None of that would eliminate the problem, not even necessarily reduce the problem. "Public financing of elections" is incredibly stupid as a 'solution' because WHOM would the Government fund, and NOT fund? Eliminating lobbying is impossible. The ONLY solution -- if there is any -- is https://archive.ph/4gNNq and even THAT can't be SURE to succeed unless and until it is first tried and found to HAVE worked. But NO electoral system (which you are assuming to be the ONLY way that a democracy can be achieved) can avoid degenerating into an aristocracy of wealth.
I acknowledge that our Republican politicians act as if they hate the poor. This does not excuse the Democratic (and socialist) ones from acting as if they hate the poor.
"Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can eat for a lifetime."
You remain stuck in the view, the false definition, that a "democracy" must include political Parties, and political contests and voting by the public, but I documented in https://archive.ph/4gNNq that that's a FALSE definition of democracy, and it is based on assumptions that history has consistently proven to be false assumptions. I propose a different definition of "democracy": a "democracy" is a government that has the same policy-priorities as the public does -- THAT is a truly REPRESENTATIVE government, a government that truly represents THE PUBIC; no OTHER government DOES. That article described how such a government can systematically be ACHIEVED.
Thank you for clarifying that you are a libertarian (i.e., you want to eliminate government). However, if there should be no government, there should be no laws, no law-enforcement, and no judiciary that determines guilt an innocence and determines whether a given law is or is not Constitutional. There would be no laws against deceptive advertising, nor even against mislabeling and misrepresenting the ingredients of a food or nutritional supplement, or even hiding (by not mentioning in the ingredients-list) a poison that is among its actual ingredients. Would that not produce among the producers of foods and nutritional-supplements a competitive race to the bottom-in-quality that results from such entirely unregulated commerce in foods and in nutritional supplements, because the cheapest-to produce ones won't be what they represent themselves as being? How do you propose to deal with such problems in your proposed lawless governmentless land?
Good conversation. The way it was done in the old days. You know, and armed society is a polite society. Vigilante justice. A citizenry with some actual analytical skills and the intelligence to surmise what is bullshit.
The laws against deceptive advertising haven't eliminated it, nor even controlled it.
The laws against murder haven't eliminated it, nor even controlled it.
Just because you and I are good people and don't violate these laws does not equal "laws work." In fact, I'd argue that it's quite the opposite. How many more laws do we need to pass before the deterioration of society and morality in our fellow humans is stemmed and reversed? There simply are not enough laws. And in fact, morality appears to clearly be inversely proportional to the number of laws a locality/country has. Which doesn't even begin to get into how unbelievably corrupt the justice system is.
"It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got." I disagree with this propaganda. There is zero evidence of this. Maybe there have been studies comparing flawed systems, but they never throw in the placebo: no system at all.
I realize the thought of zero government can be overwhelming. It was to me too. But I can't just shut up and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket and continue blaming politicians of one supposed ilk or another for being corrupted when they are either corrupted on the cheap, corrupted for more money, or eliminated from the scene whatever it takes. Such is the system.
Do you think you can stop political assassinations?
Do you think you can stop the CIA?
Do you think you can stop the bribing of public officials?
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, I'd dare to call you naive.
Eric, at the very beginning of the lock down, I attended a zoom round table set by Steve Kirsch, a former Silicon Valley executive. I forgot his name but the guest was a West Point Graduate. And he said in Sacramento, there was bill that was about to be passed that was not to the benefit of the population at large. So bunch of voters gathered with picket signs asking for the bill not to be passed and ready to get together and talk about it right at the front of whatever they call that place. Well, guess what happened? The thugs who refer to themselves as "our" law makers and legislators Closed the doors behind them completely ignoring the protesters, went Inside and passed it anyway!!!!! This is what the cattle in this country refer to as "democracy".
If the amount of money to one's name is what determines one's worth, then drug dealers, contract killers, murderers and child traffickers should be allowed a piece of the pie, and why not, let's allow the drug cartel a seat in the Congress!!! LOL. Aall of these criminals get piece of that pie, so why not allow the other party a piece of their pie?! One of the DAs who were after Trump was caught to have no less than 15 million $ in one of her bank accounts, her official salary being like only a mere 100K$ a year!!! I mean you cut the mortgage payment, car payment, food, etc. there will be virtually nothing left. But she has 15 million $ in the Bank!!!! where did she get that from if not from drug money laundering, bribes and what have you?...They are aal criminals. Thank you for Lincoln's priceless speech. Awesome!!!
Hey Eric if the American people are honest they would insist on publicly finance elections.lobbying or political contributions are crimes.
None of that would eliminate the problem, not even necessarily reduce the problem. "Public financing of elections" is incredibly stupid as a 'solution' because WHOM would the Government fund, and NOT fund? Eliminating lobbying is impossible. The ONLY solution -- if there is any -- is https://archive.ph/4gNNq and even THAT can't be SURE to succeed unless and until it is first tried and found to HAVE worked. But NO electoral system (which you are assuming to be the ONLY way that a democracy can be achieved) can avoid degenerating into an aristocracy of wealth.
I acknowledge that our Republican politicians act as if they hate the poor. This does not excuse the Democratic (and socialist) ones from acting as if they hate the poor.
"Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can eat for a lifetime."
You remain stuck in the view, the false definition, that a "democracy" must include political Parties, and political contests and voting by the public, but I documented in https://archive.ph/4gNNq that that's a FALSE definition of democracy, and it is based on assumptions that history has consistently proven to be false assumptions. I propose a different definition of "democracy": a "democracy" is a government that has the same policy-priorities as the public does -- THAT is a truly REPRESENTATIVE government, a government that truly represents THE PUBIC; no OTHER government DOES. That article described how such a government can systematically be ACHIEVED.
I appreciate the discussion.
I don't share your optimism about democracy.
Why not?
Everything any government owns it has stolen.
Taxation is theft, and that is true regardless of one's world views.
Nobody could ever represent me better than I represent myself, and thus I am a nd will proudly remain an anarcho-capitalist.
I do appreciate your writing.
Thank you for clarifying that you are a libertarian (i.e., you want to eliminate government). However, if there should be no government, there should be no laws, no law-enforcement, and no judiciary that determines guilt an innocence and determines whether a given law is or is not Constitutional. There would be no laws against deceptive advertising, nor even against mislabeling and misrepresenting the ingredients of a food or nutritional supplement, or even hiding (by not mentioning in the ingredients-list) a poison that is among its actual ingredients. Would that not produce among the producers of foods and nutritional-supplements a competitive race to the bottom-in-quality that results from such entirely unregulated commerce in foods and in nutritional supplements, because the cheapest-to produce ones won't be what they represent themselves as being? How do you propose to deal with such problems in your proposed lawless governmentless land?
Good conversation. The way it was done in the old days. You know, and armed society is a polite society. Vigilante justice. A citizenry with some actual analytical skills and the intelligence to surmise what is bullshit.
The laws against deceptive advertising haven't eliminated it, nor even controlled it.
The laws against murder haven't eliminated it, nor even controlled it.
Just because you and I are good people and don't violate these laws does not equal "laws work." In fact, I'd argue that it's quite the opposite. How many more laws do we need to pass before the deterioration of society and morality in our fellow humans is stemmed and reversed? There simply are not enough laws. And in fact, morality appears to clearly be inversely proportional to the number of laws a locality/country has. Which doesn't even begin to get into how unbelievably corrupt the justice system is.
"It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got." I disagree with this propaganda. There is zero evidence of this. Maybe there have been studies comparing flawed systems, but they never throw in the placebo: no system at all.
I realize the thought of zero government can be overwhelming. It was to me too. But I can't just shut up and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket and continue blaming politicians of one supposed ilk or another for being corrupted when they are either corrupted on the cheap, corrupted for more money, or eliminated from the scene whatever it takes. Such is the system.
Do you think you can stop political assassinations?
Do you think you can stop the CIA?
Do you think you can stop the bribing of public officials?
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, I'd dare to call you naive.
The system sucks.
Eric, at the very beginning of the lock down, I attended a zoom round table set by Steve Kirsch, a former Silicon Valley executive. I forgot his name but the guest was a West Point Graduate. And he said in Sacramento, there was bill that was about to be passed that was not to the benefit of the population at large. So bunch of voters gathered with picket signs asking for the bill not to be passed and ready to get together and talk about it right at the front of whatever they call that place. Well, guess what happened? The thugs who refer to themselves as "our" law makers and legislators Closed the doors behind them completely ignoring the protesters, went Inside and passed it anyway!!!!! This is what the cattle in this country refer to as "democracy".
If the amount of money to one's name is what determines one's worth, then drug dealers, contract killers, murderers and child traffickers should be allowed a piece of the pie, and why not, let's allow the drug cartel a seat in the Congress!!! LOL. Aall of these criminals get piece of that pie, so why not allow the other party a piece of their pie?! One of the DAs who were after Trump was caught to have no less than 15 million $ in one of her bank accounts, her official salary being like only a mere 100K$ a year!!! I mean you cut the mortgage payment, car payment, food, etc. there will be virtually nothing left. But she has 15 million $ in the Bank!!!! where did she get that from if not from drug money laundering, bribes and what have you?...They are aal criminals. Thank you for Lincoln's priceless speech. Awesome!!!