4 ms·

>This occurs because only the rich have enough money to campaign and advertise the "representative." No, it occurs because there is a system which can be abuse

>This occurs because only the rich have enough money to campaign and advertise the "representative." No, it occurs because there is a system which can be abused. A system which is open to abuse can and will be abused.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
I agree. The problem is, only rich people have the money to abuse it.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  No. The problem is 'the system' isn't working. Those who have resources will bribe their way to favorable laws, and those who don't will vote to take others money for themselves.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >and those who don't will vote to take others money for themselves. The voting population is way too big for any meaningful bribe to be offered to a voter. Lets be honest, rich people work that system, voters only vote for candidates picked by rich people. The system is flawed and abusable... but only by rich people.
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      >The voting population is way too big for any meaningful bribe to be offered to a voter. It's not specifically a bribe. It's policy designed to take money from those who earn more and give their money to those who earn less. In order for politicians to be elected they need to gain a majority vote, in order to get that vote they need to offer policies which claim to aid to largest number of people. This already exists, in a variety of different forms. >The system is flawed and abusable... but only by rich people. Let's assume that's the case. What should we do?
      - crimsonalucard 11y ago
        > in order to get that vote they need to offer policies which claim to aid to largest number of people. This isn't a bribe. You describe democracy working as it should. Policies are SUPPOSE to be made to aid the largest number of people. This is the point. In societies where the system works, rich minorities often feel this is unfair when they get taxed to hell. (It's not, and currently in our society, the rich are taxed less than poor people) The system as it exists today does not benefit the majority. It benefits the elite. The elite choose who gets elected, by choosing who has necessary money to campaign. At the end of the day the politician owes more allegiance to the person who funded his campaign then the people who voted for him. The people live with it because said elected official utilizes charisma, complexity and politics to disguise the true nature of many things. >Let's assume that's the case. What should we do? I would suggest laws to prevent rich people from having too much influence on campaign funding. Ironically, I need to be rich to make that happen, and by then I'd probably be in a position where I have no desire to harm myself. Thus when wealth inequality gets too extreme there's only one inevitable solution: Violence. Other than that it's something we have to live with, as wealth inequality is a feature of capitalism.
        dylanjermiah 11y ago
        >This isn't a bribe. You describe democracy working as it should. Policies are SUPPOSE to be made to aid the largest number of people. This is the point. In societies where the system works, rich minorities often feel this is unfair when they get taxed to hell. (It's not, and currently in our society, the rich are taxed less than poor people) The system as it exists today does not benefit the majority. It benefits the elite. The elite choose who gets elected, by choosing who has necessary money to campaign. At the end of the day the politician owes more allegiance to the person who funded his campaign then the people who voted for him. The people live with it because said elected official utilizes charisma, complexity and politics to disguise the true nature of many things. Policies aid the majority, they let the 51 rule the 49. Again let's assume you're right, the elite choose who are elected and can make the rules. Why are they being taxed? Why can't they use their influence so they get to keep their entire income? >I would suggest laws to prevent rich people from having too much influence on campaign funding. Ironically, I need to be rich to make that happen, and by then I'd probably be in a position where I have no desire to harm myself. Thus when wealth inequality gets too extreme there's only one inevitable solution: Violence. Other than that it's something we have to live with, as wealth inequality is a feature of capitalism. So there are laws which supposedly benefit the rich and now you want to make more laws to fix the fact that the laws benefit the rich? You see the problem here?

crimsonalucard 11y ago

I agree. The problem is, only rich people have the money to abuse it.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
No. The problem is 'the system' isn't working. Those who have resources will bribe their way to favorable laws, and those who don't will vote to take others money for themselves.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >and those who don't will vote to take others money for themselves. The voting population is way too big for any meaningful bribe to be offered to a voter. Lets be honest, rich people work that system, voters only vote for candidates picked by rich people. The system is flawed and abusable... but only by rich people.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    >The voting population is way too big for any meaningful bribe to be offered to a voter. It's not specifically a bribe. It's policy designed to take money from those who earn more and give their money to those who earn less. In order for politicians to be elected they need to gain a majority vote, in order to get that vote they need to offer policies which claim to aid to largest number of people. This already exists, in a variety of different forms. >The system is flawed and abusable... but only by rich people. Let's assume that's the case. What should we do?
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      > in order to get that vote they need to offer policies which claim to aid to largest number of people. This isn't a bribe. You describe democracy working as it should. Policies are SUPPOSE to be made to aid the largest number of people. This is the point. In societies where the system works, rich minorities often feel this is unfair when they get taxed to hell. (It's not, and currently in our society, the rich are taxed less than poor people) The system as it exists today does not benefit the majority. It benefits the elite. The elite choose who gets elected, by choosing who has necessary money to campaign. At the end of the day the politician owes more allegiance to the person who funded his campaign then the people who voted for him. The people live with it because said elected official utilizes charisma, complexity and politics to disguise the true nature of many things. >Let's assume that's the case. What should we do? I would suggest laws to prevent rich people from having too much influence on campaign funding. Ironically, I need to be rich to make that happen, and by then I'd probably be in a position where I have no desire to harm myself. Thus when wealth inequality gets too extreme there's only one inevitable solution: Violence. Other than that it's something we have to live with, as wealth inequality is a feature of capitalism.
      - dylanjermiah 11y ago
        >This isn't a bribe. You describe democracy working as it should. Policies are SUPPOSE to be made to aid the largest number of people. This is the point. In societies where the system works, rich minorities often feel this is unfair when they get taxed to hell. (It's not, and currently in our society, the rich are taxed less than poor people) The system as it exists today does not benefit the majority. It benefits the elite. The elite choose who gets elected, by choosing who has necessary money to campaign. At the end of the day the politician owes more allegiance to the person who funded his campaign then the people who voted for him. The people live with it because said elected official utilizes charisma, complexity and politics to disguise the true nature of many things. Policies aid the majority, they let the 51 rule the 49. Again let's assume you're right, the elite choose who are elected and can make the rules. Why are they being taxed? Why can't they use their influence so they get to keep their entire income? >I would suggest laws to prevent rich people from having too much influence on campaign funding. Ironically, I need to be rich to make that happen, and by then I'd probably be in a position where I have no desire to harm myself. Thus when wealth inequality gets too extreme there's only one inevitable solution: Violence. Other than that it's something we have to live with, as wealth inequality is a feature of capitalism. So there are laws which supposedly benefit the rich and now you want to make more laws to fix the fact that the laws benefit the rich? You see the problem here?