3 ms·

Every adult U.S. citizen is a part of the "political class". The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. There is no

Every adult U.S. citizen is a part of the "political class". The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. There is no other way for a Democracy to work properly. This is not limited to the paltry amounts being thrown at entrepreneur programs, but to the larger amounts in things like Social Security, Defense spending, etc... Although I'm not a fan of excess Defense spending, you would be well advised to remember that the Internet would not exist without it.

tlb 17y ago
So, you're saying it's good for the gov't to give a lot of handouts, but to ensure fairness all citizens will have to get involved, follow politics, lobby their congressperson, to ensure the pork is divided fairly. How about just making the government hand out less pork. Wouldn't that be more efficient? As pork approaches zero, it's not only fair, but founders won't waste all their time writing grant proposals and we all won't have to waste our time getting involved in politics.
- jhancock 17y ago
  I agree with the first part of your response although its not really a goal of this form of stimulus to hand out "fairly". The goal is to provide for macro-economic stimulus. The second part of your reply depends on many factors. Not every form of stimulus ends up being a "handout" or "pork". Most stimulus can be debated ad nauseam as to if it had the intended effects and most likely if you can measure the effects, you have to do so in longer stretches than 2/4/6 year election cycles. I completely disagree that people should not "waste" their time in politics. Government is an investment. Its foolish to not oversea and provide/demand input to what you have invested in. This is a core problem with the U.S.: people think they can just pay taxes (preferably low) maybe even be so bothered as to vote once every few years, and government and the economy will run smoothly. To put it as bluntly as possible: "Democracy belongs to those that show up". If you do not get involved you will most likely find yourself eternally dissatisfied with the results.
defen 17y ago
> The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. I think you have a naive view of how the United States is run. The majority of the people in this country simply do not have the time/money/inclination to participate meaningfully in the political process beyond (possibly) going to the ballot box. Furthermore, most policy decisions are actually made by unelected career bureaucrats. What ends up happening is that vocal minorities who DO feel strongly about a particular topic end up having disproportionate influence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture for an example, although the phenomenon is more general than that. From the article: "...regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. When this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at 'capturing' influence with the staff or commission members of a regulatory agency so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented, then regulatory capture has occurred." That's democracy in a nutshell - except it applies to governments, not just regulatory agencies.
- jhancock 17y ago
  Regulatory capture may always exist to varying degree. To lessen the effect takes involvement. I fail to see how my view is naive. You only have two choices: "get involved" or "do nothing". I am fully aware most people do nothing (except complain). However, the stats from 2008 elections show significant increase in involvement. Your view of "democracy in a nutshell" is "democracy performing poorly". It is your choice to take the pessimistic view that it will remain this way. My view is that democracy is a process, not a product.

tlb 17y ago

So, you're saying it's good for the gov't to give a lot of handouts, but to ensure fairness all citizens will have to get involved, follow politics, lobby their congressperson, to ensure the pork is divided fairly. How about just making the government hand out less pork. Wouldn't that be more efficient? As pork approaches zero, it's not only fair, but founders won't waste all their time writing grant proposals and we all won't have to waste our time getting involved in politics.

jhancock 17y ago
I agree with the first part of your response although its not really a goal of this form of stimulus to hand out "fairly". The goal is to provide for macro-economic stimulus. The second part of your reply depends on many factors. Not every form of stimulus ends up being a "handout" or "pork". Most stimulus can be debated ad nauseam as to if it had the intended effects and most likely if you can measure the effects, you have to do so in longer stretches than 2/4/6 year election cycles. I completely disagree that people should not "waste" their time in politics. Government is an investment. Its foolish to not oversea and provide/demand input to what you have invested in. This is a core problem with the U.S.: people think they can just pay taxes (preferably low) maybe even be so bothered as to vote once every few years, and government and the economy will run smoothly. To put it as bluntly as possible: "Democracy belongs to those that show up". If you do not get involved you will most likely find yourself eternally dissatisfied with the results.

defen 17y ago

> The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. I think you have a naive view of how the United States is run. The majority of the people in this country simply do not have the time/money/inclination to participate meaningfully in the political process beyond (possibly) going to the ballot box. Furthermore, most policy decisions are actually made by unelected career bureaucrats. What ends up happening is that vocal minorities who DO feel strongly about a particular topic end up having disproportionate influence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture for an example, although the phenomenon is more general than that. From the article: "...regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. When this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at 'capturing' influence with the staff or commission members of a regulatory agency so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented, then regulatory capture has occurred." That's democracy in a nutshell - except it applies to governments, not just regulatory agencies.

jhancock 17y ago
Regulatory capture may always exist to varying degree. To lessen the effect takes involvement. I fail to see how my view is naive. You only have two choices: "get involved" or "do nothing". I am fully aware most people do nothing (except complain). However, the stats from 2008 elections show significant increase in involvement. Your view of "democracy in a nutshell" is "democracy performing poorly". It is your choice to take the pessimistic view that it will remain this way. My view is that democracy is a process, not a product.