get what they want.
> We'd be better off with no legislators at all.
I'm cynical, but also practical. As churchill said, "apart from all the others, democracy is the worst form of government". Its advantage is that sometimes bad laws can be overturned and good ones put into place - at least for a little while. It has happened before and could happen again. Just because I think things are awful now doesn't mean I don't think they could be worse.
- _heimdall 3y agoIf were going with a long enough time table, wouldn't we have to assume this inevitably plays out as either a failed state or some form of a fascist state after industry takes over the government? If the expectation is that legislative bodies will always eventually be bought, and that there isn't a structural change in government structure to avoid this, why have the state at all? Every law executive order, etc passed is effectively removing authority and self determination of the individual and giving it to the state, either for the greater good or because we simply think they will use that power better. If we know they'll eventually be bought, why would we possibly want to centralize that power and authority in the first place?