The Flat Tax

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

It’s the morality of the entire nation, not just of the enlightened creatures. I do think that President Obama has a deeper set of morals than many of his recent predecessors, but that’s beside the point.

It seems to me that corruption in the form of bribery in government is as common place than the corruption seen today in big business. This is not a “new” trend, but the prevalence and severity of this moral ineptitude is increasing. Our system is so freaking screwed up that is allows this BS. It’s mind blowing. You’re right Orion that these politicians are also men of their times. It’s sad that nothing is done to stand up for what is right, i.e. stopping special interest and reforming campaign finance. So if morality is screwed up, then the nation must have the systems in place to prevent this corruption, because the people are definitely too stupid to catch on.

162

Oh, well at least Mr Obama has gotten nowhere near any corrupt people – you know, like being “helped” in getting his house by a notoriously corrupt serial briber and then doing favors worth millions in return – nor been from a local political culture absolutely known for it, perhaps above any other state in the Union.

He’s pretty much from Mayberry. And definitely not the sort to do things like approve a tax evader to be Treasury Secretary, or to, within weeks of getting into office, funnel billions or hundreds of billions of dollars targeting benefits to blocs key to his election, justified as being economic stimulus without which we would suffer utter doom, or at least so he informs us. So I guess we’re okay then.

163

And who has been from Mayberry? You’ve got to realize that money in politics has always been around. Any specifics as to why Obama’s is worse than others? I think any corruption is BS and frankly the fact that our nation was founded on this quasi-democratic basis flies in the face of the Constitution.

So you semi-agree with me, that corruption in this country is out of control?

164

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
It’s the morality of the entire nation, not just of the enlightened creatures. I do think that President Obama has a deeper set of morals than many of his recent predecessors, but that’s beside the point.

It seems to me that corruption in the form of bribery in government is as common place than the corruption seen today in big business. This is not a “new” trend, but the prevalence and severity of this moral ineptitude is increasing. Our system is so freaking screwed up that is allows this BS. It’s mind blowing. You’re right Orion that these politicians are also men of their times. It’s sad that nothing is done to stand up for what is right, i.e. stopping special interest and reforming campaign finance. So if morality is screwed up, then the nation must have the systems in place to prevent this corruption, because the people are definitely too stupid to catch on.[/quote]

You do not see the problem, do you?

Quis custodit custodes?

Who will enforce these rules that bind a rotting society? The more rules you have, the more these rules can be corrupted. The more rules you have, the more power you give to a corrupt system. The more rules you have, the more rules you give to corrupt politicians.

In order to fight corruption you give the corrupt the means to spread their corruption like cancer.

The answer is not to give more power to them, it is to take as much power away from them as possible.

165

I understand the philosophical quandary, and you’re right that there need to be checks and balances to avoid putting too much power in someone’s hands. Thus the democratic republic with three branches of government.

Unfortunately special interest have learned to bypass the law making process and deal directly with the legislative branch, effectively bypassing what democracy stands for.

If the issue you see is that someone can have too much power in their hands, then how do you seem to disagree with me when I feel that special interest are the problem? Aren’t special interests a form of putting too much power in someone’s hands?

Isn’t there something wrong when the majority of people eligible to vote do not vote. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that they are so discouraged by the system. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups.

Elections are decided a year or more in advance by those who vote with dollars. While this is a defect in democracy, it is not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect.

166

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I understand the philosophical quandary, and you’re right that there need to be checks and balances to avoid putting too much power in someone’s hands. Thus the democratic republic with three branches of government.

Unfortunately special interest have learned to bypass the law making process and deal directly with the legislative branch, effectively bypassing what democracy stands for.

If the issue you see is that someone can have too much power in their hands, then how do you seem to disagree with me when I feel that special interest are the problem? Aren’t special interests a form of putting too much power in someone’s hands?

Isn’t there something wrong when the majority of people eligible to vote do not vote. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that they are so discouraged by the system. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups. [/quote]

Actually, I see something intrinsically right when there are low voter turnouts. Turnout is highest under a highly dissatisfactory administration.

No. If this was the case, few contests would be cliffhangers, and the person with the most money would always win. Money helps, but it isn’t the end-all-be-all of politics.

I remember reading a George Will article, where he was railing against the McCain Feingold bill because it limited American’s ability to ‘vote with their dollars’ as you put it. M-F bill was ostensibly supposed to prevent even the appearance of corruption in high office- in actuality, it limits the ability to challenge an incumbent official.

Will closed with the point that if you want people to stop trying to influence elections with money, quit allowing elected officials to influence the money of others.

This, I guess somewhat, reinforces what Orion touched on earlier- government has exceeded its bounds, with dire consequences.

167

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I understand the philosophical quandary, and you’re right that there need to be checks and balances to avoid putting too much power in someone’s hands. Thus the democratic republic with three branches of government.

Unfortunately special interest have learned to bypass the law making process and deal directly with the legislative branch, effectively bypassing what democracy stands for.

If the issue you see is that someone can have too much power in their hands, then how do you seem to disagree with me when I feel that special interest are the problem? Aren’t special interests a form of putting too much power in someone’s hands?

Isn’t there something wrong when the majority of people eligible to vote do not vote. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that they are so discouraged by the system. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups.

Elections are decided a year or more in advance by those who vote with dollars. While this is a defect in democracy, it is not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect.[/quote]

Lobbyists do not have any power.

Politicians have. Take their power away and they become unattractive to lobbyists.

This is also why checks and balances do not work. Such a system simply erodes of the incentives are big enough.

I think voter turnout is just fine. In fact, it is a mystery to me why people vote at all, even though their vote makes no discernible difference at all.

168

[quote]orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I understand the philosophical quandary, and you’re right that there need to be checks and balances to avoid putting too much power in someone’s hands. Thus the democratic republic with three branches of government.

Unfortunately special interest have learned to bypass the law making process and deal directly with the legislative branch, effectively bypassing what democracy stands for.

If the issue you see is that someone can have too much power in their hands, then how do you seem to disagree with me when I feel that special interest are the problem? Aren’t special interests a form of putting too much power in someone’s hands?

Isn’t there something wrong when the majority of people eligible to vote do not vote. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that they are so discouraged by the system. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups.

Elections are decided a year or more in advance by those who vote with dollars. While this is a defect in democracy, it is not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect.

Lobbyists do not have any power.

Politicians have. Take their power away and they become unattractive to lobbyists.

This is also why checks and balances do not work. Such a system simply erodes of the incentives are big enough.

I think voter turnout is just fine. In fact, it is a mystery to me why people vote at all, even though their vote makes no discernible difference at all.[/quote]

Right.
Lobbyists are just objects of faction in society.

I’d also like to point out the “rich” and the “poor” is really only a momentary(differential) observations of potential.

The wealth a person possesses(contains) is more than their momentary capital and commodity.
Individuals are not really “rich” and “poor” in so much as they are better or worse conduits of capital, commodity, productivity, etc…

This ties into the idea of faction in a large republic where faction, including by monetary class, is a momentary and/or conditional and highly perforated aggregation of interests.

When the evolution of faction congeals to class struggle… When it’s sufficient to overcome the mixing/transformation of interests(in capital and commodity)…
That’s where revolution begins.