The REAL reason Vermont is now relevant

[Geilinor]

This^. People or entities who can't vote should have no influence in campaigns.

That I agree with. Utterly.

So why do you support corporate influence in campaigns?

[Distruzio]

Shit healthcare? Nonsense. We have shit healthcare insurance but our healthcare is fantastic.

And profitable interests are directly tied to living standards. A poor society doesn't buy shit. Can't make profit without sales, can you?

Wealth isn't the only thing that can improve living standards. What about education, environmental regulations (some), social welfare programs, and universal healthcare?

All very important as well. I agree. But that doesn't dispute my comment. It merely adds the relevance of a line to walk between corporate influence and the lack of it.

[Distruzio]

That I agree with. Utterly.

So why do you support corporate influence in campaigns?

I don't. I'm trying to hash out my opinion on the matter through this discussion. I'm undecided.

[Aurora Novus]

Because it erodes the general populace's influence on politics. Which is the whole point of democracy.

If politicians are competeing with one another for elections, and require donations to be able to fund a campaign, you can bet they're going to listen to their donars. If the donars are us, the people, great. But when you allow massive spending, it ends up being that politicians listen to and make policies exclusively favoring the absurdly wealthy and powerful corporations, instead of listening to the people who've actually elected them.

It basically turns our democracy into an Oligarcy, where money, not the voice of the people, determines policy. That's not what this country is supposed to be about.

Neither is democracy. America is a Federal Republic.

Which has nothing to do with the point I've raised. Don't be so pedantic. "O 'murica aint a demokracy, its a repunlik dur hurr". A republic is a form of democracy, with a democratic process. And it's that democratic process that we are discussing.

[Distruzio]

Shit healthcare? Nonsense. We have shit healthcare insurance but our healthcare is fantastic.

I've yet to see anyone prove that, not that it matters if the single biggest reason for bankruptcy is healthcare costs.

And profitable interests are directly tied to living standards. A poor society doesn't buy shit. Can't make profit without sales, can you?

No. They're really not. Which is why we have situations like this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/busin ... .html?_r=0
Don't lie to yourself. You're an intelligent bloke. Corporate interests are not society's interests. Society's interests should come first.

Oh I agree there. I merely wonder how those interests should be represented. I can't see a reason why corporations shouldn't have a say aside from moral reasons (morality for me, that is). They aren't people and don't deserve to be treated as such, morally speaking. But the US has prospered despite the involvement of corporate interests. Note, I'm speaking merely about political involvement. I'm discounting economic influences.

[Distruzio]

Neither is democracy. America is a Federal Republic.

Which has nothing to do with the point I've raised. Don't be so pedantic. "O 'murica aint a demokracy, its a repunlik dur hurr". A republic is a form of democracy, with a democratic process. And it's that democratic process that we are discussing.

Read the rest of my post. If you're opposing the oligarchic element of American political discourse, aren't you opposing American political tradition?

[Geilinor]

Which has nothing to do with the point I've raised. Don't be so pedantic. "O 'murica aint a demokracy, its a repunlik dur hurr". A republic is a form of democracy, with a democratic process. And it's that democratic process that we are discussing.

Read the rest of my post. If you're opposing the oligarchic element of American political discourse, aren't you opposing American political tradition?

No, because the historical trend has been an extension of voting rights over time. An appeal to tradition, I should have expected this from you.

[Divair2]

I've yet to see anyone prove that, not that it matters if the single biggest reason for bankruptcy is healthcare costs.


No. They're really not. Which is why we have situations like this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/busin ... .html?_r=0
Don't lie to yourself. You're an intelligent bloke. Corporate interests are not society's interests. Society's interests should come first.

Oh I agree there. I merely wonder how those interests should be represented. I can't see a reason why corporations shouldn't have a say aside from moral reasons (morality for me, that is). They aren't people and don't deserve to be treated as such, morally speaking. But the US has prospered despite the involvement of corporate interests. Note, I'm speaking merely about political involvement. I'm discounting economic influences.

The US is somewhat "too big to fail". It can have a shit president at its head for eight years, screw up several major policy decisions, and have rampant corporate influence and prosper despite all of it. But it could be so much better.

[Aurora Novus]

Which has nothing to do with the point I've raised. Don't be so pedantic. "O 'murica aint a demokracy, its a repunlik dur hurr". A republic is a form of democracy, with a democratic process. And it's that democratic process that we are discussing.

Read the rest of my post. If you're opposing the oligarchic element of American political discourse, aren't you opposing American political tradition?

I don't know what you're talking about, even in the early days of America it wasn't an Oligarchy. And in fact, America has a tradition of both (1) extending voting rights to enfranchise more and more people, and (2) historically limiting campaign contributions, so as to prevent Oligarchy. It wasn't until the 60's/70's that those regulations began to become undone, when they had previously been upheld by much earlier Supreme Courts.

[Distruzio]

And profitable interests are directly tied to living standards.

Not necessarily, no. Not when corporations can influence public policy to make it such that the profits of corporations don't benefit the general populace, by exploiting tax loopholes and lowering taxes in general.

True. I favor a citizen exploiting tax loopholes and arguing for lower taxes, sure. But corporations? Nah.

Not to mention, influencing politicians to reduce regulation on them, allowing them to exploit people and land even more than they do now, which can directly harm people's standard of living.

That's a statement with connotations I can agree with.

There's a reason why the minimum wage has not increased with inflation like it should have been doing all these years, and it's beause of corporate influence on politics. And that has directly harmed us, not benefited us, as it has been eroding the strength of our middle class. In fact, we no longer have the strongest middle class in the world like we once had. Canada does now.

Overall... I can agree with this reasoning. Even though I'm anti-minimum wage. Fact is, inflation is directly related to the erosion of the middle and I am quite aware of corporate influence on inflationary practices.

[Distruzio]

Read the rest of my post. If you're opposing the oligarchic element of American political discourse, aren't you opposing American political tradition?

No, because the historical trend has been an extension of voting rights over time.

True enough. So, why then, should such a reality be used to support the end of corporate influence?

An appeal to tradition, I should have expected this from you.

I am, afterall, a reactionary.

[Distruzio]

Oh I agree there. I merely wonder how those interests should be represented. I can't see a reason why corporations shouldn't have a say aside from moral reasons (morality for me, that is). They aren't people and don't deserve to be treated as such, morally speaking. But the US has prospered despite the involvement of corporate interests. Note, I'm speaking merely about political involvement. I'm discounting economic influences.

The US is somewhat "too big to fail". It can have a shit president at its head for eight years, screw up several major policy decisions, and have rampant corporate influence and prosper despite all of it. But it could be so much better.

True. Quite true.

[Geilinor]

No, because the historical trend has been an extension of voting rights over time.

True enough. So, why then, should such a reality be used to support the end of corporate influence?

Corporations are not individuals. Are you arguing that the next logical step is to allow corporations to vote?

[Distruzio]

Read the rest of my post. If you're opposing the oligarchic element of American political discourse, aren't you opposing American political tradition?

I don't know what you're talking about, even in the early days of America it wasn't an Oligarchy. And in fact, America has a tradition of both (1) extending voting rights to enfranchise more and more people, and (2) historically limiting campaign contributions, so as to prevent Oligarchy. It wasn't until the 60's/70's that those regulations began to become undone, when they had previously been upheld by much earlier Supreme Courts.

Yeah. That I see now. I'm still uncertain how corporate influence disenfranchises individuals. And... if thats the case, why thats a bad thing.

[Aurora Novus]

No, because the historical trend has been an extension of voting rights over time.

True enough. So, why then, should such a reality be used to support the end of corporate influence?

Massive corporate influence through campaign contribution essentially disenfranchises everyone else, because it's a form of legal bribery. It makes it so that our votes on policy matters, or our votes in terms of who we elect as representatives, no longer truly matter, because the elected officials aren't beholden to us, the people, but rather to their wealthiest donors.

[Distruzio]

True enough. So, why then, should such a reality be used to support the end of corporate influence?

Corporations are not individuals. Are you arguing that the next logical step is to allow corporations to vote?

I'm asking if that is the case, yes. Again, I'm undecided on this subject. I'm using this conversation to formulate my opinion. This is a subject that I've NEVER considered. So it's a line of reasoning that I'm unfamiliar with.

[Divair2]

The US is somewhat "too big to fail". It can have a shit president at its head for eight years, screw up several major policy decisions, and have rampant corporate influence and prosper despite all of it. But it could be so much better.

True. Quite true.

Good god, man, next thing I'll say "be a social democrat" and you'll say "Sure"

[Distruzio]

True enough. So, why then, should such a reality be used to support the end of corporate influence?

Massive corporate influence through campaign contribution essentially disenfranchises everyone else, because it's a form of legal bribery. It makes it so that our votes on policy matters, or our votes in terms of who we elect as representatives, no longer truly matter, because the elected officials aren't beholden to us, the people, but rather to their wealthiest donors.

This is bad? Why?

[Distruzio]

True. Quite true.

Good god, man, next thing I'll say "be a social democrat" and you'll say "Sure"

Haha. Nah. I'm flowing ever closer to a pure distributist, sure. But I still leaning laissez faire. Regardless, I've ever been anti-corporation. I've never been objectivist or a Rand lover.

[Aurora Novus]

Massive corporate influence through campaign contribution essentially disenfranchises everyone else, because it's a form of legal bribery. It makes it so that our votes on policy matters, or our votes in terms of who we elect as representatives, no longer truly matter, because the elected officials aren't beholden to us, the people, but rather to their wealthiest donors.

This is bad? Why?

Are you seriously asking why it's bad that overwhelming majority of a population in a supposidely democratic nation has no influence on the politics of that nation?

[Divair2]

Good god, man, next thing I'll say "be a social democrat" and you'll say "Sure"

Haha. Nah. I'm flowing ever closer to a pure distributist, sure. But I still leaning laissez faire. Regardless, I've ever been anti-corporation. I've never been objectivist or a Rand lover.

Not exactly what I expected from a libertarian. Though you have been drifting leftward over the years, even if only slightly.

[Distruzio]

This is bad? Why?

Are you seriously asking why it's bad that overwhelming majority of a population in a supposidely democratic nation has no influence on the politics of that nation?

Yes. I'm anti-democratic. I'd rather the US return to a more oligarchic reality. But, that said, I can understand the desire for certain corporate interests to be restricted or otherwise eliminated (the slaveocracy, for example).

[Aurora Novus]

Are you seriously asking why it's bad that overwhelming majority of a population in a supposidely democratic nation has no influence on the politics of that nation?

Yes. I'm anti-democratic. I'd rather the US return to a more oligarchic reality. But, that said, I can understand the desire for certain corporate interests to be restricted or otherwise eliminated (the slaveocracy, for example).

If you're anti-democratic, then you won't care about this issue at all. I'd have to first convince you that democracy is better than whatever it is you desire.

That said, here's just a small example. You're a believer in Capitalism, right? Well, when you allow massive corporations to control our politicians as they do, you give rise to Corporatism. And what's the first thing Corporatism wants to do? Kill Capitalism. It'll do everything it can to try and sqaush competition against it. Massive corporations will bribe politicians to influence legislation such that it restricts the free market. A great example of that is the issue in Texas involving Tesla Motors. Corporatism is anti-free market, and when you allow corporations to control our politicians, you're killing the free market.

[Phocidaea]

This is bad? Why?

Are you seriously asking why it's bad that overwhelming majority of a population in a supposidely democratic nation has no influence on the politics of that nation?

As he himself just said, he is one of those edgy people who has been led to blame democracy for all his problems. To him, hiving people less power is a good thing, so as twisted as it may sound don't try fighting him with that argument.

Same exact thing if Vazdania comes on.

[Distruzio]

Yes. I'm anti-democratic. I'd rather the US return to a more oligarchic reality. But, that said, I can understand the desire for certain corporate interests to be restricted or otherwise eliminated (the slaveocracy, for example).

If you're anti-democratic, then you won't care about this issue at all. I'd have to first convince you that democracy is better than whatever it is you desire.

This is true.

That said, here's just a small example. You're a believer in Capitalism, right? Well, when you allow massive corporations to control our politicians as they do, you give rise to Corporatism. And what's the first thing Corporatism wants to do? Kill Capitalism. It'll do everything it can to try and sqaush competition against it. Massive corporations will bribe politicians to influence legislation such that it restricts the free market. A great example of that is the issue in Texas involving Tesla Motors. Corporatism is anti-free market, and when you allow corporations to control our politicians, you're killing the free market.

Now THAT is something I'm in favor of eliminating. There's a reason to oppose it.