4 ms·

Yeah I agree. The citizenry is the citizenry. No changing that. The tricky thing is to design a system where it is more difficult for them to make certain choic

Yeah I agree. The citizenry is the citizenry. No changing that. The tricky thing is to design a system where it is more difficult for them to make certain choices (arguably bad ones). Taken too far, you end up without a democracy anymore. Although I think representative government is important, perhaps even more important is the protection of rights of those people not in the majority. You hear this constant drum beat from the American conservatives advocating for more democracy in the world. Certainly, that is an element of a solution. But that alone will just end up with mob rule and life for those outside the mob will be terrible.

ams6110 12y ago
Which American conservatives advocate for more democracy without rule of law and strong protection of individual rights (particularly property rights)? None I've heard.
- warfangle 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure most American conservatives advocate for less democracy (corporations are people, my friend!), less rule of law (if not by voting, by actions: be it sexual misconduct -- from rape to child molestation -- or outright abuse of power for personal monetary gain) and less individual rights (from gay marriage to the surveillance state).
  - crazy1van 12y ago
    While I don't agree with the simplistic neo-conservative view of just try to spread democracy everywhere, I think your critiques are unfair. > corporations are people, my friend! Of course they are. Corporations are groups of people pooling their resources. Why would people lose rights by acting together with other people? > less rule of law (if not by voting, by actions: be it sexual misconduct -- from rape to child molestation I don't think there is any wing of American politics in favor of rape or child molestation. I'm assuming this comment refers to a particular event that I'm not aware of. > or outright abuse of power for personal monetary gain That's just power + human nature. I don't think it follows party lines. > less individual rights (from gay marriage to the surveillance state). I agree, conservatives have been stupid on gay marriage. Why would the same people who always advocate family values want to prevent people who care deeply for each other from forming new families? As for the surveillance state, that seems to be about the same on both sides of the political spectrum.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      >Why would people lose rights by acting together with other people? Well, they as individuals don't. And shouldn't! Why would preventing corporations from funding politicians prevent the individual members of a corporation from funding politicians? Organizations probably shouldn't be donating to political campaigns or political action committees, be they unions or banks or technology companies. Politics is for the individual, not the conglomerate. Otherwise you're knee deep in lester-land[0] and all the quid pro quo corruption that results from it. >I don't think there is any wing of American politics in favor of rape or child molestation. Oh, the politics doesn't favor it, but a lot of (both)-wing politicians tend to get caught diddling people they're not supposed to[1], including minors. >that seems to be about the same on both sides of the political spectrum. That's because there really is only one side of the political spectrum in this country :) Right wing (democrats) or extremist right wing (republicans). There is no left in this country, there's just "left of." 0.http://www.lessig.org/2013/04/lesterland-the-talk-the-ebook-the-abook-as-in-audio-book/ http://www.lessig.org/2013/04/lesterland-the-talk-the-ebook-... 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_s...
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Why would preventing corporations from funding politicians prevent the individual members of a corporation from funding politicians? Even under Citizens United, corporations are still prohibited from funding politicians, per se. What they are permitted to do is make unlimited independent expenditures of their own funds in order to promote candidates, policies, etc. And corporations are not just natural persons banding together, they are creations of government through which other people in society subsidize the downside risk of the people "banding together" in the corporation, including debts incurred -- so anything they are allowed to spend funds on is something that potentially something other people would be forced to pay for even though the people "banding together" were solvent.

ams6110 12y ago

Which American conservatives advocate for more democracy without rule of law and strong protection of individual rights (particularly property rights)? None I've heard.

warfangle 12y ago
I'm pretty sure most American conservatives advocate for less democracy (corporations are people, my friend!), less rule of law (if not by voting, by actions: be it sexual misconduct -- from rape to child molestation -- or outright abuse of power for personal monetary gain) and less individual rights (from gay marriage to the surveillance state).
- crazy1van 12y ago
  While I don't agree with the simplistic neo-conservative view of just try to spread democracy everywhere, I think your critiques are unfair. > corporations are people, my friend! Of course they are. Corporations are groups of people pooling their resources. Why would people lose rights by acting together with other people? > less rule of law (if not by voting, by actions: be it sexual misconduct -- from rape to child molestation I don't think there is any wing of American politics in favor of rape or child molestation. I'm assuming this comment refers to a particular event that I'm not aware of. > or outright abuse of power for personal monetary gain That's just power + human nature. I don't think it follows party lines. > less individual rights (from gay marriage to the surveillance state). I agree, conservatives have been stupid on gay marriage. Why would the same people who always advocate family values want to prevent people who care deeply for each other from forming new families? As for the surveillance state, that seems to be about the same on both sides of the political spectrum.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    >Why would people lose rights by acting together with other people? Well, they as individuals don't. And shouldn't! Why would preventing corporations from funding politicians prevent the individual members of a corporation from funding politicians? Organizations probably shouldn't be donating to political campaigns or political action committees, be they unions or banks or technology companies. Politics is for the individual, not the conglomerate. Otherwise you're knee deep in lester-land[0] and all the quid pro quo corruption that results from it. >I don't think there is any wing of American politics in favor of rape or child molestation. Oh, the politics doesn't favor it, but a lot of (both)-wing politicians tend to get caught diddling people they're not supposed to[1], including minors. >that seems to be about the same on both sides of the political spectrum. That's because there really is only one side of the political spectrum in this country :) Right wing (democrats) or extremist right wing (republicans). There is no left in this country, there's just "left of." 0.http://www.lessig.org/2013/04/lesterland-the-talk-the-ebook-the-abook-as-in-audio-book/ http://www.lessig.org/2013/04/lesterland-the-talk-the-ebook-... 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_s...
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Why would preventing corporations from funding politicians prevent the individual members of a corporation from funding politicians? Even under Citizens United, corporations are still prohibited from funding politicians, per se. What they are permitted to do is make unlimited independent expenditures of their own funds in order to promote candidates, policies, etc. And corporations are not just natural persons banding together, they are creations of government through which other people in society subsidize the downside risk of the people "banding together" in the corporation, including debts incurred -- so anything they are allowed to spend funds on is something that potentially something other people would be forced to pay for even though the people "banding together" were solvent.