Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: My point regarding representative democracy was simply this: Money = Access…
[/quote]
I am quivering in respect of this earth-shattering insight.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Given that it costs millions upon millions of dollars to run for office these days, politicians have become more and more beholden to those that can afford to pony up the money….
[/quote]
Couple of problems here:
-These decisions (votes and compromises) are being made by legislators. I doubt Susan Davis’ office (she is my house member) spends “millions and millions” on her campaign. Having visited her office, I doubt they spend even thousands on much.
-Also the nature of democracy is to limit the inequities of capitalism. It is easy to influence decisions but hard to literally buy election.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As far as this health care bill goes: It is a mess. Its a cumbersome piece of legislation …
[/quote]
Yeah I get that you don’t like it.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
special interest, industry groups and lobbyists to put their mark on legislation without the pesky issue of debate or review.[/quote]
The argument here is that there has not been enough debate? They have had piles of debate and versions passed both houses after considerable review and reworking.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The MSM, which, once upon a time, had investigative journalists and diligently reported the news, is completely AWOL…
[/quote]
So your other argument is that the news is ignoring health care?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Our politicians don’t answer to us anymore…
[/quote]
Again, we lost the right to vote?
We don’t prosecute kleptocrats?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The actions of government as of late are either confiscatory (in terms of wealth redistribution), intrusive (Patriot I and II) or illegal (takeovers, bailouts or foreign wars that DON’T protect the well being or interest of US citizens).Didn’t we already go to war over this shit before (American Revolution)?
[/quote]
No. We attempted to fight for our rights as British subjects (like voting). It kind of snowballed when the government explicitly asserted that we had neither our guaranteed rights nor a right to complain.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, no, I’m not the political theorist I mentioned. I might have my self-aggrandizing moments, but I’m not that bad![/quote]
Okay…Participant[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.Participant[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.Participant[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.Participant[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.Participant[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.Participant[quote=ucodegen]
The government produces nothing?
By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.
You need to produce better examples.
*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.Participant[quote=ucodegen]
The government produces nothing?
By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.
You need to produce better examples.
*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.Participant[quote=ucodegen]
The government produces nothing?
By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.
You need to produce better examples.
*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.Participant[quote=ucodegen]
The government produces nothing?
By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.
You need to produce better examples.
*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.Participant[quote=ucodegen]
The government produces nothing?
By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.
You need to produce better examples.
*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.
[/quote]
-“public good” is commonly used a term to refer to government supplied, real property, personal property, or performed service
-fees are not the norm. Usually they are just charged at special purpose parks (like boat docks and skate parks).
-usually they are have been built and maintained through special and general taxes[quote=ucodegen]
*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.[/quote]
-Most are required as per public policy (generally such building requirements are considered public goods unto themselves)to built by developers. Private funds and resources being taken for public benefit (eg: sidewalks)is a definitional example of a public good. This is the same way that taxes and bonds turn into teacher salaries and textbooks. [quote=ucodegen]*national defense.. is a service not a good.
[/quote]Again your definition is not in keeping with current practice. Also, its not like the soldiers are out there naked throwing rocks. Their uniforms, their guns, their bases are all examples of public goods that are either publicly owned real or personal property.[quote=ucodegen]
*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.[/quote] The interstate highway system was built in part for the benefit of national defense. No part of it is privately owned. Using contractors does not make a public good private. Lots of public schools use private contractors (eg: Laidlaw buses). That does not make them private schools.Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]
That is a very good point.
I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.
For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]
That is a very good point.
I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.
For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.Participant[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]
That is a very good point.
I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.
For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se. -
AuthorPosts
