Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

a few glasses of malbec on my lunch date- in this moment, I am euphoric

nixon now, muthafuckas.

I'm sorry, but after seeing one of those images, I'm forced to risk being mistaken for you for a while.

[FearfulJesuit]

It begins.

[EDIT: Nah, that would be a stupid avatar fad. Let's retire the political figures for a while and do something else...]

[SalmonGod]

Yet if the market was as free as that advocated by even a moderate libertarian, then the government would be largely powerless to suppress competition for anyone's benefit in the first place and lobbying it for privileges would be a waste of time. Under the current system, the government is the means by which corporations gain undue influence and stability in the first place, so it seems a bit paradoxical to use the government (which is basically always serving for the benefit of some powerful interest or another) to crack down on the power attained by corporations which they gained from the government. At the end of the day, this sort of thing doesn't actually get the entrenched and powerful interests, it provides an excuse to go after the up and coming entrepreneurial types that actually earn their money (case in point, raising income taxes, which hits high level professionals and business owners, but doesn't even remotely affect the billionaires that advocate "paying a fair share" since they make their money on stocks and bonds). So long as you have a powerful government in place, you're going to have a class of people that are basically above the law, and nothing short of a Communist revolution will displace them - and that'll just create a new, similar class built inside government structures instead of corporate ones.

Yeah, I'm well aware of this argument.  I understand most libertarians would prefer that the majority of functions currently performed by government be carried out by private organizations instead.  But I don't understand what is seen in the nature of a private organization that makes it any less corruptible than government. 

To me, this is like blaming your house for exposing you to the elements, because you neglected to repair your roof.

Do you really want to let your terminology be determined by intellectual midgets?

Correcting terminology won't de-bunk this vision that holds significant sway in American politics.

Bingo.

The ideal isn't a market that's free of government intervention. The ideal is a market that is as unregulated as you can make it once you make it pay for its externalities. The minimum wage, for example, offsets a major externality of the unfettered labor market: people who aren't paid enough end up going into crime to make ends meet, or have to supplement their income with welfare. A liveable minimum wage gets rid of most of the labor market's externalities, so supply and demand can do its thing without burdening the rest of society with its shortcomings.

I think one of the main reasons people dislike capitalism is that some of the most important markets in life- basic foodstuffs, healthcare, labor, housing- don't actually work very well without regulatory intervention: grain speculation hurts the working poor in the third world; the US's abortion of a healthcare system should tell us all we need to know about the unregulated market in healthcare; the unregulated labor market won't pay its employees enough to live on; and so on and so forth. But there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And I'd be fine with this.  I just don't think it's sustainably possible.  The reason I dislike capitalism is the same incentives that drive it to provide material benefits also drive it to sabotage the regulation of externality.

[Baffler]

It begins.

[EDIT: Nah, that would be a stupid avatar fad. Let's retire the political figures for a while and do something else...]

No, I already have a political figure avatar! If they become a fad I can say that I was cool before everyone else!

[Zrk2]

It begins.

[EDIT: Nah, that would be a stupid avatar fad. Let's retire the political figures for a while and do something else...]

No, I already have a political figure avatar! If they become a fad I can say that I was cool before everyone else!

How about super dank fantasy-characters?

[misko27]

-Well sure, but that's no different than the current American system: A congressman represents his district, but also has to look out for the interests of his party because they'll be bankrolling his re-election campaign.

In general, you can expect the party to support an incumbent in any situation (unless they pull a Todd Akin and become so politically toxic that all is lost). And in primaries, if you have independent financial support and the voters like you, you can get elected as a Republican while announcing your support for child cannibalism and there ain't a damn thing they can do about it. What stops Ted Cruz from saying as he pleases? The party isn't going to support an opponent in the primary (not that they would succeed: he's beloved in Texas; perhaps not enough that he can go and support cannibalism, but beloved nonetheless), and there's no way they'd support a democrat over their own. This is all true of the democrats, but they've had more success with keeping people in line (and largely because of ideological and political factors, rather then financial).

And again, party discipline is a thing even in today's US.

Tell that to Speaker Boehner, I'm sure he'll be excited to hear it.

It exists plenty, but one consequence of the two party system is it is literally impossible to always negotiate as a single bloc (or two single blocs): there are always issues on which you can peel away members. Some Congresspersons come from states that are absolutely committed to farm subsidies, others come from a small district and ran their campaigns entirely on "Let's bomb Iran", and still others come from a purple state that punishes misbehavior by switching parties. Mitch McConell is fighting Obama's proposed Coal regulations tooth-and-nail. But rather then being in the pocket of some company (directly, at least), it's because he comes from a coal-mining state that will crucify him if he does otherwise.

[Devastator]

It's possible to have first-past-the post without gerrymandered districts.  You do it by having the people drawing the district lines not have the information required to gerrymander them.  It's surprisingly easy, and can deliver majorities while retaining third parties and allowing for smooth transitions of power.

[Angle]

Eh, but that doesn't address the spoiler effect - where running as a third party candidate actually hurts your cause more than it helps it.

[Reelya]

Gerrymander is on a separate axis to first-past-the-post / instant-run-off voting, so it's two separate debates there.

Instant run-off's big advantage is removing the spoiler effect, which removes the biggest initial barrier to third-party voting. No wonder the two big parties are happy with first past the post. It prevents non-Rep/Dem contenders from ever getting established, let alone elected.

But both systems can be gerrymandered in the same way. IRV doesn't have a mechanism to prevent that. The solutions to gerrymandering in both systems work the same. Now, of course, if you make a system where the two biggest parties end up having the power to agree on electoral divisions, you end up with a system which favors neither of them more than the other. But you can bet that they'll still gerrymander the hell out of any region that supports a third party...

[smjjames]

Since the two parties are too comfortable with keeping their positions, I don't see any way of changing the system in a major way, short of an all out revolution.

[Angle]

but remember, the parties are made of people. And people can be convinced. It would take a fairly dedicated ongoing campaign, but it could be accomplished.

[Darvi]

I estimate that a donation of $531 fucktillion should be enough to do the job.

[Bauglir]

Damn, I only have about $600 fuckzillion.

[SquatchHammer]

It begins.

[EDIT: Nah, that would be a stupid avatar fad. Let's retire the political figures for a while and do something else...]

No, I already have a political figure avatar! If they become a fad I can say that I was cool before everyone else!

How about super dank fantasy-characters?

Spoiler: Somebody say dank? (click to show/hide)

I own that comic. It is hilarious.

[FearfulJesuit]

Jet fuel can't melt dank memes.