How much resources do we apply to what doesn’t work?
I think the underline disagreement we have is solutions to things that aren’t problems. Up to this point I haven’t stated what I would suggest would work for “reforming democracy.” Too busy getting enjoyment out of pointing out the flaws with other people’s arguments I guess…
So, I’ll do it now, One: We are not a democracy, we are representative republic. We are this way because democracies are indistinguishable from mob mentality. Further, that the base precepts in the Constitution are the best. I’m not a fan of parts, like the slavery and the no voting for females thing. I think where we have gone wrong is in instituting bad policies after, attempting to “fix” small wrongs.
Thank you. Everything is a trade off. This is the essence of Economics, we trade one thing for another, we cannot have our cake and eat it too… Which took me a long time to realize it meant, having the cake uneaten, and also eating it… I am a slow thinker at times.
We pass power to the government, they use it to gain more power and to get reelected…
And the laws invariably are more power.
It’s an old one misquoted from Ben Franklin. According to his biography, he published the book, but Richard Jackson wrote it. Free version: An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
Internet Neutrality is incredibly important… And there are ways to get around those limitations… Check out the Tor Project it’s not just for terrorists…
If a law needs the opionion of law enforcement to be enforced correctly it is a bad law, and should not have been passed in the first place.
And that is not what their job should be, to figure out how to enforce shitty laws. I often find half the problems law enforcement has is because of lawmakers passing laws in the name of something, usually the biggest complainer, and nothing good comes from it.
Before we go on, I was joking about bribing judges, I do not claim that is common. Paying lawyers is expensive.
I don’t think it’s a basic human right, because it costs other people. Basic human rights include the ability to take action on your own part, but should not include the ability to take from another person.
STOP SHITTY LAWS FROM BEING PASSED AND THIS REDUCES THE COSTS! Sorry, but one of these things leads to the other. Yes, the costs for lawyers is high, how about we reduce the requirement to have them and get rid of some of the stupid laws, and at the very least, be careful of laws we pass that have no way to enforce within reason.
Yes, I would not want an English is the official language passed for the same reasons I would not want sins of omission laws passed, they leave shit up in the air, and cause unintended side effects that take away resources from other places.
We would have to be very careful of the fallacy of division. And as I said, the people that volunteer for such things may not be a good representation for the populous at large.
For example: If we took a small section where everyone was forcefully armed with guns, the volunteers for such an action would more readily be people that already liked guns. It would easily exclude people that didn’t want to carry one around, or criminal elements…
Another example: A purely socialist section. The volunteers of such a section may just be pro-socialism, resulting in skewed results again…
There is differences. Mobility, costs, and results. When someone does not “pull their fair share” in a company, they get fired. We do not kick people out of the country for being layabouts… Though, I’m sure some would be on board with that. The costs to a company comes from convincing other people give them money, and ideally, having no ability to keep others out of the market. Government just demands more of your money and is effectively a monopoly on all other levels… It does not have to produce enough to exist, just convince enough people that it is.
So we should throw ethics out, right! (JK)
Probably
An example: The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair: a short summary if you didn’t know about it. One of the weird consequences was that people freaked out about the health problems in such places. So, the lawmakers went to work to pass laws, the big meat packing places offer to pay for the regulations themselves. Which is great, for them, they can pass the costs on to the customers. Everyone cheers, except the small mom and pop shops that only compete with the big companies by being cheaper, by increasing the costs to do business they can no longer compete. Of course the Big places are cool with it, they can survive the reduction in the amount of meat purchased, at least long enough for the costs to be passed along…
Another example of such laws, Minimum wage laws: They don’t just increase the costs for big companies, they also increase the costs for the small ones. Most of the big companies don’t mind the minimum wage laws, they put the small companies out of business… I don’t here Walmart ever complain about the laws. They can take the hit better than almost anyone. (This bothers me a lot, because to often the people demanding higher Minimum wages are the ones complaining about the destruction of Mom and Pop shops as though they are not directly responsible… Bunch of idiots stuck in stage one thinking…)
I was confused by the abbreviation. Thank you for clarification.
Lobbying is in a weird place. On one hand, yes, it can be bribery. On the other, it is groups of like minded people attempting to make their desires known, just like any individual can.
Both! 
Who cares. It’s too much power in a group of people with no oversight. Would someone who spends their life dealing with 3rd world funding have any better of an outview? Some assume yes, but it might as easily be, they have a progressive outlook, which is why they got in there, and it only reinforced their outlook.
They are two different things. Their is Crony Capitalism which is when politicians give special rights and privileges to people they like in the name of capitalism, and political cronyism is when politicians give special rights and privileges to people they like in the name of politics… They are not exclusionary.
It was relevant as an example, not a political moment that needed hashing out. The questions you posted were important, but not in this discussion.
It would be a lot more dangerous, but we would have better people around us.
Agreed. I am glad to have disagreed with you.
First, these things have been tried and the result is always the same- people don't donate to funds that go to every candidate because they don't want to support every candidate and their donation no longer represents their ends. Rich people just form organizations like SuperPacs and 501c that support their desired candidate while getting around financial limits.
Second, there's nothing democratic about 'a level financial playing field' or 'equal time for all'. Time and money should be proportionate to the amount of public support the person has- that is how you have a representative Government.
And you imagine that a test delivered by a computer with results interpreted by a computer would give an accurate psychiatric profile of a human being? Why? Who would write the test, what would their agenda be, and how much would the American people know about these (no doubt) unelected persons?
That's half of it. The other half of it is that I don't believe psychology and psychiatry are hard-enough sciences that the perfect situation you describe above is even coherent. It's like talking about an absolutely incorruptible, 100% accurate art critic. Not quite that severe, but like that.
So for example, you. If you are proposing this idea, you must think there is a problem it would solve. To wit, you must think the mental health of past American Presidents has impacted the U.S. Government in some way that we need to police/monitor it. I imagine you have some certain presidents in mind. So which presidents do you think were unfit to serve office, and what, other than their political views, are you using to make that conclusion? I think this would be used as just another way for people (mostly the left) to declare that their political biases are scientific facts.
I'm saying that those who liked Obama would support the test, those who didn't like him would find some way to criticize the results, and the controversy would be so obtuse that nobody who wasn't a PhD themselves would be able to discern any useful information from the chaos.
And yet voter registration acts are routinely declared racist because the left magically knows that I.D. card, literacy, and citizenship requirements will disproportionately affect their voting blocs. If you think (for example) religion is a neurosis, or that having more empathy for fellow citizens than foreign nationals is psychopathic, or that having more concern for trees than the economy is delusional, it’s not hard to devise a test that will give those results.
My husband and I talked about this at supper last night. (As he said, we’re probably among a minority of couples who do, in fact, talk about ideas in some sort of, hopefully, meaningful way. We’re both rather nerdy. 
) It may be that the title Campaign Financing should be changed to Candidate Financing, which is a closer description of what goes on today. We’re both extremely concerned with the Koch brothers buying so much control over policy and decision making at the Federal level. It’s as Eric has said, corporations write the regulatory rules around what they already have and, thereby, squeeze out the competition.
And I understand why the $5 check box on an income tax return wouldn’t be checked. (I don’t know how many people check the box on their returns, btw.) No one wants to donate money if they don’t know where it’s going or how it will be distributed. We research charities before we donate to determine how much of our donation is actually going to the cause for which the charity was established. (And it’s time to go over our choices, again, to determine what’s changed since the last time we checked.)
On the other hand, there may be candidates with points of view who come closer to yours than the ones chosen by the two major parties, only you don’t know anything about them because they don’t have enough money to do anything more than file. This could take place at the lowest levels of the elected. How can they define/defend their candidacy when they have no money? Doesn’t it take money to find money?
Going beyond this a bit; you mentioned the Green Party a while back. What did the average American voter know about the Green Party before Ralph Nader? Had Mr. Nader garnered enough public votes in state primaries to back him in a Presidential election? I don’t know, so I’m asking you.
If he did, and if the average voter took the time to research his party and him to try to determine his creds, what would they learn? First of all, they’d find that the Green Party is a multi-national party. Enough said.
Do you understand what I’m trying to say, uccisore?
True state of affairs in politics? This should be interesting.
I’ll save you the trouble of a long investigation. Democracy is just another form of oligarchy.
It’s the type of oligarchy that deludes people into thinking they are free. So, in a sense it’s the most effective kind of oligarchy out there in present existence in convincing the slaves and peasants that they are free or that slavery is freedom.
A problem solver? Well, I’d like to hear about these solutions you have concocted.
That’s the problem with you people. You always assume the truth to be a positive or idealistic one.
You’re not satisfied with anything especially with what you call truth unless it has a happy face rubber stamped on it.
That’s obviously because we view reality rather differently.
For the optimists, positivists, and idealists it would be something like this.
-
he/she can imagine it
-
It should, ought, and needs to be good.
Tit for tat.
That’s because we have a realist gaze where often enough the truth is ugly and unpleasant but we accept it nonetheless.
We don’t try to idealize things or paint a rosy picture on everything either.
Scientifically? Science is neutral. It’s supposed to be anyways but of course that’s not always the case either. It is a method of conduct and investigation. It can’t do much into explaining things through that of actual experiences.
If you’re presuming that you’re somehow non biased in your assessment of things through some sort of scientific method I would ask that you re-examine yourself and your beliefs.
Can you use a form of scientific method unbiased of your own beliefs or perspective? I think not.
I’ve always wondered where this false sense of superiority comes from concerning positivists or optimists in general.
Certainly the delusional idealistic happy forms of thinking must feed into it somehow.
Trying to make me into a conspiracy nut job? That’s not really friendly Gib.
Everything I believe in can very much be validated in one shape or form.
The world needs more conspiracists in order to uncover the web of corruption that encompasses all of civilization.
The entire premise of civilization is one of us and them. As you may already know civilization is very unequal and discriminating.
And what is the truth?
Delude myself out of fear?
In a world where everybody only concern themselves about their own survival and self interests over all others paranoia or fear is a rational response.
Now, tell me what the truth is of democracy. Tell me how you’re going to make everybody equal within a democracy.
That I would like to hear.
Tell me how democratic reform will create total equality for all. Tell me that you have finally made a vision of a social utopia possible for us all.
It's not just today, it's how it's always ever been. Technically, a political campaign is the endeavor to get a particular person or party elected, so the current term is just fine, but the misconception is strong. There isn't really a word for 'donating money to the idea of politics in general' because nobody wants to do it and it largely doesn't make any sense. If I donate 20 dollars to candidate X, it's because I want candidate X to win, and bring about change Y that he advocates. If I donate 20 dollars to be evenly distributed between candidates I like and candidates I hate, what's my motivation? Why would anybody do it? Again, you can already donate money to a general election fund when you do your taxes, the provision you talk about already exists. All that doesn't exist is a restriction keeping people from donating to specific candidates, and there will never be such a thing because of the 1st Amendment.
This is kind of my point. You're extremely concerned with the Koch brothers buying so much control, but you aren't at all concerned about George Soros doing the exact same thing because George Soros does it to support candidates and issues you like. Just like how you're extremely concerned about the NRA, but not so extremely concerned about Planned Parenthood. I don't think you're trying to make things more democratic or representative, I think you're trying to make sure your issues never lose, maybe without realizing it.
Do you?
Do you think as many people would donate to charity if all charitable donations were taken by the State and distributed evenly to every charity, instead of the money going directly to the charity the donator wants to support?
We have the internet. That would be my fault.
I would definitely support the 'click here to donate 5 bucks to the general campaign fund' money being distributed equally so that lesser known candidates and parties get their slice.
Each state has their own rules as far as who gets on the ballot, so there's no one answer to that question. Nader qualified to show up in some states, but not others. Because of how those laws work, a small-party or unknown has a much greater chance of winning a State position than a Federal one. Nader should have ran to be a governor in Vermont or Cali or some place that likes him, done a good job there, then moved on to Federal politics once he built enough of a reputation. He didn't. Why? Because he knew he couldn't win. Candidates like Nader and Ron Paul don't run to win, they run to get maximum exposure to a pet cause of theirs. That they don't have a 'fair chance' isn't a failure of the system, they never stood a chance to begin with and winning wasn't part of their strategy.
Yeah, you don't think it's fair that conservatives/republicans have such a strong say in the political process, and you'd like to re-do the political process in some way to try and ensure that they don't. Now, I know that's not how YOU see what you're doing. YOU think you're standing up for 'the people' and trying to stop 'the evil corporations and lobbyists' from controlling everything. But it's not a coincidence that every single time you cite a 'bad guy' is a conservative, and every single time you cite a good guy, it's a leftist. Simply put, you're tired of a representative electoral process because the fringe ideas you hold can't prevail in one, so you want to restructure everything such that fringe ideas with very little popular support are [i]required by the State[/i] to be presented as on par to the mainstream ideas you want to defeat.
That's one of the main things I think the left has to get over- this idea that if only people were free enough, if only they weren't controlled and manipulated by evil-doers, everybody would see things they way you do. Nope. What you're doing isn't freedom, it's control. It just seems like freedom to you because you can't imagine free people disagreeing with you. The Kock brothers aren't doing anything George Soros isn't doing. The NRA isn't doing anything Planned Parenthood isn't doing. Repeat this until you believe it, then think about what you really want.
Hi, Uccisore, I’m taking your advice and trying to learn what I can about both sides of the giving tree. I’m doing so in order to test my gut feel by dinging it against what’s on-line (therefore public) about George Soros and the Koch brothers. But first, please recognize that I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican; I find good ideas and not so good ideas in both parties.
You’ve made a tremendous leap here. You’re applying a very general label to me and then saying that because of your label I must think about Planned Parenthood the way you believe I think about the NRA. There has to be at least one logical fallacy in your argument, since the NRA and Planned Parenthood are two very disparate bodies both of which are actually doing what they can to preserve ‘human rights’–amendment rights.
There’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to go to a gun store and buy a weapon, if I choose to do so. There’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to terminate an unexpected pregnancy, if I felt I needed to. The difference isn’t in the act, itself. The difference is in everyone’s personal feeling toward the act.
There were two reasons why Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood beck at the turn of the 20th century. The most over-riding reason was because women were dying from bearing too many children. They had been taught never to deny their husbands sexual desires. There was a secondary reason; too many ‘mixed race’/non-caucasion children were also being born. (Sanger has been thought of as a racist.) Her goal was to teach women to say, “No” to their husbands, by providing them with reproductive knowledge–sex education classes.
Roe V Wade not only gave women their personal reproductive rights, it also legalized abortion. This ended up being a tremendous coup for doctors, although they didn’t realize it at the time. As long as abortion was legalized, there was no more need for the very dangerous ‘back room’ abortions that were going on. Women could turn to recognized doctors.
But I’ve gone into this specifically to show how you shouldn’t label people; labels are too inclusive.
I am a born and raised Roman Catholic; yet, while I believe in certain teachings of the Church, I’ve always questioned some of them. I think Pope Francis comes very close to what I believe–and I’m glad to see him finally speak out against some of the long-held ‘beliefs’ of the prelates and their interpretations of Church doctrine. Look at the actions, not the words, of the priest and what has been ‘sanctioned’ from the pulpit.
But most especially I’m against any religious involvement in the politics of the US!!!
Enjoy,
Liz 
This is all a huge sidetrack:
Splitting up campaign donations so that people had to donate to the entire electoral process instead of a candidate would massively reduce how much money was donated, wouldn’t be enforceable without castrating the first amendment, and be a massive boon to left wing fringe groups, which by all accounts doesn’t sound like it would be a problem for you. You don’t want corporate influences or (now you reveal) religious influences to have any say in politics, so who the hell is left? Like I said, every reform you propose would have the results of making sure conservatives never win an election. OK fine, maybe that’s not your goal and it’s just a coincidence. I’m willing to accept that. But that’s still the end result.
Ok, there’s a lot to respond to so I’m going to trim this down to what (to me) seems the most essential points. I only skimmed over the exchanges between Liz and Ucci and ETP, but for the most part I’m ignoring it (again, only because there’s too much to address and I have very little time).
First, Eric…
Enough to make it work. It depends, of course, on whether the goal is worthwhile or not–is having a methodology for constructing and maintaining a relatively corruption free government worthwhile? And what are the costs? I don’t imagine they’d be much. I’m not sure what’s involved in conducting a science of political corruption, but I imagine an organization of academics and scholars pouring over studies, articles, government budgets and receipts, judicial cases, history books, etc.–a lot of reading. How much resources do we need to spend in order to pay the salaries of a group of university professors (from what I’m told, they don’t get paid much anyway)?
Yeah, we had this discussion earlier.
Sounds just like Uccisore’s suggestion (which I’m on board with).
Hmmm… I see two things here:
-
That what was once given to the people in response to their demands is eventually converted into a law that is forced on the people (and the companies) which they cannot, or at least not as easily–not simply by lowering the demand–undo.
-
What would have been originally paid for by the company itself is eventually paid for by the people’s tax dollars (which go up).
Have I got this right?
So passing a law without knowing how to enforce it is a bad combination. It’s better to have both or neither.
Well, that’s true. There are certain laws which I cannot make any sense out of and I suspect they come from some crisis or catastrophe that happened at some point in the past somewhere within the constituency that caused someone to complain loudly and irritatingly–and usually the catastrophe could have been avoided if it weren’t for stupidity. But the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and if the legislator responsible for oiling that squeaky wheel doesn’t do his/her job, then he/she looks bad. This ties into what Liz was saying–about lobbying groups–an extremely loud squeaky wheel, and if it weren’t for the fact that there aren’t any equally loud squeaky wheels pulling legislators in the other direction, they may not cater so readily to an irrepresentative group of people.
It need not take from other people. It may require increased tax dollars, but this presumably comes out of everyone’s pocket and pays for a service benefiting everyone (as opposed to coming out of someone else’s pocket to benefit you only).
Yes, I’m aware of that. I still think it would be a step in the right direction, though; we would certainly learn something about social dynamics. The lessons we learn may not be perfectly transposable to real-life politics and governments, but I think they would hint at certain avenues to pursue.
No, ethics shouldn’t be thrown out. But it’s a fact that heeding to them does hinder advancement in the social sciences (it’s one of those trade-offs). Personally, however, I do think the ethics board, at least in psychology, over does it.
Does this mean they get a say in which regulations are put in place and/or how those regulations are planned?
And this extra cost to do business comes from having to follow the new regulations?
If the big companies pass the costs onto the customer, doesn’t that relieve some of the pressure on the small companies to keep the price down?
See, I don’t know if I disagree with minimum wage laws–my understanding of history tells me that life for the common worker was horrible back in the 1800s and early 1900s. Obviously, not all instances of government social regulations and programs are healthy for an otherwise free market, but this one I support (within reason).
I’m still not sure I understand what crony capitalism has to do with this–my understanding of this whole subject is at a bare minimum to begin with, but that understanding says that crony capitalism is when the government subsidizes certain businesses to implement certain regulations or supply certain goods or services. But the examples you give seem more like government responses to public demands–i.e. they get to work making laws directly in response to the people, not because of some company they’re subsidizing. I must be missing something here, no?
Now Uccisore
The tests are already in existence. They are the very tests used by psychiatrists in the industry to assess psychological conditions/predispositions of patients or other subjects. I’m not imagining a test being constructed just for the purposes of screening for political candidates–that indeed would attract those with an agenda to corrupt the process.
There are only a few chief conditions I think the people would want exposed as a first priority: psychopathy, compulsive lying, compulsive cheating, certain personality disorders, and perhaps others–in any case, conditions that most robust and reputable psychiatric tests out there already test for (the MMPI, I believe, tests for at least psychopathy, and, if memory serves, certain personality disorders… but I’ll have to brush up on my facts about this)–point is: by utilizing tests that already exist and are used within the psychiatric industry, the question on motives and agendas takes a turn if it doesn’t get put aside.
But I don’t think we should put it aside, so let’s raise the question: are there any biases or corruptions within the psychiatric industry–at least among those designing and validating tests? I think the answer is obviously yes, but no more than in any other industry, and almost invariables mixed–that is, with some biased towards Republicans, others toward Democrats, some towards environmentalism, other towards industry and economic prowess, some towards helping those with mental disorders, others against… and I certainly think there are very few with any intentions of affecting the outcomes of political elections: typically people in any industry are for the most part focused on simply doing their job properly–the typical test designer/validator, although obviously biased to some degree in one way or another, is mostly focused on designing tests to test for what they’re supposed to test for, and validators on measuring the validity and reliability of those tests.
But would things change if such designers and validators knew their tests might potentially be used to screen political candidates? It might–ever so slightly. Here, I think we need to make a distinction between bias and corruption: I think if the designer or validator was expecting that his/her test might be used one day to screen political candidates, he/she might be unconsciously biased (or consciously) to skew the test in favor of one or another issue–like you said, screen for environmentalism or religion or socialism, etc.–but I don’t see how they could get very fair with this. I mean, I can imagine a psychiatrist designing and validating a test for, say, bipolar disorder, but using as his/her test subjects those who were believed to have socialist leanings. But that’s not something a mere bias could do–that requires utter and very deliberate corruption–in the sense that the psychiatrist would have to deliberately go out of his/her way to find outspoken or confirmed socialists rather than those with bipolar disorder, and he/she would somehow have to deal with the fact that his/her test is going to be reviewed by peers, his/her superiors, is going to be used by others in the field, etc.–it would be extremely difficult to pull something like that off without incurring serious consequences. A mere bias, on the other hand, might only do something like–at most–cause the psychiatrist to throw out one or two test subjects from the data set if he/she suspected they didn’t have socialist leaning–at most; more realistically, I don’t think a mere bias would have much of an effect at all on the validity/reliability of the test, much less on whether or not the country goes to shit because it allowed into office psychopaths or compulsive liars, etc. (especially if that’s already happening anyway).
Now, there’s also this to consider: what are the tests being measured up against? How do you validate a test for, say, schizophrenia? How does the psychiatrist know, from the outset, that his/her test subjects are schizophrenic without using the very test being validated? Well, if you read my response to Liz about key-map testing, you’d know this is a whole other can of worms, and relates to your comment:
In principle yes, but in practice, I don’t think it’s as bad as that. I remember learning during my undergrad that the more robust higher-end tests used in the industry (those designed using the key-map method) have a reliability rating of .98 or higher (1 is perfect). Now, of course, reliability is different from validity, but if you do your validation correctly, and correlate, for example, certain patterns in the test results with prison inmates sentence for brutal man slaughter or murder, or serial killers, etc., and that correlation doesn’t exist with a control group, and you find the correlation to measure .98 or higher, you know you’re measuring something real–maybe not exactly what you think your measuring (maybe, for example, you’re measuring the psychological effects of being in jail, not a psychopathic predisposition), but usually professionals aren’t that dumb–they’re aware of these possibilities–and tests are constantly being reassessed and revalidated under many different conditions.
Long story short, I don’t think it’s as bad as you say it is, but certainly it is a question worth some more research–another project for me: where did I learn about that .98 rating and what else do the sources say about test reliability and validity?
Correct, up until that last sentence. I don’t actually have any president in mind (well, Bush Jr. maybe, but he’s come to mind a lot more recently than when I first thought of this idea of testing politicians). What actually inspired this thread were the other debates I got into that I linked to in the OP, plus the videos that James provided. I see corruption slowly infesting the entire system, and it scares me. I don’t know who’s responsible, or what acts in particular that were passed, or what maneuvers were made, etc. I don’t have anyone in particular in mind. My concern is to screen out those who, I would think, no one in their right mind would want running their country–that’s why I’m suggesting focusing on a few key mental disorders: psychopathy, compulsive lying, etc.–not that I think the Democrats are like this but the Republicans aren’t, but more like if the Democrats or Republicans change some policy or pass some act that I don’t like, I want to know that it’s not because they’re psychopathic and are motivated by a desire to take away the freedom of Americans (or worse, make it easy to torture and kill citizens for their own pleasure). If I don’t like how some politician is running the country, I at least want the peace of mind of knowing that he/she isn’t doing it for corrupt, sinister, or “evil” reasons. I think everyone wants peace of mind like that.
That’s a relief–it tells me that this cynicism and distrust are, for the American people, business as usual, and not an all-pervading sickness that has overcome them since, as I speculated above, the 60s.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not.
Like I said, this is why the tests need to be drawn from the psychiatric industry itself–designed, validated, and used expressly for the purposes that psychiatrists usually use them for–I am not advocating the whipping up of any old test for any kind of predisposition you want to see in office, especially if you’re going to use the test just for the purpose of screening politicians. But all that was said above.
No it isn’t.
Now Joker (or would you prefer Ty… or TD… or Mr. Durden?)
Thanks for “saving me the trouble,” but that doesn’t help me very much. Trusting you just because you say so isn’t very “scientific”. I need verifiable examples of what you’re talking about.
And we need to define “oligarchy”–a quick google search says that an oligarchy is “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.” Good enough for me. Well, in a sense, any government is an oligarchy according to this definition–if they “govern” that more or less means control over a country, organization, or institution. But I don’t think the standing of a government as an oligarchy is the issue. The issue is: 1) do the members of the oligarchy come from the people (as in republics they typically do) and do they return to the people once their terms are up, and 2) are the members of the oligarchy ruling for the right reasons or are they irrevocably corrupt? That’s what I want to know. The answer is no doubt probably somewhere in the middle, but how much to one side or the other is what I’m unsure of.
I’m trying Joker, which is a lot more than I can say for other people.
Look, I realize that my chances of stumbling upon the solution for all our political woes–once and for all–are pitifully dismal, but I’m driven nevertheless. I just want some fresh ideas, some deeper insights. I hope that over time, these ideas and insights can paint a clearer picture for me of what the precise nature of the problem is, and with that hopefully a clearer picture of what a workable solution would look like–but this would be a long time.
No, I expect the truth to be independent of my biases or my emotional hang-ups. I expect it to sometimes be dark and gloomy but other times cheerful and rosy–and most of the time somewhere in between.
What way could you possibly view reality such that it always matches up with the worst case scenario that you could imagine?
What about the realist:
-
There is scientific evidence for it.
-
It makes rational sense.
Joker, everybody thinks their views are real. The pessimist thinks reality is gloomy and miserable, the optimist thinks reality is cheerful and positive. It is the nature of perception and belief: it all seems real from your own point of view. It’s all realist.
But that’s part of the method itself–science is a self-correcting method; re-examining myself and my beliefs is what I do all the time, and it is what I’m calling “scientific”.
Just to correct a potential misunderstanding, by “scientific,” I don’t mean going out and conducting controlled experiments on political situations or people involved in politics–I don’t know how I could do that–but I mean having a scientific attitude–the attitude, and ability, to distinguish between which of one’s beliefs and values stem mainly from one’s own desires and imagination and which one has evidence or factual sources for. It is admitting what you don’t know.
I don’t mind you giving us evidence for a conspiracy theory you have in mind. That’s exactly what I’m looking for. But I’ve got to warn you, I’m not going to swallow just anything you throw at me. Read my exchange with James in Will machines completely replace all human beings? for an example of how I respond to evidence of conspiracies and corruption in politics.
Yes, and that’s why society often errs on the side of their biases and prejudices. They sacrifice truth (not to mention other people) for a sense of security.
If you say so, but only if by “rational” you mean: works as a self-defense. If by “rational” you mean: gives you an accurate picture of the world, just the opposite is true. You sacrifice truth for self-protection. This may be ok for you, but you have to know you are sacrificing truth. Re-read my explanation of signal detection theory.
My goal is not to establish equality among the people–it is to establish freedom among the people.
And it’s in the works, Joker (you’re so impatient! 
). The truth is what I’m trying to find. This will be an ongoing thing for me for many years to come, probably the rest of my life.
This entire thread is but a small snippet of this unfolding process. Read through it to get a partial answer to your question. The rest will have to wait until I come up with it.
Like I said, Joker, I don’t expect much to come of this thread–certainly not the solution to the problems I’m addressing–but I hope it helps me clear up the picture I have of the nature of corruption in politics, and through that, I hope to get a clearer picture of what a solution to the problem of corruption in politics would look like.
I certainly favor the basic idea of doing something to ensure that “leaders” are qualified.
But the bottom line is that you have no means for doing that for the current structure.
The structure itself would have to change, not merely be bandaided or treated with psychoanalysis.
All we’ve ever been talking about here is structural changes. What do you mean by “structure” that the rest of us aren’t talking about?
No doubt, you’re referring to AM, so now’s your chance to explain it. But please, define “structure” first.
Tyler Durden is my latest internet persona. Tyler Durden will do. Mr. Durden for short if you like.
Sounds like you and the Scooby -Doo gang have another mystery to solve with this scientific analysis of yours.
Let me of course know the results of your investigation.
Are you not getting it yet? That’s exactly what all governments are.
It isn’t? Don’t try to side track this introspection Gib. Things are just now starting to get good.
No, they never come from the people. The elites pick a group of people that will always end up benefitting themselves where they have people vote for whatever puppet they have already pre selected and hand picked. The people idiotically and naively think that they have a choice which of course in the long run helps their handlers.
This is modern democracy. In fact this is all that democracy has ever been.
Points up You can thank me later for shedding some light on the issue.
It’s so great we have people like yourself trying for the rest of us.
Indeed. They very much are.
I always marvel at social engineers throughout history for several thousands of years.
They always come up with the same excuses as to why we can’t have utopia now in the present.
For several thousands of years they always say the same thing. They say utopia will come much later where we all just have to wait more and be patient.
Of course we can never enjoy it in our own lifetimes. Sounds like a giant circle jerk to me.
No, you’re like everybody else where the truth is whatever you want it to be.
I see people for what they are not for some sort of ideal that I want them to be. Primary difference between you and me.
Nobody escapes biases.
Relativity and subjectivity.
Science isn’t immune to personal biases.
Points up
It’s hard to give up certain or specific evidences when your much larger organized opposition goes well out of their way to conceal it all.
Yes, I do understand what you’re saying.
What is the truth?
You’re trying to falsify my perception on the world. That’s fine. It is bound to happen.
You still haven’t defined what the truth is so while you are there trying to falsify my beliefs you aren’t really supplying anything to back up your falsification.
I am a bit confused as to how you expect me to take this post seriously.
If you want that you would have to eliminate government altogether.
Two thousand years of social engineers promising everybody a better world as a sales pitch and you have the audacity to call me impatient? 
So, there is some kind of mystical objectifiable truth floating around out there just waiting for us to find and discover?
What about that imaginary man in the sky also?
I’m a very patient man grasshopper.
Let me sum up the world into something that might be more understandable to you. It’s a giant fuck fest.
How’s that for clarity?
Is the red color indicative of something?! Are you attempting to label me with your COLORS!? Colorist. (JK)
This idea is very dangerous, remember, it’s not just that you may be throwing good money after bad, by doing such things you are reducing the resources possible use in other places. We live with a limited amount of resources, if we did not, it would not be an economy. (That is literal part of the definition of economy.) However noble the idea of stopping hunger world wide, there is a point were we damage future prospects and advancements that may be more helpful. (The law of diminishing returns) Also, I cannot emphasis this enough, who the hell gets to decide what is a good idea and worth throwing other peoples money at vs what is a waste. Part of the point of free markets, rather than controlled, is to allow people to decide for themselves as much as possible.
My question was more general that specific. It could be amazing the costs that go into attempting a “corruption free government”, relative or not. Further, as more money is pumped in, the corruption will increase.
The professors trade income for other things, like safety. It is harder to quantify these things with cash money, at least without a painful explanation and a some what weird view point…
I know. It needed to be reemphasized. People keep throwing around the democracy word like it’s the answer. That what we need is more Democracy (bit D intentional). Yet, we live in a representative republic for a reason, changing it would require a lot of effort people don’t want to put in. They want their “reform” on the cheap.
Yeah, I had just realized I hadn’t done anything except criticize, partially because Uccisore had done a fine job without someone essentially standing by going, “Yeah!” to everything he said. Criticism can be useful, but I figured I should state where I stand.
On #2, it depends on how you look at tax dollars. Is there a difference between laws that increase the costs of doing business and directly take money from people? If the money is taken (via income or sales tax) the money comes from other people. If the money comes from increased costs, via the product, the money comes, from other people. Usually in the name of some temporary problem. In either case, the price increase reduces the ability to get in and stay in the market.
I’m a fan of neither. For a whole bunch of reasons… Including, the undermining of law via bad laws. Which I’ve gone into already.
Beware of the false idea of no one pulling legislators in the other direction… Or assigning subjective value to the “loudness” of supposed groups. That is part of the argument between Liz and Ucc. He is attempting to point out, their are always groups pulling in both ways.
It fails my test of a basic human right then. The right to speak, does not include the right to be heard. The right to own a house, does not include the right to be given one.
What about the rights of the people to not provide such things to other people? Do they lose their rights? Yes, you are spending other peoples money in the search of things, but they are spending you money in the same search.
I am playing devils advocate on these points.
And again, I ask how many resources are you willing to put towards something, that may not be perfectly transportable to real-life? Would you give up your car, house, life-style? These are the things that the resources may be diverted from… At least how you should think about it. We do not live in a limitless world, if we did such things could have money thrown at them until they produced results.
Instead we should allow those that are interested in such ideas divert their personal money to such things and leave the government to do only the simple, basic stuff. At least then, the invested money will not be converted into political cash, and distorted by the event. So many of the problems about corruption come from the idea that the government can apply these resources effectively.
Trade-offs are hard to analyze and mistakes are so easily made.
Both. What the hell does the government really know about meat packing? Who goes into government to regulate meat?.. Someone that has experience in meat is probably going to stay in private meat, not go into government meat… (hehe, private meat.)
Yes. Regulations always mean increased costs. Someone has to enforce the regulations, so paying for that person. Depending on how specific the regulation is, fixing any problems can be an amazing hassle, increased costs via time and actual cash. Lobbying for one reason or another, paying for that person. The lists go on. It’s amazing how little people understand the actual consequences of laws they want passed.
A little, but the big companies can pass along cost reductions via quantity over quality. A million $50 items that only make $1 a piece still makes a million dollars. If the production costs of a small company is the same, but they can only produce 50 items their price may be increased enough to throw them out of business. Yet, because they only produce 50 items, they don’t have the same problems with quality that the other groups would. The regulations would remain the same for them though…
I’ve gone over minimum wage laws in another thread, but the essence is, the real minimum wage is always zero. People can always just not hire employees. Creating a price floor above the equilibrium creates surplus, that is all. Minimum wage = unemployment.
They are connected. Rarely are laws passed in the name of crony capitalism, they are usually attempts to “fix” problems. The crony capitalism is usually an unintended side effect, things are not done in the name of crony capitalism… However, crony capitalism is often done in the name of “Helping the children.”
I would suggest, again, looking at the EconPop links. They are great 5-7 minute videos. All three go into explanations. Unless, you want, “official” (read long winded) explanations. I could find those for you if you wish. Dallas Buyers Club is all about Crony Capitalism, House of Cards is about public choice theory, and Ghostbusters is about over-regulation.
How would you get around the qualifications not turning into another aspect of political life?
Is there a structure even capable of that? Within the essential human nature as is.
Ty,
How 'bout I just call you Mr. D?
Any examples will do.
Then let’s move on. Is the fact that all governments are oligarchies (the fact that they all govern) a good thing or a bad thing?
Why should this be an issue? If we’re defining an oligarchy as any government that governs, then it’s the most trivial issue I’ve ever come across. I’d like to move on, but you seem to want to pause on this point for some reason.
So what are you saying? That the government determines how voters are going to vote, or that no matter how voters vote, the government will put into power whoever they like (and fake the results of the polls in the media)?
You talk as if I promised you something. I don’t owe you anything. I’m looking for the solutions for myself.
True, but some can recognize biases within themselves.
Yes, that may be the ultimate truth of reality.
No, but it does a pretty good job of exposing biases. It’s a method, or an attitude, for identifying one’s own biases. You’d be right to say it doesn’t get rid of such biases, but it’s a hell of a lot better than some methods for making one aware of his/her own biases, which can help immensely.
So the organizations you’re accusing of conspiring and corruption are hiding all the evidence you would otherwise be able to use as a basis for your accusations. Sounds like a lot of hot air grounded on nothing.
Well, speaking metaphorically (in the context of signal detection theory), that sometimes you have missiles, other times just ducks.
I’m trying to show you why you don’t really know the things you claim to know. ← And I’ve backed this up.
The looting, rapes, murders, etc. that would erupt as a result of a collapsed government would not create an atmosphere of freedom. Being constantly under threat of theft, rape, murder, etc. is not my idea of freedom.
But let’s talk about freedom. I think that would be constructive.
There are many ways to define “freedom” and I think the meaning often gets confused because it is often used in the wrong contexts.
For our purposes, I can think of 3 meanings of “freedom”:
-
metaphysical freedom: freedom from the laws of nature. ← I don’t believe in this.
-
social freedom: freedom from the influence of society or other people. ← this is only possible for someone living in total isolation.
-
political freedom: the freedom to determine one’s own lifestyle and what one wants out of life while living in society. If I can choose what I want to study in school, or what job I want to get, or who I marry, or what kind of entertainment I want to indulge in on a Friday night, or what kind of car I want to buy, or what sports I want to get into, or what foods to eat, or where to eat, or what kind of sex life I want to live, or whether to own a pet or not, or what kind of commodities I want to own, or what to express and how to express it… the greater the range of options that are open to me in the context of these choices, the greater my political freedom. A total loss of political freedom would look like a government agent constantly there to point a gun at my head whenever I decided to make a choice for myself that he/she didn’t like. Even if you really believe that the freedom we allegedly have in a so-called democracy is the wool being pulled over our eyes, as long as I can make choice like these, I still say we are free.
I don’t know what you’re getting at. Why would the truth have to be some metaphysical object floating around in order to say it’s out there and can be discovered. The Watergate scandal was a truth that was out there and eventually discovered–all that means is that information leaked and people caught wind of it. Why all this talk of “mystical objectifiable truth floating around out there”?
Not good. What’s a “fuck fest”?
Eric,
Red represents blood… 
No it doesn’t 
. I figured my reply was long so I decided to color code the people I was responding to so they could find what’s addressed to them more easily. Do you prefer blue? 
Yes, if it was a generalization, but it wasn’t. Re: what followed:
I wasn’t talking about pumping money into a project for forming a corruption free government, I was talking about pumping money into the scientific study of political corruption. The returns would just be greater knowledge of the nature of political corruption. This might lead, eventually, to changes in government with the goal of reducing corruption, but that would be an after-effect of what the money is actually paying for.
As a science of corruption, I would expect it to be value-neutral. What counts as a “good” idea and what counts as a “waste” would not be questions that such a science would pursue. Rather, such a science would pursue questions like: under what conditions do politicians lie to their constituents? What strategies have worked in the past to keep politicians honest? How often, and under what conditions, do politicians who get caught doing things considered corrupt by the people get consequences for their actions, and how severely? What percentage of the federal budget gets swindled for unapproved actions? Under what conditions does that percentage increase? Under what conditions does it decrease? You know, things you can objectively measure.
Ok, we don’t have to call it a “democracy” if you don’t want. To me, that’s splitting hairs, but it doesn’t matter. My goal isn’t to change a system that isn’t currently a democracy into a democracy–it’s to understand the nature of the political corruption that exists within it and to try and think of potential solutions. What the system’s called is really the least of my concerns.
Well, thanks for recognizing that, Eric. This is actually a deep concern of mine when it comes to issues like this. It’s fair to criticize–it’s healthy and productive when responded to in the right way–but I always fear that criticisms are being made for the wrong reasons. I’m not one for pigeonholing people, but we can make the overly simplistic statement that there are two kinds of people: those who criticize simply because they prefer to complain rather than solve problems, and those who criticize because they understand the importance of knowing where there is room for improvement in a potential solution to a problem. It’s sometimes the case that people will complain as a substitute to problem solving–as though they’ve settled on complaining as the solution. For these people, it can get so bad that they prefer to exacerbate the problem just so the problem continues to exist for them to complain about. When listening to criticisms and complaints, it can be difficult to tell the difference between those who are criticizing/complaining for its own sake, and those who are merely trying to point out areas for improvement in a potential solution so as to help make the solution actually work. However, I do recognize the latter by a few criteria: when they actually praise a proposed solution for its strong points parallel to criticizing or complaining about its weak points, and when they follow up criticisms/complaints with possible ways of fixing them. The former, on the other hand, will, after silencing the proposed solution with his/her criticisms and complaints, typically take that silence as a reason never to consider the solution ever again (even if there’s a chance it could be improved on over time)–as if trying it out was worse than trying nothing at all. That really irks me. It’s especially frustrating to me because there doesn’t seem to be a way of snapping people out of it. It’s almost as if they get stuck in a self-reinforcing state of mind. Their goal is not to reason with you–so reason doesn’t work–but to create more and more reason to complain.
Well, if increased costs of doing business get passed on to the customer, then it is only those customers who want the good or service who pay for it. With increased tax dollars, everyone pays for it whether they want it or not.
But I take you to be saying it is often the case that one group pulls harder than others. I assume that’s what you meant by “lawmakers passing laws in the name of something, usually the biggest complainer…”
But we could say that everyone has the right to legal defense but they may have to work for it or pay exorbitant fees–in other words, no one has that right to prevent someone from gaining legal defense.
Hmmm… I see what you mean. ^^ This is a good punch line.
In regards to the studies I proposed, I don’t think any more resources would have to be thrown at them than what’s already being thrown. What I mean is, these are the kinds of studies conducted in the social sciences anyway. Some variant of the particular ones I described will probably eventual be conducted one day if it hasn’t already. All I’m suggesting is the “class” of studies–or the type or category–if it isn’t already a recognized one in the field.
So minimum wage creates higher unemployment rates? Maybe, but when I look at the big picture, it still seems to me that life in the work force was better once minimum wage laws were introduced than before (not better for the unemployed obviously, but overall).
Ok, so the people make a fuss about some issue, they pressure legislation to pass a law, the government looks for some company to enforce (and plan regulation of) the law, and that company usually ends up being one of the very companies being regulated by that law.
Is this right?
But why does the government pick a company who would be subject to the very regulations they are being hired to enforce? Is it just because only such companies would be knowledgeable enough about how such regulations would pan out in the industry? Or are you saying that the government doesn’t pick, but rather the companies themselves offer to pay for the regulations (with the hidden agenda of shaping those laws to suite themselves)?
No, that’s not it. The people with power via media and backroom stuff determine who has a chance to be considered a candidate. This is obvious at the presidential level. You need incredible amounts of money to have a change to win either the democratic or republican nominations, let alone the presidency. If you are a third party candidate, the mainstream media will flay you alive. If you are someone those with power do not want, you simply do not get the money to run. Shit can also be dug up on you or made up. There are other dirty tricks. You must adhere to corporate power or you will not be a president, period. This is also true for most of the house and senate, though an occasional exception can come through, but they are marginalized. Once people are in office, they are bombarded by lobbyists and the favors of the money they got are called in. I am sure there is some darker shit going on also to control people, but you barely need it. EVen in Ancient Rome the power players knew how to move the mob to where they wanted them to be. Now the mob are voters, so via the media they are moved around. And the whole good cop, bad cop game of republicanvsdems is functioning a bit like the lottery - which the modern mob play regularly. Sometime in the future ‘your’ candidate may come in and then things will get better.
People live in this subjunctive.
When in fact you are just dealing with handplucked people for the oligarchy.
You know who set things up for the financial crash, let the rich make money out of air. It was Clinton, at the behest of neo-cons he opened the doors for the kinds of wild speculation that led to 2008 and the incredible shift of funds from relatively many to very few.
Tyler presents a neater version of my sense of the oligarchy. I think these are nasty people and I don’t think they all love eachother. It’s floppy and messy at the top as they jockey for power between each other, while sharing a common disdain for the trash people like you and me.
You get to choose between their candidates.
Choosing between Nike and Addidas is not freedom,
but don’t tell most citizens, I mean, consumers that.
So many words; so little progress. Where to start? What to say? What to do, if anything can be done? It’s no wonder people often feel so frustrated and defeated.
Moreno is correct, imm, when he says the US electorate doesn’t choose the candidates. The process starts way early on and it’s controlled by the 2 major parties. (Thank you, Moreno.)
When the 2 parties whittle down their lists to one or two candidates, the water is tested. News articles start to appear in the back pages–to get the names known, if they’re not known outside their states. Campaign ‘war chests’ are started with funding coming from the parties, rather than the people. This is what I was trying to get at when I brought up ‘campaign finance reform.’ By the time the campaign machine shifts into 3rd gear, the party has pretty much chosen its candidate.
An aside: I think this is what happened in 2008, and the Republican Party was taken by surprise. It miscalculated the effect the Bush Administration had had on the electorate, which the Democratic Party used to its advantage. The 09 financial melt-down is helping the Republican Party in this election–as it started to do in the mid-terms between then and now. The Democratic Party also miscalculated by not understanding (or denying) the depth of the racial prejudice that exists within our country and/or by miscalculating the depth of US pride in its place as economic leader of the world. Both parties have already started to work on the next presidential election, with the Republican Party pushing a ‘corporate/business’ agenda and the Democratic Party back-pedaling in an effort to regain credibility.
We don’t live in an open market economy; we live in a mixed market economy. We must, because we’re a part of the global economy. Our corporations are global, publicly owned, corporations, for the most part. The owners aren’t necessarily (predominately) US citizens. That’s one reason why the bailouts were necessary, imm. If a “US bank” failed, any ‘body’ with whom it had financial dealings would also fail. That would mean governments, from nations on down, would be involved in the failures. This simply could not be allowed to happen. Why?
Financial stability depends on credit–but there has to be a balance between credit and future productivity since, in the long term, the credit has to be paid for. One thing that means is that countries have to be able to keep their credit ratings, just as an individual has to do. As an individual, you have to pay back what you’ve borrowed, don’t you? Countries and their markets have to do the same thing. There’s really very little difference between micro- and macroeconomics, all things (almost) considered.
I’m on a tangent, it seems. It really isn’t tangential. Think about it. Braid you daughter’s hair into a French braid, both an inside and an outside braid. You may be able to better understand what I’m talking about.
Enjoy,
Liz
Having said all that, I’d like to say–you guessed it–even more. It’s most probably off-topic, but I need to say it.
I told Uccisore I’d try to discover what I could about George Soros and the Koch Brothers. I never got beyond their respective bios. (I may, ultimately, if I can get by my deep gut feel.) Y’all can look them up, so I don’t think I need to re-cap. This goes along with what gib has said about psychological/psychiatric testing.
Would you prefer to go along with the ideas backed, financially, by a naturalized citizen, a gambler from Hungary who espouses democracy and doesn’t really ‘own’ much of anything, or by the product of a dis-functional, ‘native’ family that espouses democracy and that controls the second largest family-owned corporation in the US? (Cargill Industries is the largest.) That’s a very biased question, isn’t it? And I was trying so hard.
To me, the 2 major parties aren’t really doing anything other than trying to capture votes. Each Party hopes to appeal to the majority of the popular vote, although that’s only meaningful at the state level. One Party will look to perceived minorities; one will look to the Religious Right, for votes. Which minority is real? I don’t think either party cares, as long as it gets the votes it needs to put a candidate into office so as to influence policy, one way or another.
It’s a game, folks–a game we should no longer agree to play. But, it’ll continue to be played as long as the public is willing to give up its need for critical thinking.
Enjoy,
Liz