Wikipedia's article on Libertarianism

[thegreekdog]

I'm not even advocating a Libertarian position (although I am a registered Libertarian) with respect to economic/tax issues.

Here's the history of this months-long argument:

I think we've all agreed that the present system in the United States is broken. We've all reached a consensus on that issue, although as Neoteny (I think) pointed out, is it really that bad?

So once we've come to that agreement, the next question is how to fix it.

(1) I advocate less government intervention, less government regulation, less government doing stuff instead of private business/citizens, and campaign finance reform.
(2) On the other hand, Player advocates more government regulation, more government doing stuff.
(3) I contend that Player's system doesn't work because that's the system we currently have and we've already come to a consensus that it doesn't work.
(4) Player contends that my system doesn't work. I've asked her to provide examples.
(5) Player provides examples within the current system.
(6) I tell her it's the current system and her examples are invalid.
(7) Player says what about the 19th and early 20th centuries.
(8) I ask her to give specific examples so I can refute them and I also indicate, very generally, that the 19th and early 20th century systems were much like our current system.

If she (or Symm) can't give specific examples, that's fine, but don't call me out on this whole thing. I've always been and will continue to be reasonable about this discussion.

2-3 Seem a little unfair on Player, saying that she wants government doing more stuff, but at the same time arguing that it's the system we (presumably the US) already have, no? How can anyone argue with a stance like that? It's vague in its terms ("stuff"?) and contradictory in it's structure ("we shouldn't do more because that's what we're already doing").

Unfair? No. Simple? Yes. How can anyone argue with a stance like that? Excellent question. Perhaps you don't read a lot of Player's posts. Or maybe I just didn't make sense since I've been having this argument with Player for a year or two.

[Symmetry]

I'm not even advocating a Libertarian position (although I am a registered Libertarian) with respect to economic/tax issues.

Here's the history of this months-long argument:

I think we've all agreed that the present system in the United States is broken. We've all reached a consensus on that issue, although as Neoteny (I think) pointed out, is it really that bad?

So once we've come to that agreement, the next question is how to fix it.

(1) I advocate less government intervention, less government regulation, less government doing stuff instead of private business/citizens, and campaign finance reform.
(2) On the other hand, Player advocates more government regulation, more government doing stuff.
(3) I contend that Player's system doesn't work because that's the system we currently have and we've already come to a consensus that it doesn't work.
(4) Player contends that my system doesn't work. I've asked her to provide examples.
(5) Player provides examples within the current system.
(6) I tell her it's the current system and her examples are invalid.
(7) Player says what about the 19th and early 20th centuries.
(8) I ask her to give specific examples so I can refute them and I also indicate, very generally, that the 19th and early 20th century systems were much like our current system.

If she (or Symm) can't give specific examples, that's fine, but don't call me out on this whole thing. I've always been and will continue to be reasonable about this discussion.

2-3 Seem a little unfair on Player, saying that she wants government doing more stuff, but at the same time arguing that it's the system we (presumably the US) already have, no? How can anyone argue with a stance like that? It's vague in its terms ("stuff"?) and contradictory in it's structure ("we shouldn't do more because that's what we're already doing").

Unfair? No. Simple? Yes. How can anyone argue with a stance like that? Excellent question. Perhaps you don't read a lot of Player's posts. Or maybe I just didn't make sense since I've been having this argument with Player for a year or two.

Fair enough- I suspected I was injecting myself into a bit of a long running issue. I'll back out for the moment.

[thegreekdog]

Well, let's just take #2 and #3 out. Where does that leave us?

Honestly, let's just start with campaign finance reform and see where that takes us.

[Symmetry]

Well, let's just take #2 and #3 out. Where does that leave us?

Honestly, let's just start with campaign finance reform and see where that takes us.

Seems like a niche point of American political culture again, but I do think that a few things need to be in place- firstly, absolute transparency in sources of political donations. Secondly, a serious rethink about what freedom of speech means when it comes to corporations.

Don't know if you came across this New Yorker article recently- State For Sale, but it's pretty disturbing reading.

I'd like to see more of an effort to penalise deliberate misinformation too, but I'm not even sure how to begin to put that into effect.

[BigBallinStalin]

Most of the heavy lifting could be done with absolute transparency on campaign contributions. No more shady, nonprofit shell companies transferring money to the PACs.

If people disagreed with a politicians's performance, they could have the option of boycotting products of the corporate providers, or they could sell their shares, etc. At the very least, the seemingly good intentions for a politician's proposals could be clearly drawn to the intentions of his corporate backers.

[Symmetry]

Most of the heavy lifting could be done with absolute transparency on campaign contributions. No more shady, nonprofit shell companies transferring money to the PACs.

If people disagreed with a politicians's performance, they could have the option of boycotting products of the corporate providers, or they could sell their shares, etc. At the very least, the seemingly good intentions for a politician's proposals could be clearly drawn to the intentions of his corporate backers.

The problem there is that a politician can easily say they believed in a policy before they got the money, rather than being liable for believing in a policy after they received money.

The Freedom of Information Act has done a lot in the UK, and a lot of recent scandals in government were uncovered because of it, or at least helped. Details

Not sure how things go in the US, but it's done a lot of good for government transparency here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Most of the heavy lifting could be done with absolute transparency on campaign contributions. No more shady, nonprofit shell companies transferring money to the PACs.

If people disagreed with a politicians's performance, they could have the option of boycotting products of the corporate providers, or they could sell their shares, etc. At the very least, the seemingly good intentions for a politician's proposals could be clearly drawn to the intentions of his corporate backers.

The problem there is that a politician can easily say they believed in a policy before they got the money, rather than being liable for believing in a policy after they received money.

To prove that wrong, all one has to do is look at when the politicians received funding. Currently, such accusations are easily deniable because there's no ability to see the timing and amount of (indirectly made) political contributions. The proposal which I advocate enables that ability.

The Freedom of Information Act has done a lot in the UK, and a lot of recent scandals in government were uncovered because of it, or at least helped. Details

Not sure how things go in the US, but it's done a lot of good for government transparency here.

The US has the Freedom of Information Act, but that doesn't matter when the former president and his cabinet destroy all their files... :/

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not even advocating a Libertarian position (although I am a registered Libertarian) with respect to economic/tax issues.

Here's the history of this months-long argument:

I think we've all agreed that the present system in the United States is broken. We've all reached a consensus on that issue, although as Neoteny (I think) pointed out, is it really that bad?

I don't know if the system is broken so much as that control of the media has usurped it. Destruction of real education is next, though its already well underway to some extent.

So once we've come to that agreement, the next question is how to fix it.

(1) I advocate less government intervention, less government regulation, less government doing stuff instead of private business/citizens, and campaign finance reform.
(2) On the other hand, Player advocates more government regulation, more government doing stuff.

Not really. Those are not the only 2 options, but classifying it that way IS part of the problem. We don't need more or less regulation, we need different regulation.

(3) I contend that Player's system doesn't work because that's the system we currently have and we've already come to a consensus that it doesn't work.

LOL
The system we already have? Nice try, but utterly untrue. If anything, the things you have argued are closer to what we have now than what I would like to see. and, most of the things you have advocated will only lead to more of the same (less control over everything, including corporations, lower taxes).

(4) Player contends that my system doesn't work. I've asked her to provide examples.
(5) Player provides examples within the current system.
(6) I tell her it's the current system and her examples are invalid.
(7) Player says what about the 19th and early 20th centuries.
(8) I ask her to give specific examples so I can refute them and I also indicate, very generally, that the 19th and early 20th century systems were much like our current system.

Uh.. no.

I am not entirely sure what "your system" is, because all you have done is throw out a few things and then criticize the current system. About the only consistancy is that you seem to want lower taxes and less regulation. That's liberaterian, its also Tea Party... and its meaningless without major detail.

The turn of the century DOES show why we need some specific regulations. So, to the extent you ask for less regulation, that is an example. Both I an symmetry, a few others have asked for details. You just critivize what we say and claim we don't understand

If she (or Symm) can't give specific examples, that's fine, but don't call me out on this whole thing. I've always been and will continue to be reasonable about this discussion.

You have it backwards. How can we provide examples for your system when you have failed to explain it. We have provided examples that seemed along the lines of what you want, but then you say those are incorrect. Fine, but don't demand WE provide examples of YOUR system. That's your job, not ours.

I and I believe Symmetry have each provided some specific examples of what we would like to see, in various context.. I talk of sustainability, but also a lot of what that would entail. Yes, it means some more regulations in some area, but that's not all by any means. It also means less regulations, taxes in some areas. You, to contrast, have given no real details, just claim your system is better.

So.. if you wish to provide examples, fine. Otherwise... its just smoke and criticism.

[BigBallinStalin]

...I am not entirely sure what "your system" is, ...

That's because you don't know what libertarianism is, or what the Libertarian Party stands for.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, let's just take #2 and #3 out. Where does that leave us?

Honestly, let's just start with campaign finance reform and see where that takes us.

A place where I think we need a LOT of reform.

I think we need more regulation in specific areas, namely the environment. Why? Because there just is not inherent short term profit in protecting the environment. Businesses are like young kids with ADHD. They want the marshmallow NOW, not the 2 they might get later. "Later" just doesn' have any meaning to them. "Later" for the child is anything more than 2 minutes down the line. "Later for businesses is next month or year.

You insist that giving businesses more control will somehow result in all this being correct on its own, but then refuse to get into details of how all these companies' values will suddenly shift. It is in that context that I have brought up the turn of the century, because early on there was no such regulation. Folks did not know enough to impose it.

Even in safety, you want to claim that people will have more power with the liberaterian system, but somehow don't explain how it is that people are going to be able to fight against multi-million dollar corporations, the people who write their paychecks, etc.

Insisting that I want the status quo is just idiotic. I don't want less protection for the environment. I want our kids to have a future and they won't unless there is better protection. A LOT of the gains that were made right here in PA are now being subverted because of the money from Natural gas. That is how it always goes when private people and companies are allowed to decide for themselves without intervention. It takes every person in an area to work together to not damage a place. To cause harm, takes only one person deciding on one day that the protections just don't matter. One person dumping effluent, one person signing a gas lease without worrying about water, one company convincing one municipality.. or the state that there is nothing wrong with depositing poisoned water underground. ETC. It is that unbalance.. the power of one person to destroy what it takes generations of consistant behavior to protect that offsets your ideas of people's free will just deciding what is right and wrong, despite any evidence. AND, in this case, demanding 100% proof is almost as bad.


Its like this. As a scientist, there is almost nothing that I know to be truly proven. I cannot say 100% for sure that we will see the sun tommorrow. There is a microchance that it will explode tommorrow. As a scientist, that means it is not certain. As a mother, if I hear that there is a 75% chance that substance x will harm my children without benefit, then I am going to avoid it.

[thegreekdog]

You insist that giving businesses more control will somehow result in all this being correct on its own, but then refuse to get into details of how all these companies' values will suddenly shift.

And, again (Symmetry - are you reading?) you point out something that is not actually Libertarian. After individual rights/responsibility, private property rights is probably the most important element of Libertarianism. The idea, as I've indicated in other threads to you, is that private property owners will care a whole lot more about their private property rights, especially with respect to pollution and the like, than our current corrupted government.

[PLAYER57832]

You insist that giving businesses more control will somehow result in all this being correct on its own, but then refuse to get into details of how all these companies' values will suddenly shift.

And, again (Symmetry - are you reading?) you point out something that is not actually Libertarian. After individual rights/responsibility, private property rights is probably the most important element of Libertarianism. The idea, as I've indicated in other threads to you, is that private property owners will care a whole lot more about their private property rights, especially with respect to pollution and the like, than our current corrupted government.

And who enforced these rights? That is the point. Also, who decides whether joe smoe's rights to have his private house outweighs the rights of the corporation to do business that might conflict with his peace, even safety in ihs personal house? That, too is a point you avoid.

[thegreekdog]

You insist that giving businesses more control will somehow result in all this being correct on its own, but then refuse to get into details of how all these companies' values will suddenly shift.

And, again (Symmetry - are you reading?) you point out something that is not actually Libertarian. After individual rights/responsibility, private property rights is probably the most important element of Libertarianism. The idea, as I've indicated in other threads to you, is that private property owners will care a whole lot more about their private property rights, especially with respect to pollution and the like, than our current corrupted government.

And who enforced these rights? That is the point. Also, who decides whether joe smoe's rights to have his private house outweighs the rights of the corporation to do business that might conflict with his peace, even safety in ihs personal house? That, too is a point you avoid.

I didn't avoid it! BBS and I have told you five bajillion times - the court system.

[PLAYER57832]

...I am not entirely sure what "your system" is, ...

That's because you don't know what libertarianism is, or what the Libertarian Party stands for.

I only know what the founders and the liberaterian party websites say they are.

[PLAYER57832]

You insist that giving businesses more control will somehow result in all this being correct on its own, but then refuse to get into details of how all these companies' values will suddenly shift.

And, again (Symmetry - are you reading?) you point out something that is not actually Libertarian. After individual rights/responsibility, private property rights is probably the most important element of Libertarianism. The idea, as I've indicated in other threads to you, is that private property owners will care a whole lot more about their private property rights, especially with respect to pollution and the like, than our current corrupted government.

And who enforced these rights? That is the point. Also, who decides whether joe smoe's rights to have his private house outweighs the rights of the corporation to do business that might conflict with his peace, even safety in ihs personal house? That, too is a point you avoid.

I didn't avoid it! BBS and I have told you five bajillion times - the court system.

How? You advocate cutting the regulatory agencies. Who will enforce these rules? A court ruling is just so much paper or words without enforcement.

AND... who ensures that the big corporations don't just use their influence, their fancier attorneys to convince the courts that their cause is more just.... exactly as they do today?

[thegreekdog]

How? You advocate cutting the regulatory agencies. Who will enforce these rules? A court ruling is just so much paper or words without enforcement.

AND... who ensures that the big corporations don't just use their influence, their fancier attorneys to convince the courts that their cause is more just.... exactly as they do today?

How do court rulings get enforced now?

No one ensures that big corporations don't just use their influence or cash. However, and, again this is a "better than we have it now" motif... corporations won't be able to indirectly hire the judges that rule on their cases anymore... and there won't be corporate-favorable laws or regulations to protect corporations anymore. So, the net result would be better than it is now.

[PLAYER57832]

How? You advocate cutting the regulatory agencies. Who will enforce these rules? A court ruling is just so much paper or words without enforcement.

AND... who ensures that the big corporations don't just use their influence, their fancier attorneys to convince the courts that their cause is more just.... exactly as they do today?

How do court rulings get enforced now?

Regulation and law suits mostly. However, you will cut the regulatory agencies. You have said these agencies are all ready too large and have too many rules. So, who will do it under your system?
And...many times lawsuits are the problem not the solution, even if they sometimes can be made to work under our current system. How would you change that?

No one ensures that big corporations don't just use their influence or cash. However, and, again this is a "better than we have it now" motif... corporations won't be able to indirectly hire the judges that rule on their cases anymore... and there won't be corporate-favorable laws or regulations to protect corporations anymore. So, the net result would be better than it is now.

How is it that corporations are able to hire judges? How is your system going to prevent this from happening?

How will your system ensure there are no more corporate favorable laws or regulations? People very much advocated for those rules and approved them. How will you ensure that changes, particularly since there won't be a public education system to offer information other than what the corporation want people to know.

[thegreekdog]

How is it that corporations are able to hire judges? How is your system going to prevent this from happening?

How will your system ensure there are no more corporate favorable laws or regulations?

How would you change that?

If we come to the conclusion, which we have, that under our current system special interest groups (I heard one liberal-leaning editorial call them "The Bigs" - Big Wall Street, Big Unions, Big Companies, Big Special Interest) have a disproportionate control over government through the use of campaign contributions and lobbying activities, we necessarily come to the conclusion that The Bigs have disproprtionate control over the actions of the government, including those who appoint judges and those who write laws and regulations.

In a Libertarian system with a reformed campaign finance system, The Bigs would not have a disproprotionate share of control because they would be treated as one person (or not a person at all). They would not be able to exert monetary influence over the government because it would be illegal. Thus, we wouldn't have this problem.

If there are corproate favorable laws or regulations under a Libertarian system, it would be because the elected officials (or unelected officials in the case of regulations) decided it would be a good idea; and not because it would be a good idea for The Bigs who gave them the most money.

Also - why no public education system?

[PLAYER57832]

How is it that corporations are able to hire judges? How is your system going to prevent this from happening?

How will your system ensure there are no more corporate favorable laws or regulations?

How would you change that?

If we come to the conclusion, which we have, that under our current system special interest groups (I heard one liberal-leaning editorial call them "The Bigs" - Big Wall Street, Big Unions, Big Companies, Big Special Interest) have a disproportionate control over government through the use of campaign contributions and lobbying activities, we necessarily come to the conclusion that The Bigs have disproprtionate control over the actions of the government, including those who appoint judges and those who write laws and regulations.

In a Libertarian system with a reformed campaign finance system, The Bigs would not have a disproprotionate share of control because they would be treated as one person (or not a person at all). They would not be able to exert monetary influence over the government because it would be illegal. Thus, we wouldn't have this problem.

First, what kind of campaign finance reform? And, how would you ensure it stays?

Also, how would you stop other types of influence? Looking at this as strictly a campaign finance issue is pretty limited. Most people don't see themselves as being "on the take" per se. Instead, a lot of the influence is over who knows whom, who has access to information presenters, etc. That goes well before and beyond political campaigns.

If there are corproate favorable laws or regulations under a Libertarian system, it would be because the elected officials (or unelected officials in the case of regulations) decided it would be a good idea; and not because it would be a good idea for The Bigs who gave them the most money.

Although the bigs control things now, to some extent, its not generally from direct monetary contributions. Also, people still have power, but are quickly losing the means to use it and the information to know they even need to oppose the bigs.

Also - why no public education system?

Becuase you have come out against it many times. Also the original liberaterian platform supported private voluntary donations to schools, not mandates from taxes.

[thegreekdog]

First, what kind of campaign finance reform? And, how would you ensure it stays?

I'm not sure. Perhaps full transparency around both campaign contributions and lobbying (and by "full" I mean published on the news or something). Perhaps limiting campaign contributions to some small amount per person or group and providing stricter rules around what entails a group or person. The end result is a rule that makes it so that The Bigs don't make a disproportionate amount of campaign contributions relative to anyone else. I have no idea how I would ensure it stays. Public outcry? Also, some kind of "no lobbying" rules or something would be appropriate. I haven't thought it completely through, to be honest.

Also, how would you stop other types of influence? Looking at this as strictly a campaign finance issue is pretty limited. Most people don't see themselves as being "on the take" per se. Instead, a lot of the influence is over who knows whom, who has access to information presenters, etc. That goes well before and beyond political campaigns.

I don't disagree with this. I don't think we can mandate that people read the Affordable Care Act before they can watch American Idol; so I have no way to stop other types of influences.

Although the bigs control things now, to some extent, its not generally from direct monetary contributions. Also, people still have power, but are quickly losing the means to use it and the information to know they even need to oppose the bigs.

I think it mostly (like 90%) has to do with money and access (i.e. that nice board of directors job after you retire as a Senator). If we can limit that, we can figure out the information problem later.

Becuase you have come out against it many times.

I have never, and will never, come out against public education. I am fully supportive of public education and would not do away with it.

Also the original liberaterian platform supported private voluntary donations to schools, not mandates from taxes.

The Libertarian Party is not a supporter of public education. I therefore disagree with them on that issue (shocker, I know, that someone could disagree with a plank of their own party... I also disagree with the Libertarian Party's stance on immigration reform and estate taxes).

[PLAYER57832]

First, what kind of campaign finance reform? And, how would you ensure it stays?

I'm not sure. Perhaps full transparency around both campaign contributions and lobbying (and by "full" I mean published on the news or something). Perhaps limiting campaign contributions to some small amount per person or group and providing stricter rules around what entails a group or person. The end result is a rule that makes it so that The Bigs don't make a disproportionate amount of campaign contributions relative to anyone else. I have no idea how I would ensure it stays. Public outcry? Also, some kind of "no lobbying" rules or something would be appropriate. I haven't thought it completely through, to be honest.

Also, how would you stop other types of influence? Looking at this as strictly a campaign finance issue is pretty limited. Most people don't see themselves as being "on the take" per se. Instead, a lot of the influence is over who knows whom, who has access to information presenters, etc. That goes well before and beyond political campaigns.

I don't disagree with this. I don't think we can mandate that people read the Affordable Care Act before they can watch American Idol; so I have no way to stop other types of influences.

Although the bigs control things now, to some extent, its not generally from direct monetary contributions. Also, people still have power, but are quickly losing the means to use it and the information to know they even need to oppose the bigs.

I think it mostly (like 90%) has to do with money and access (i.e. that nice board of directors job after you retire as a Senator). If we can limit that, we can figure out the information problem later.

Except, while you outline the problem you don't really provide a solution and that is basically what I have been saying all along.

I do disagree on your view that just controlling campaign finance will really solve anything. For one thing, up until the Citizen's United ruling, campaign financing was indirect.

You hit on the big part when you mentioned access, but that gets pretty complicated. A lot of those contacts actually begin back in college or even high school. Did you know that a lot of Nixon's watergate crew was part of a club who's purpose was, among other things, to rig elections? All in fun, then, but....

I am going to do what I know fustrates you and refrain from too many details on how politicians get influenced, becuase I am frankly paranoid. However, I would wager from things you have said that you might have more knowledge of this than you are willing to get into as well. I am NOT talking about anything illegal, but, well, politicians have to start somewhere. Once they begin to reach a certain point, then they associate with people in specific clubs, etc. They have and create their realms of influence, but they also have to feed into structures that already exists.

Obama is not precisely "of" the "Chicago machine", per se. Yet.. he could not have even entered politics in that area without having some asquaintance with people who very much were and probably still are of it. He would not necessarily even be directly aware of all the people who wanted to see him elected and who did various things -- be it speeches in the rotary or back door phone calls or money changing hands, to see that he got elected. In fact, the more direct the exchange, the less likely it would be that he knew of it. That lack of knowledge is pretty critical to staying clean nowadays.

Becuase you have come out against it many times.

I have never, and will never, come out against public education. I am fully supportive of public education and would not do away with it.

Also the original liberaterian platform supported private voluntary donations to schools, not mandates from taxes.

The Libertarian Party is not a supporter of public education. I therefore disagree with them on that issue (shocker, I know, that someone could disagree with a plank of their own party... I also disagree with the Libertarian Party's stance on immigration reform and estate taxes).

OK, fine. You have made comments suggesting that we put too much money into education for too few results and so forth, but I get that you can want to reform but not remove the system.

This would be THE reason I disassociated myself from the Liberaterian Party, by-the-way. (I said this before, but it bears repeating). Later, environmental and worker protection became big issues for me, but it is only within the past 20 years or so and initially, I very much would have sought answers other than government regulation. Its just that no other entity has the power.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, let's just take #2 and #3 out. Where does that leave us?

Honestly, let's just start with campaign finance reform and see where that takes us.

A place where I think we need a LOT of reform.

I think we need more regulation in specific areas, namely the environment. Why? Because there just is not inherent short term profit in protecting the environment. Businesses are like young kids with ADHD. They want the marshmallow NOW, not the 2 they might get later. "Later" just doesn' have any meaning to them. "Later" for the child is anything more than 2 minutes down the line. "Later for businesses is next month or year.

You insist that giving businesses more control will somehow result in all this being correct on its own, but then refuse to get into details of how all these companies' values will suddenly shift. It is in that context that I have brought up the turn of the century, because early on there was no such regulation. Folks did not know enough to impose it.

Even in safety, you want to claim that people will have more power with the liberaterian system, but somehow don't explain how it is that people are going to be able to fight against multi-million dollar corporations, the people who write their paychecks, etc.

Insisting that I want the status quo is just idiotic. I don't want less protection for the environment. I want our kids to have a future and they won't unless there is better protection. A LOT of the gains that were made right here in PA are now being subverted because of the money from Natural gas. That is how it always goes when private people and companies are allowed to decide for themselves without intervention. It takes every person in an area to work together to not damage a place. To cause harm, takes only one person deciding on one day that the protections just don't matter. One person dumping effluent, one person signing a gas lease without worrying about water, one company convincing one municipality.. or the state that there is nothing wrong with depositing poisoned water underground. ETC. It is that unbalance.. the power of one person to destroy what it takes generations of consistant behavior to protect that offsets your ideas of people's free will just deciding what is right and wrong, despite any evidence. AND, in this case, demanding 100% proof is almost as bad.


Its like this. As a scientist, there is almost nothing that I know to be truly proven. I cannot say 100% for sure that we will see the sun tommorrow. There is a microchance that it will explode tommorrow. As a scientist, that means it is not certain. As a mother, if I hear that there is a 75% chance that substance x will harm my children without benefit, then I am going to avoid it.

Why not provide polluting industries with subsidies that reward compliance toward environmental rules and regulations? In other words, pay a portion of the costs for building "air filters" on smokestacks, or subsidize their toxic waste disposal costs, etc.

[thegreekdog]

Except, while you outline the problem you don't really provide a solution and that is basically what I have been saying all along.

i've provided solutions. I just did three posts on solutions. Did you not read them or do you just not agree with the solutions I've provided?

I do disagree on your view that just controlling campaign finance will really solve anything. For one thing, up until the Citizen's United ruling, campaign financing was indirect.

Why don't you think campaign finance reform will solve anything? What about the campaign finance reform I've outlined above? The indirect (read secret) campaign financing is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. And that's why I was supportive of the Citizens United case.

Other stuff

I actually don't have any inside information or anything. I've looked at various websites, usually with respect to the presidential candidates or individual Congresspeople, which show that those people get money from The Bigs in copious amounts (and The Bigs give money to both sides). That is what is concerning and what I've said over and over again. If Politician X gets $50,000 from Company Y and they have a handshake agreement that Politician X gets a board of directors job and they take Politician X out to dinner, why in the hell is Politician X going to listen to 20 concerned voters that donated $200 each to his campaign?

OK, fine. You have made comments suggesting that we put too much money into education for too few results and so forth, but I get that you can want to reform but not remove the system.

That's exactly right. I think the money is wasted, not that it should not exist.

[PLAYER57832]

Why not provide polluting industries with subsidies that reward compliance toward environmental rules and regulations? In other words, pay a portion of the costs for building "air filters" on smokestacks, or subsidize their toxic waste disposal costs, etc.

I have suggested something similar, though I think the industries should pay ALL the costs, not just part. In particular, a per unit tax on pollution for cleanup, etc. You got pretty irate about it being a bad idea and just an excuse for more taxes, an open wallet for the government.

[PLAYER57832]

Except, while you outline the problem you don't really provide a solution and that is basically what I have been saying all along.

i've provided solutions. I just did three posts on solutions. Did you not read them or do you just not agree with the solutions I've provided?

I do disagree on your view that just controlling campaign finance will really solve anything. For one thing, up until the Citizen's United ruling, campaign financing was indirect.

Why don't you think campaign finance reform will solve anything? What about the campaign finance reform I've outlined above? The indirect (read secret) campaign financing is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. And that's why I was supportive of the Citizens United case.

I am not talking about secret financing. I am talking about influence. We both have kids in school together, so we see chat at the PTA meetings.... except its more likely a golf club (probably even all male, too boot)... or a church ... etc.

Its not that I think your idea won't help. It just won't be nearly enough to fix the problem. See, the main reason campaign financing has gotten so expensive is mass media.

To make a difference today you need to make sure that equal access is afforded in the media. In the case of politics, that actually requires mandates. There used to be laws mandating that TV stations had to give equal time to all candidates. They even had to air simlar length ads in similar time slots (no relegating the guy they hated to midnight!). That got subverted by the whole "issue ad" thing AND by the many committees that could advertise ads not directly from the candidate.

That will, however, only ensure that people see roughly the same messages. It won't do a thing about helping better people get up to the point of being nominated.

Other stuff

I actually don't have any inside information or anything. I've looked at various websites, usually with respect to the presidential candidates or individual Congresspeople, which show that those people get money from The Bigs in copious amounts (and The Bigs give money to both sides). That is what is concerning and what I've said over and over again. If Politician X gets $50,000 from Company Y and they have a handshake agreement that Politician X gets a board of directors job and they take Politician X out to dinner, why in the hell is Politician X going to listen to 20 concerned voters that donated $200 each to his campaign?[/quote]I know that happens, but in truth probably a lot less than a lot of people think. The real story is far, far more complicated.
taking my extreme cynic hat off for a moment ...
Most people, even in politics are not inherently cheats. However, they do listen to people around them. And, when most of the people who you are around are folks with vested interests in business, then you hear that message. The "circles" in which "ologists", resource managers and such circulate are just different from the circles where you find most politicians. Even when they go out of their way to find the "ologists" and such, it is in constrained form.

Again, it gets back to information. Money matters, but the control is in information.

OK, fine. You have made comments suggesting that we put too much money into education for too few results and so forth, but I get that you can want to reform but not remove the system.

That's exactly right. I think the money is wasted, not that it should not exist.[/quote]
Another topic, then.