Print

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

[Frumple]

Horse takes a sip a lot easier when there's no obstacle course in the way and they don't have to walk half a day to get there, though... time and availability might not, strictly speaking, generate interest, but it does make it a lot easier for that interest to spark. It'd take relatively little effort to knock down some walls between the voter and the ballot.

[SalmonGod]

What you describe is the transformation of a free market into an oligopoly by conglomeration. That certainly is a thing, but not in and of itself a consequence of a market being free. The real consequence is not that free markets are bad, but that some markets need government interference to become free.
Rule one of criticizing capitalism should be intellectual accuracy, if only to ward off reactionary criticism.

I suppose you're right that it's not a consequence of a market being free, because I see it happening whether the market is "free" or not, unless there are very strict controls placed on wealth accumulation that prevent any one person or organization from gaining disproportionate influence.  I think they'd need to be so strict as to be hardly recognizable as capitalism anymore, because the way I see it, inequality weathers away barriers to its widening much the same as water freezing/thawing in cracks of rock.

But this isn't a criticism of capitalism itself, so much as the slippery wordplay that U.S. free market proponents employ to avoid anything ever being seen as a consequence of their ideology.
People/businesses using their money to create/influence organizations that suppress competition and create oligopoly is not accepted as criticism of free market ideology, because their doing so makes the market not free.
Yet placing any controls on the use of money to prevent anyone from doing this also makes the market not free, and capitalism naturally provides the greatest rewards to those who find and leverage advantages, whether they're free market in nature or not.
So by these standards, which by my understanding are genuinely the standards of definition proposed by libertarians in the U.S., asking for a free market is like asking for a fire that doesn't consume the fuel it burns.

[Morrigi]

"...Also, eat this bowl of eggs."

Heh

[Angle]

EDIT: I am also strongly against mandatory voting. I believe that not voting is just as strong a political expression of opinion as actual voting is. On the whole, I believe it represents a lack of faith in our government and also a lack of faith in the quality of the character of the available candidates, so when people don't vote I don't expect the government to make it mandatory I expect them to DO BETTER. Don't take that too literally, as it's entirely philosophical. I don't vote partially on those grounds and also because it's a bit of a hassle while I'm at college and I don't feel like mailing my vote in (i'm talking voting for all political office here).

The problem with that is that the majority of the government, especially the worst parts, not only don't care whether you have faith in the government, they actively want you to not have faith in it and not vote, because that makes it easier for them to use it to fuck us over with. Why do you think they spend so much money on negative ads? To actively dissuade you from voting.

When you choose not to vote, they don't take it as a sign that they should do better- They take it as a sign that they can do whatever they like and fuck you over as hard as they feel like, cause obviously you can't be bothered to do anything about it.

[Zrk2]

EDIT: I am also strongly against mandatory voting. I believe that not voting is just as strong a political expression of opinion as actual voting is. On the whole, I believe it represents a lack of faith in our government and also a lack of faith in the quality of the character of the available candidates, so when people don't vote I don't expect the government to make it mandatory I expect them to DO BETTER. Don't take that too literally, as it's entirely philosophical. I don't vote partially on those grounds and also because it's a bit of a hassle while I'm at college and I don't feel like mailing my vote in (i'm talking voting for all political office here).

The problem with that is that the majority of the government, especially the worst parts, not only don't care whether you have faith in the government, they actively want you to not have faith in it and not vote, because that makes it easier for them to use it to fuck us over with. Why do you think they spend so much money on negative ads? To actively dissuade you from voting.

When you choose not to vote, they don't take it as a sign that they should do better- They take it as a sign that they can do whatever they like and fuck you over as hard as they feel like, cause obviously you can't be bothered to do anything about it.

Which is why I use my protest votes on third parties.

[smjjames]

EDIT: I am also strongly against mandatory voting. I believe that not voting is just as strong a political expression of opinion as actual voting is. On the whole, I believe it represents a lack of faith in our government and also a lack of faith in the quality of the character of the available candidates, so when people don't vote I don't expect the government to make it mandatory I expect them to DO BETTER. Don't take that too literally, as it's entirely philosophical. I don't vote partially on those grounds and also because it's a bit of a hassle while I'm at college and I don't feel like mailing my vote in (i'm talking voting for all political office here).

The problem with that is that the majority of the government, especially the worst parts, not only don't care whether you have faith in the government, they actively want you to not have faith in it and not vote, because that makes it easier for them to use it to fuck us over with. Why do you think they spend so much money on negative ads? To actively dissuade you from voting.

When you choose not to vote, they don't take it as a sign that they should do better- They take it as a sign that they can do whatever they like and fuck you over as hard as they feel like, cause obviously you can't be bothered to do anything about it.

I don't see the negative ads as them trying to dissuade voting, they're trying to say
"Candidate1: he/she is worse than I am!
Candidate2: No, you!
Candidate1 No, you!
Candidate2: No, you!
Candidate1 No, you!
Candidate2: No, you!
Candidate1 No, you!
Candidate2: No, you! xinfinity
Candidate1 No, you! xinfinity"

To oversimplify it anyway.

Maybe we should try mandatory voting locally in some places and see how that goes. Unless that would just confuse people?

[mainiac]

Candidates do negative advertizing because it works.

People find politicians a convenient scapegoat for the failure of the voters.  But if you point out that the voters are fucking things up they talk about "liberty" when they really mean apathy. 

[Bauglir]

It is interesting - the research I recall suggests that negative advertising hurts the advertiser, just less than the target.

[Glowcat]

What you describe is the transformation of a free market into an oligopoly by conglomeration. That certainly is a thing, but not in and of itself a consequence of a market being free. The real consequence is not that free markets are bad, but that some markets need government interference to become free.
Rule one of criticizing capitalism should be intellectual accuracy, if only to ward off reactionary criticism.

I suppose you're right that it's not a consequence of a market being free, because I see it happening whether the market is "free" or not, unless there are very strict controls placed on wealth accumulation that prevent any one person or organization from gaining disproportionate influence.  I think they'd need to be so strict as to be hardly recognizable as capitalism anymore, because the way I see it, inequality weathers away barriers to its widening much the same as water freezing/thawing in cracks of rock.

Possibly because a "Free Market" is impossible and its advocates pretend Private institutions are more of a natural force than something being imposed to make their undemocratic system work.

Capitalism has always depended on controlling essential commodities that it cannot produce, and free market advocates continuously attempt to seize those resources through whatever means they have available. Control over government is only a natural extension of how (neo)liberal policies operate.

[smjjames]

It is interesting - the research I recall suggests that negative advertising hurts the advertiser, just less than the target.

And wierd advertising just confuses everybody.

[GreatJustice]

What you describe is the transformation of a free market into an oligopoly by conglomeration. That certainly is a thing, but not in and of itself a consequence of a market being free. The real consequence is not that free markets are bad, but that some markets need government interference to become free.
Rule one of criticizing capitalism should be intellectual accuracy, if only to ward off reactionary criticism.

I suppose you're right that it's not a consequence of a market being free, because I see it happening whether the market is "free" or not, unless there are very strict controls placed on wealth accumulation that prevent any one person or organization from gaining disproportionate influence.  I think they'd need to be so strict as to be hardly recognizable as capitalism anymore, because the way I see it, inequality weathers away barriers to its widening much the same as water freezing/thawing in cracks of rock.

But this isn't a criticism of capitalism itself, so much as the slippery wordplay that U.S. free market proponents employ to avoid anything ever being seen as a consequence of their ideology.
People/businesses using their money to create/influence organizations that suppress competition and create oligopoly is not accepted as criticism of free market ideology, because their doing so makes the market not free.
Yet placing any controls on the use of money to prevent anyone from doing this also makes the market not free, and capitalism naturally provides the greatest rewards to those who find and leverage advantages, whether they're free market in nature or not.
So by these standards, which by my understanding are genuinely the standards of definition proposed by libertarians in the U.S., asking for a free market is like asking for a fire that doesn't consume the fuel it burns.

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.

[misko27]

And wierd advertising just confuses everybody.

God damn it wierd, stop confusing people.

[Strife26]

Gorbachev 2016!

[Zangi]

Horse takes a sip a lot easier when there's no obstacle course in the way and they don't have to walk half a day to get there, though... time and availability might not, strictly speaking, generate interest, but it does make it a lot easier for that interest to spark. It'd take relatively little effort to knock down some walls between the voter and the ballot.

Indeed.

Mail-in Ballets
Businesses must allow time for employees to take time off to vote, with very hefty fines for non-compliance.
Polling places need to be open longer, both in hours of the day and number days, to accommodate the reality of normal work hours.

[Helgoland]

But this isn't a criticism of capitalism itself, so much as the slippery wordplay that U.S. free market proponents employ to avoid anything ever being seen as a consequence of their ideology.
People/businesses using their money to create/influence organizations that suppress competition and create oligopoly is not accepted as criticism of free market ideology, because their doing so makes the market not free.
Yet placing any controls on the use of money to prevent anyone from doing this also makes the market not free, and capitalism naturally provides the greatest rewards to those who find and leverage advantages, whether they're free market in nature or not.
So by these standards, which by my understanding are genuinely the standards of definition proposed by libertarians in the U.S., asking for a free market is like asking for a fire that doesn't consume the fuel it burns.

So all we've shown is that these libertarians are idiots (And perhaps that I should have said 'Actually Existing Capitalism'.)

The thing is, their definition of 'free market' is a perversion:

A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

So anti-trust legislation, or taxation, or cap-and-trade systems aren't contradictorary to a market being free, since they don't inhibit the laws of supply and demand! Do you really want to let your terminology be determined by intellectual midgets?