User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 116

  1. #61
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    It's all about control. It seems like everyone who goes into politics, whether directly or indirectly is hungry for power. Though they would never admit it.
    Yes, but the question is (now as it has always been), "To what end, and by what means?"

  2. #62

    Default

    I dont know that it is control freakery, a holder of public office should actively police and prevent the expansion of control freakery.

    Either because they should be creating realistic expectations of government or because they have a good idea of the lawful parameters of government.

  3. #63
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    DB, its still a get rich quick scheme in the UK, not every politician has the means but I do take what you mean, there are political classes, democracy is a form of dynastic rule.

    Politicians are in the pockets of business for a host of reasons, not just strict fiscal ones like obeying paymasters posing as lobbyists. They live in the same neighbourhoods for a start, join the same social clubs, send their kids to the same schools and frequent the same churches or social functions as the boardooms. Most of them want to get jobs as executives when they leave public office or be paid as speakers by the same people in their retirement. They are part of the same status group or social class or at least they try to be.

    I was shocked at some of the "keeping up with the jones" antics of Tony Blair and his consort that I read about in Affluenza, long after it was obvious that he and his followers had put sufficient distance between themselves and socialism and proven themselves business friendly.

    I'm not going to argue it, although I expect someone will, that even when government acts with undue benefice towards business that this ultimately benefits the nation more than when it acts with benefice towards special interests, such as state employees, unions, welfare claimants, gun lobbyists etc. because they behave differently.
    Agree.

    There are many reasons for the relationship between business and politicians.

    That being said, I decided to mention just the most important of these reasons. (I like to really distill my arguments down for clarity before I post something)

    The point is that ultimately the public distrusts gov't b/c they feel like they don't have a voice. If special interests, business, and lobbyists were stripped of their ability to influence the political process maybe the public would be more willing to put effort into having their voice heard.

  4. #64

    Default

    Hmm, would they? Should they even?

    For the most part peoples sphere of concern and sphere of influence is very different, particularly in politics, sometimes that's no bad thing. Especially were the consequences cant be known or predicted.

    For instance before the emergence of an ecological awareness many people would have supported rapid industrialisation in the mainly agrarian parts of the world to relieve poverty or create prosperity on the western model, if that had proved possible, at a stroke, if that kind of consensus could have been reached right away the pollution would have killed everyone off.

    To put it another way, a lot of liberals and socialists support participatory democracy, without realising most participants wouldnt be favourable to either liberalism or socialism.

  5. #65
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The point is that ultimately the public distrusts gov't b/c they feel like they don't have a voice. If special interests, business, and lobbyists were stripped of their ability to influence the political process maybe the public would be more willing to put effort into having their voice heard.
    Let me take a page out of your hero John Adams's playbook and continue to advocate a principled* but unpopular position:

    "Special interests" groups ARE the voices of the people, concentrated upon a single issue so that those people may jointly advance that cause without their countless divergent interest and preferences blocking such efforts. The reason that people feel they don't have a voice is because too much is done at the national level, where aggregate preferences will substantially differ from that of most local constituencies and the impact of each voter is diluted compared to the state and local level-and efforts to strip the ability of "special interests" to influence the political process will only aggravate this unfortunate trend by empowering national political parties at the expense of local constituencies. And even after that, most "reform" efforts in that direction will just end up making the whole process less transparent and, more importantly, cause the various "special interests" to become conglomerated corporatist-like entities that lack the level of citizen input and representation of diverse interests that our pluralist model of governance provides.

    *"Principled," of course, does not necessarily mean "correct," as the Alien and Sedition Act amply demonstrates-though I have few doubts as to the accuracy of my judgement on this matter.

  6. #66
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Let me take a page out of your hero John Adams's playbook and continue to advocate a principled* but unpopular position:

    "Special interests" groups ARE the voices of the people, concentrated upon a single issue so that those people may jointly advance that cause without their countless divergent interest and preferences blocking such efforts. The reason that people feel they don't have a voice is because too much is done at the national level, where aggregate preferences will substantially differ from that of most local constituencies and the impact of each voter is diluted compared to the state and local level-and efforts to strip the ability of "special interests" to influence the political process will only aggravate this unfortunate trend by empowering national political parties at the expense of local constituencies. And even after that, most "reform" efforts in that direction will just end up making the whole process less transparent and, more importantly, cause the various "special interests" to become conglomerated corporatist-like entities that lack the level of citizen input and representation of diverse interests that our pluralist model of governance provides.

    *"Principled," of course, does not necessarily mean "correct," as the Alien and Sedition Act amply demonstrates-though I have few doubts as to the accuracy of my judgement on this matter.
    Which is why a pro states rights libertarian party would give states the discretion to treat their locality as a political experiment which could then be used to provide data for how to govern the nation at the national level.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Which is why a pro states rights libertarian party would give states the discretion to treat their locality as a political experiment which could then be used to provide data for how to govern the nation at the national level.
    I've got to say I totally agree with that, I think the future of government, now that its becoming a sort of dynastic rule or professional political class is comparative government, somewhere like the US has the ability, if it chooses to use it, to create an internal environment permitting comparisons and contrasts for policy.

    The Swiss Cantons is another example of this sort of decentralist democracy, the only matter is that since it does not make change without consensus easy whatever you begin with, ie public ownership or private capitalism, will be slow to change to any other mode, despite any evidence.

    People dont really vote or hold ideologies on the basis of evidence.

  8. #68
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I've got to say I totally agree with that, I think the future of government, now that its becoming a sort of dynastic rule or professional political class is comparative government, somewhere like the US has the ability, if it chooses to use it, to create an internal environment permitting comparisons and contrasts for policy.

    The Swiss Cantons is another example of this sort of decentralist democracy, the only matter is that since it does not make change without consensus easy whatever you begin with, ie public ownership or private capitalism, will be slow to change to any other mode, despite any evidence.

    People dont really vote or hold ideologies on the basis of evidence.
    Change does come slow or not at all.

  9. #69
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont know that it is control freakery, a holder of public office should actively police and prevent the expansion of control freakery.

    Either because they should be creating realistic expectations of government or because they have a good idea of the lawful parameters of government.
    The most important role of government is to be mindful of its own expansion.

  10. #70
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    People dont really vote or hold ideologies on the basis of evidence.
    QFT

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 06:14 PM
  2. How did you get the politics you did
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 06:06 PM
  3. Political figures you respect despite policy h8
    By FunnyDigestion in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-20-2012, 10:36 AM
  4. Political Party?
    By wyrdsister in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 08:09 PM
  5. Politics career
    By pholiveira in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2009, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO