Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

The Words We Say

I've been saying things much like this about the recent shooting, just shorter.
Tags: networking, politics, safety
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 83 comments
...go 13 levels up... Expand
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 16:16:28 UTC 10 years ago

See, I would do things very differently. But now we are talking. That's a start.

I agree that pretty much all of the news is spin. One way or the other.

I agree that the parties do not represent the people.

I vote republican because they come closer to my view of what is right. Not in every instance, I don't like "legislating morality", I am pro choice, against the "drug war", and have problems on a whole host of other issues. Lesser of evils hey?

I am fairly happy with the republicans since the mid-terms. I think that a full reading of the constitution is an excellent way to start a legislative session.

I can't see anything "good" having come out of the democrat party since before FDR. But that's my view.

As for how I would fix the things that are broken... I would start by forbidding the government from bargaining with collective entities. I would remove many many restrictions on economic activity, and would repeal or subject to the amendment process, all the extra-constitutional laws (starting with the new deal).
I would amend the constitution to state that all laws sunset every alternate year, that no law may be voted on by anyone who was not present for a full reading of the legislative language, including all references.
siege

siege

January 11 2011, 03:20:49 UTC 10 years ago

forbidding the government from bargaining with collective entities

Despite the many things you and I hold in intense disagreement, this is a point I agree with and strongly advocate, given some thought to implementation. Limiting governance By The People to the voices of individuals is important for the sake of balance. However, political action groups and other political lobbies serve a purpose in the aggregation of contact, and monetary influence is still felt.

The poorest person is still a voice. The richest person is still a voice. Who should have more influence, and how can that be ensured? That's something I think about often.
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 11 2011, 03:36:52 UTC 10 years ago

Just to clarify, I was talking about government employees unions. Reason being, in collective bargaining between corporations and unions, there is a classic adversarial arrangement, and both sides have tools at their disposal. In government negotiations with unions, it is a cooperative arrangement on how to distribute the wealth of the people of the nation (or state, or whatever). All the tools go to the union, so it works out very badly for the main course. This is the primary reason that federal pay is now double private sector pay for the same experience and education level.


Moving on to lobbyists and voices.

The classical answer is that each person has the same voice in government.

That will mean that the rich wind up with more influence, because they have better tools to disseminate their information and more potent incentives. The factory owner has the factory as a platform from which to tell his employees "this law is bad for our company, if it passes, 100 of you lose their jobs". In a decent world, saying something like that would be perfectly acceptable behavior. It also means that if the employees dislike that company, they may vote for the law out of spite.

I have no particular problem with money and lobbies having *some* influence. The problem is when the influences of certain small groups with loud voices overwhelm the voices of larger groups.
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

January 11 2011, 08:04:13 UTC 10 years ago

I think cutting money is more important than cutting groups. It's okay for people to have collective interests. What's not okay is when those groups bribe politicians to do things that hurt people. I don't care how much you dress it up in a tutu and toe shoes: if it involves money flowing from someone who wants something, to a person of influence, and results in action favoring the money-giver ... that is bribery, baksheesh, and corruption.