61–70 of 154 posts
I don't think that public funding of elections or free advertising (see the bottom of the page) are the solutions to government corruption. That would just force bribers to be more covert. It's analogous to the fact that SOPA wouldn't stop piracy. It seems to me that the real solution is to dramatically limit the size of government, so that there is nothing to be bought, rather then just changing the currency used to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurrah, so the people who would be bribed wouldn't be publicly accountable officials - they would be whoever we handed the power to.
I don't think you understand. The point is to either eliminate the power, or make it extremely diffuse. That way, there is nothing to purchase.
The way to fight corruption is by fighting corruption, not by giving us things like the Citizens' United ruling (which is in fact less government, yet eminently more bribable).
Excellent idea! Consider adding a separate sign-on for politicians promising them a campaign funds dashboard, real-time tracking of most profitable causes, political profile tuner, etc Limit sign-ons to .gov email addresses, restricting early stage use to elected officials and representatives only.
Why wouldn't a UK like approach work of limiting campaign budgets?
Focus more on politics and not lobbying/fundraising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The wealthiest countries in the world have large governments and don't have these problems. Just outlaw lobbying(bribing) of officials. Outlaw political campaign advertising. Better yet, as I mention above, allow the people to better represent themselves using technology. There are a thousand ways to apply the brakes -- killing the engine is maybe not the best.
The wealthiest countries in the world have large governments I'm not sure that trying to emulate the [other] wealthiest countries is the best of goals. Doesn't that ensure that we will be, optimally, second best? Given that corruption is endemic everywhere, including those other wealthy countries, isn't it worthwhile to strive for something better? Outlaw political campaign advertising That's just another way of sayi…
No, it doesn't. Keep the things that work for us, and then take a look at the things that we're having problems with (lobbying, healthcare) and steal any solutions that look better.
Just because Apple stole the GUI from Xerox didn't mean they had to steal Xerox's business plan for it, or their management structure. And I don't think anyone's claiming they wound up 2nd best to Xerox.
I think the US election system is fundamentally flawed. Why wouldn't a UK like approach work of limiting campaign budgets? Focus more on politics and not lobbying/fundraising.
The people we really need to be able to get our bribes to are the un-elected, appointed positions like the "czar of this and that". Feature request: Bribes to those in appointed positions for special favors. Thanks.
> Feature request: Bribes to those in appointed positions for special favors. Thanks. That would constitute a felony.
More serious comment... not sure what people have against so-called czars. The president (or congress-critters) have staffers who focus on specific issues, talk to affected constituents, recommend policy. Ultimately, the elected official makes decision based on recommendations. Is that a bad thing, is he supposed to make all decisions on his own in a vacuum?
The people we really need to be able to get our bribes to are the un-elected, appointed positions like the "czar of this and that". Feature request: Bribes to those in appointed positions for special favors. Thanks.
> Feature request: Bribes to those in appointed positions for special favors. Thanks. That would constitute a felony.
I don't think that public funding of elections or free advertising (see the bottom of the page) are the solutions to government corruption. That would just force bribers to be more covert. It's analogous to the fact that SOPA wouldn't stop piracy. It seems to me that the real solution is to dramatically limit the size of government, so that there is nothing to be bought, rather then just changing the currency used to…
dramatically limit the size of government Any specifics? "Limit the size of government" is a trite platitude that anyone could agree with on some level. Shove 100 random people in a room and you have 200 conflicting ideas about the appropriate role of government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The wealthiest countries in the world have large governments and don't have these problems. Just outlaw lobbying(bribing) of officials. Outlaw political campaign advertising. Better yet, as I mention above, allow the people to better represent themselves using technology. There are a thousand ways to apply the brakes -- killing the engine is maybe not the best.
The wealthiest countries in the world have large governments I'm not sure that trying to emulate the [other] wealthiest countries is the best of goals. Doesn't that ensure that we will be, optimally, second best? Given that corruption is endemic everywhere, including those other wealthy countries, isn't it worthwhile to strive for something better? Outlaw political campaign advertising That's just another way of sayi…
You don't have to mimic, but it does give a very strong indication that size of government isn't the problem.
[Outlaw political campaign advertising is] just another way of saying "Throw out the 1st Amendment and outlaw freedom of speech".
Nice try. No, this is "access to media." And currently it's controlled by the wealthy when it should be more democratically controlled.
What makes you think that the electorate as a whole can do any better.
That's funny, because the entire history of the world has been a ruling class not wanting to give up power because they don't "trust" the commoners, when all evidence has been that the greater the democracy, the greater the success. You can take the king; I'll take the people, every time.