User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 20 of 20

  1. #11
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I like the idea of totally publicly funded elections with mandatory voting on a national voting holiday. Problem is, the people that are in a position to make that happen would be cutting their own throats if they did it.

    A public servant involved in the regulatory process who allows themselves to be influenced by the industry they are regulating for personal gain or whose close associates accept favors, etc ought to face criminal prosecution and public shame.
    Yeah but we've good evidence of how the converse actually happens, consider the financial scandals from Enron onwards and the eventual bust and recession happening now, the global financial elites will actually damage nations which threaten to regulate them in ways they had already agreed to by suggesting they will change their global credit rating and attack them for damaging "business confidence".

  2. #12
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Yeah but we've good evidence of how the converse actually happens, consider the financial scandals from Enron onwards and the eventual bust and recession happening now, the global financial elites will actually damage nations which threaten to regulate them in ways they had already agreed to by suggesting they will change their global credit rating and attack them for damaging "business confidence".
    That's insane. I'd think we'd have no choice but to tell them to GTFO just out of self-preservation.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  3. #13
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I would suggest that if you are going to sponsor or otherwise finance campaigns there ought to be a special tax band or obligatory public finance contribution to be made which matches political financing.
    Well, I said it was government spending, and most of the time government spending means taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think the big issue is that political and public financing are divorced because it divorces politicians from citizens and national taxpayers and often their political/corporate sponsors and pay masters are operating at an even greater remove themselves. If they the politicians are well financed regardless what should they care if they legislate irresponsibly or in a partisan ideological manner or introduce cuts or spending priorities which will prove unsustainable and devisive?
    They should care because it would alter their chances of being elected. It would alter their chances of being elected much more than it does now, because there'd be no way for them to keep piling on funding or develop a vast funding advantage over their opponents. The whole point to this measure is that it both contains and equalizes the funding, meaning that funding is simply never a part of someone's means or incentive for winning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm very, very wary about public financing of campaigns because it would mean that tax payers are supporting with their money political organisations which they would under no circumstances support otherwise, for instance socialist tax payers in the UK financing the campaigns of the neo-nazi British National Party or blacks, jews and catholics in the US supporting Ku Klux Klan fronts or sympathisers, I know tax payers money is already used on things they may not support, such as abortion, state executions, foreign militarism or aid but I dont consider them in the same league.
    I don't see why they should be considered in a different league. Actually, in terms of democracy and representation, I much prefer a society where we have to contribute funding to the whole field of ideas over a society where a financial advantage can be used to shut all other ideas out. For that society, I'm willing to accept that some of my money will go to libertarians and fascists.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #14
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I would love to hear more about that part of the United States and Finland being on the same plane of existence.

    As has been stated, everything you concluded about fixing the system is already enacted here. The rich are simply really fucking rich, it's no error of legislation.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, I said it was government spending, and most of the time government spending means taxes.



    They should care because it would alter their chances of being elected. It would alter their chances of being elected much more than it does now, because there'd be no way for them to keep piling on funding or develop a vast funding advantage over their opponents. Thw whole point to this measure is that it both contains and equalizes the funding, meaning that funding is simply never a part of someone's means or incentive for winning.



    I don't see why they should be considered in a different league. Actually, in terms of democracy and representation, I much prefer a society where we have to contribute funding to the whole field of ideas over a society where a financial advantage can be used to shut all other ideas out. For that society, I'm willing to accept that some of my money will go to libertarians and fascists.
    I get the idea that campaign financing in the US is different to the rest of the world and may make a difference too, in the UK I doubt that financing of elections makes that much of a difference, the parties look for sponsorship throughout the rest of the year and during opposition periods though.

    On the last point I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree, I dont want libertarians or fascists to get my money, sometimes it cant be helped because the corporations who supply goods which I purchase as a consumer sponsor libertarians or fascists but I'd like it to limited to that.

    I dont like some forms of public spending, like I already mentioned, and I do think that'll become a bigger and bigger issue as peoples expectations of government reflecting or representing niche or identity politics over take impartial representation and universal spending priorities.

    If you dont mind the idea of tax funded libertarian or fascist campaigning what you do think about Valiant's banning?

  6. #16
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Dodgy Elections

    America is the best country in the world except for the electoral system.

    We do not have the fairest form of voting, that is, proportional voting.

    And our voter turn out is little more than 50%.

    And our political parties are not funded by the taxpayers.

    Sure, we are the best country, only our elections are dodgy.

  7. #17
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I get the idea that campaign financing in the US is different to the rest of the world and may make a difference too, in the UK I doubt that financing of elections makes that much of a difference, the parties look for sponsorship throughout the rest of the year and during opposition periods though.

    On the last point I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree, I dont want libertarians or fascists to get my money, sometimes it cant be helped because the corporations who supply goods which I purchase as a consumer sponsor libertarians or fascists but I'd like it to limited to that.

    I dont like some forms of public spending, like I already mentioned, and I do think that'll become a bigger and bigger issue as peoples expectations of government reflecting or representing niche or identity politics over take impartial representation and universal spending priorities.
    Fascists and libertarians are the darlings of corporations. Your choice is knowing that a little bit of your money goes to them, or an enormous amount of game breaking corporate money goes to them. I prefer the first of the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If you dont mind the idea of tax funded libertarian or fascist campaigning what you do think about Valiant's banning?
    I'm perfectly fine with it, but that's an entirely different issues. It merely involves what someone said on this forum. It is neither even remotely as important nor does it involve the same elements (money, government, etc...)
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #18
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Fascists and libertarians are the darlings of corporations. Your choice is knowing that a little bit of your money goes to them, or an enormous amount of game breaking corporate money goes to them. I prefer the first of the two.



    I'm perfectly fine with it, but that's an entirely different issues. It merely involves what someone said on this forum. It is neither even remotely as important nor does it involve the same elements (money, government, etc...)
    The valiant point, both involve permitting or enabling the platform, in one instance you're financing it with taxes, the other you're providing a forum space for it. Anyway, its a little off topic but I do see it as the same thing, only one is an abstract or general question and the other a more practical and immediate or concrete one because it involves the forum.

    I think its mistaken to believe that campaign or political financing will end corporate interests buying out politicians or political parties, it just means that there will be parties on the tax payers tab. Like I say I wouldnt want my taxes to support them, my taxes already support things I find insupportable and would finance personally but political financing is one of those things I really dont like.

    As it is politicians dont share any of the "pain" when it comes to tax cuts, I dont see how, if it were introduced, that they would feel any more reticience about cutting everything bar their own personal money cuts.

  9. #19
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The valiant point, both involve permitting or enabling the platform, in one instance you're financing it with taxes, the other you're providing a forum space for it. Anyway, its a little off topic but I do see it as the same thing, only one is an abstract or general question and the other a more practical and immediate or concrete one because it involves the forum.
    I don't think they have any practical similarity. They can only be bunched together on some abstract principle I probably don't subscribe to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think its mistaken to believe that campaign or political financing will end corporate interests buying out politicians or political parties, it just means that there will be parties on the tax payers tab. Like I say I wouldnt want my taxes to support them, my taxes already support things I find insupportable and would finance personally but political financing is one of those things I really dont like.
    It wouldn't completely remove every means, but it would remove most of it. If we limit the total amount of money politicians can get for their campaign, make sure it's equal, and basically confine it to government spending. That may seem radical, but it's the only approach you can really trust. This approach is a white list as opposed to a black list. It tells us what source of funding is allowed, rather than what is, and bring it down to exactly one. That makes it far more difficult to do sneaky tricks with your funding.

    That being said, it would be incomplete without other laws. There need to be anti-lobbying laws for those already in office. Again, if you want to be radical and single-minded about ending this corruption, you'd probably want to put some restrictions on what employment a person can seek after they leave public off for, say, 5 to 10 years. This would be a measure for killing revolving doors, which are one of the biggest problems in terms of government corruption. You could also basically remove a public office holder's business assets. That is, when they swear the oath, they can no longer hold stocks and bonds, among other things. This fights conflict of interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    As it is politicians dont share any of the "pain" when it comes to tax cuts, I dont see how, if it were introduced, that they would feel any more reticience about cutting everything bar their own personal money cuts.
    It effects who gets in office. For at least one thing, my system would probably result in more middle-class or poor people managing to get in office, so there's that. It also just means we'd have far fewer people in office who seeking to make a personal profit out of the position.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #20
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I don't think they have any practical similarity. They can only be bunched together on some abstract principle I probably don't subscribe to.
    I dont agree, although lets not get bogged down in that. If you support the financing of a message politically but dont support the same or a smiliar message being spread personally I think there's an inconsistency there although that's me. I only mentioned it for that reason because I dont generally go in for discussing peoples bannings.

    It wouldn't completely remove every means, but it would remove most of it. If we limit the total amount of money politicians can get for their campaign, make sure it's equal, and basically confine it to government spending. That may seem radical, but it's the only approach you can really trust. This approach is a white list as opposed to a black list. It tells us what source of funding is allowed, rather than what is, and bring it down to exactly one. That makes it far more difficult to do sneaky tricks with your funding.
    I agree with the idea, I just dont believe it will work.

    That being said, it would be incomplete without other laws. There need to be anti-lobbying laws for those already in office. Again, if you want to be radical and single-minded about ending this corruption, you'd probably want to put some restrictions on what employment a person can seek after they leave public off for, say, 5 to 10 years. This would be a measure for killing revolving doors, which are one of the biggest problems in terms of government corruption. You could also basically remove a public office holder's business assets. That is, when they swear the oath, they can no longer hold stocks and bonds, among other things. This fights conflict of interest.
    I agree with all of that, the history in the UK of both nationalisation and privatisation is pretty much a history of nepotistic appointments or profiteering one way or another by politicians or their friends, services have deteriorated in the process and the least well paid have been hit the hardest throughout.

    It effects who gets in office. For at least one thing, my system would probably result in more middle-class or poor people managing to get in office, so there's that. It also just means we'd have far fewer people in office who seeking to make a personal profit out of the position.
    I think its a worthy idea to try and prevent that sort of "politics as a get rich quick scheme", this is what the entire Blair project in the UK was and the purpose of him and others of his ilk attempted very seriously to "out Thatcher the Thatcherites" (at a time when Newsweek or The Economist were printing "we're all socialist (sic) now").

    The decline of conviction politics is something which a lot of politicians bemoan and the it strikes a cord with most of the public, whether they vote or dont, and I think that the fact that most of the worlds democracies are one way or another dynastic in their political contenders is striking for systems which were meant to root out inherited privileges.

Similar Threads

  1. I love this about my country's political system.
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2017, 05:48 PM
  2. when you talk about politics
    By Agent Jelly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-20-2011, 08:49 AM
  3. [ENFJ] ENFJ: Talk About Yourself!
    By Usehername in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 167
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 01:09 AM
  4. TED talks politics.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 01:41 AM
  5. What excites you? What do you wish people would talk about with you?
    By ladypinkington in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 03:58 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