Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

politics.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#51

Post by a1k0n »

bh42222 wrote: post #44
portman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larry Lessig (the same guy who single-handedly designed Creative Commons) has spent the last 4 years investigating how to "stop this racket", and summarizes his thoughts in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/... If you want to know what to do, a nice first step would be to buy and read Republic, Lost.

The fact that it's a whole book makes me nervous. A strategy which requires a whole book to be explained sounds like giving up on anything simple and claiming we can go through 1001 non-radical steps to eventually get to a happy place. This to me is a form of denial. You realize simple solutions can not be practically implemented and you convince yourself a marathon of tiny changes is the way to go. (Disclaimer: I ha…

> The fact that it's a whole book makes me nervous.

At least 3/4ths of the book beats you over the head with countless examples of the corruption, how it came to be, and why it's not technically illegal.

The very last part covers potential solutions, none of which have a great chance of success due to the vested interests but should be tried anyway. e.g. a constitutional convention is one way out, if we can convince enough states to call one.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#52

Post by philwelch »

yequalsx wrote: post #50
philwelch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until mankind becomes entirely focused on building social welfare (what's good for all) instead of personal welfare (what's good for me), these problems will always be here. Until we start building social and political systems for humanity as it is rather than humanity as we might idealistically want it to be, we're going to have these problems -- not that I'm convinced that self-interest is really something we wan…

If everyone voted selfishly then majority rule would benefit the majority? I don't think so. This definitely doesn't scale in the way you seem to think it does. An extreme example. Suppose a country consists of three tribes. Each tribe hates the other. Tribe A hates tribe B less than C. A & B vote to combine their interests in liquidating C. After C is gone the majority tribe then votes to kill off the smaller remain…

Those are exactly the kind of problems I meant when I said "let's focus on where markets and democracy aren't working the way we'd want them to". You're grossly misrepresenting what I said: I didn't say markets and democracy (especially the way they're currently implemented!) perfectly translate individual self-interest into the greater good; I said they have features which do.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#53

Post by yequalsx »

philwelch wrote: post #52
yequalsx wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone voted selfishly then majority rule would benefit the majority? I don't think so. This definitely doesn't scale in the way you seem to think it does. An extreme example. Suppose a country consists of three tribes. Each tribe hates the other. Tribe A hates tribe B less than C. A & B vote to combine their interests in liquidating C. After C is gone the majority tribe then votes to kill off the smaller remain…

Those are exactly the kind of problems I meant when I said "let's focus on where markets and democracy aren't working the way we'd want them to". You're grossly misrepresenting what I said: I didn't say markets and democracy (especially the way they're currently implemented!) perfectly translate individual self-interest into the greater good; I said they have features which do.

I did read that last sentence of yours and tried to think about your overall message. The part where you wrote about markets effectively translating selfish behavior into the greater good seemed to indicate that you thought the parts where markets aren't working are a side issue.

I don't think everyone pursuing their own self interest is at all a good thing when done on a global scale. I think the features of markets lead people like myself into knowingly buying products made by oppressed labor. It leads me to buy gas from companies that pollute on a grand scale in Nigeria and Ecuador. I think the self-interest aspect of markets is far more destructive than the positives are positive. I gathered from what you wrote that you think the opposite. Hence I tried to briefly explain why all of pursuing our self-interest is a bad thing, overall.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#54

Post by jlarocco »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my acti…

"I believe that my actions are for the greater good rather than my own self interest,"

I don't see how that's a good thing. I'd rather you look out for yourself and leave my best interests to me.

The MPAA can say they're going for the greater good, too.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#55

Post by mahyarm »

Osiris wrote: post #33
sequoia wrote: post #18

It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…

I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket I can think of a way to get money out of congress: remove elections. Think of it: serving in Congress could be like Jury Duty. Everyone's in the pool and every election cycle random people are selected from the pool and asked to serve. With no elections, there are no campaigns to donate to. It would be illegal for any Congressperson to accept any gifts or m…

Naive randomly selected lawmakers are just going to be pounced on by significantly more experienced and predatory lobbyists. They'll think of a way to bribe these regular people.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#56

Post by mahyarm »

eftpotrm wrote: post #32
pavel_lishin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket The simple solution - in the sense that it's an obvious one, and a naive one - is to just forbid campaign contributions altogether.

Which is why we finesse the obvious but naive solution. Campaign contributions are becoming / have become de facto bribery, but without campaign contributions only the independently wealthy can stand for office. How about limiting how much an individual entity can donate? We don't allow the rich more votes because they've got more assets so could we not also restrict the amount they're able to donate? How about restr…

There are already limits. Around ~$2k per person per politician and around ~$30k for a party committee for a single person. Encouraging people you have influence over to donate can help overcome this limit.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#57

Post by eftpotrm »

mahyarm wrote: post #56
eftpotrm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why we finesse the obvious but naive solution. Campaign contributions are becoming / have become de facto bribery, but without campaign contributions only the independently wealthy can stand for office. How about limiting how much an individual entity can donate? We don't allow the rich more votes because they've got more assets so could we not also restrict the amount they're able to donate? How about restr…

There are already limits. Around ~$2k per person per politician and around ~$30k for a party committee for a single person. Encouraging people you have influence over to donate can help overcome this limit.

And yet we regularly see corporate donations to individual campaigns well above that level; clearly there are ways around the rules as they stand.

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#58

Post by newbusox »

knowtheory wrote: post #15

The reaction to this frustrates me immensely, because Obama is doing the right thing. The Obama White House is attempting to regrow the wall between political and constituent concerns and law enforcement concerns. The Department of Justice should operate with the most minimal of political interferences (since I don't think it's possible to avoid them all together) with the goal of maintaining its independence. That s…

I would guess that the office to contact would be the US Attorney's Office for Washington, D.C., http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html. They (and possibly others US Attorney's Offices) almost certainly have jurisdiction.

For those interested, the anti-bribery statutes are at 18 U.S.C. 201 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201) and subsequent provisions within that chapter (there are also other, conceivably applicable statutes that might be charged in bribery or corruption cases). As you can see, the wording in the statutes is extremely broad so, if so inclined, it's possible to make an argument that many, many things are bribery (although, realistically, "bribery" has been significantly narrowed by the courts).

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#59

Post by dugmartin »

Osiris wrote: post #33
sequoia wrote: post #18

It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…

I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket I can think of a way to get money out of congress: remove elections. Think of it: serving in Congress could be like Jury Duty. Everyone's in the pool and every election cycle random people are selected from the pool and asked to serve. With no elections, there are no campaigns to donate to. It would be illegal for any Congressperson to accept any gifts or m…

I have a slight twist on this idea: make it more like a lottery where each citizen automatically gets one ticket. If you win you sit for one term in the office and are paid $10 million per year. Once you leave office you are paid $1 million per year for life. Money is always going to find its way into government - why not just do it upfront?

Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

#60

Post by philwelch »

yequalsx wrote: post #53
philwelch wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are exactly the kind of problems I meant when I said "let's focus on where markets and democracy aren't working the way we'd want them to". You're grossly misrepresenting what I said: I didn't say markets and democracy (especially the way they're currently implemented!) perfectly translate individual self-interest into the greater good; I said they have features which do.

I did read that last sentence of yours and tried to think about your overall message. The part where you wrote about markets effectively translating selfish behavior into the greater good seemed to indicate that you thought the parts where markets aren't working are a side issue. I don't think everyone pursuing their own self interest is at all a good thing when done on a global scale. I think the features of markets…

> I don't think everyone pursuing their own self interest is at all a good thing when done on a global scale.

I think that's irrelevant. Humans have whatever natural inclinations they have. Propose solutions that work with them or shut up; misanthropically blaming human nature isn't constructive in the slightest.

Frankly, this is the same kind of unenlightened thinking that e.g. the Catholic Church applies to questions of public health. The Church thinks that the solution to AIDS is for people not to fuck; enlightened thinking realizes that people do fuck and proposes a system of preventative health care, including condoms, that addresses that reality. It's funny to see the selfsame leftists who condemn the Catholic Church for trying to keep condoms out of Africa apply the same basic fallacy to economics. If we just stop people from being self-interested....

Post reply on HN