Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Quote:

The devil is always in the details. It is easy to assert that dispassionate, impartial public funding of deserving candidates will solve asll our problems. Very hard though to find bureaucrats or public agencies who themselves are dispassionate, impartial, and wise & discerning enough to identify those who are truly deserving.

Naturally, public financing won't solve all of election problems. Noone has said that it would. Just that it would be superior to the current system.

Claiming that we shouldn't do it, because it doesn't solve all the problems, is sort of a straw man argument because noone ever said it was such a panacea.

Quote:

Moreover it is all too easy for the political consumers of these funds to outsmart the system and use the "non campaign" activities and funds of asllied groups as a way to escape the current spending thresholds for our current spending limits.

This is the same sort of argument that says we shouldn't tax the rich, because they will just find ways to dodge the taxes anyways. Not a good argument; we just have to close the holes as they are found.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This merely illustrates the difference in our respective political philosophies. I have less faith in the effectiveness of government intervention and management of our affairs than perhaps you do. I would tend to resolve arguable issues on the side of individual freedom and no government action, while you apparently would look forward optimistically to the eventual perfection of government programs.

The government has been around for a long time and damn few of its programs have yet been perfected. Our income tax is nearly a century old now and so far the government;s efforts to both sinplify it and distribute its burdens more equitably have not achieved much progress. The tax code is a hideous nightmare, more complex than ever - despite repeated "simplifications" initiated by Congress.

I think you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate any systematic improvement in the operation of government programs over time. Indeed the opposite is more often true. Entrenched government bureaucracies eventually become more focused on the protection of themselves than on carrying out their intended mission. Moreover the people whom they are charged to "regulate" are usually both smarter than they are and more strongly motivated to outwith the bureaucracies than are the bureaucrats to really do their jobs. This is certainly true of both the income tax and political campaigns.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

This merely illustrates the difference in our respective political philosophies. I have less faith in the effectiveness of government intervention and management of our affairs than perhaps you do. I would tend to resolve arguable issues on the side of individual freedom and no government action, while you apparently would look forward optimistically to the eventual perfection of government programs.

The problem is that individual freedom during the process under question (elections) is not a method for fair elections when monies can be used without regulation to 'spam' the populace with one's message, whereas your opponent doesn't have the money. Raising money for a campaign wastes a hell of a lot of time, because frankly it shouldn't be the jobs of politicians to raise money. All it does is put them in people's pockets before they even have a shot at taking office.

When money is the method of exercising one's individual freedoms, the gigantic amounts held by certain people give them more freedom than others, and that's generally against the way we do things here in America, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

The government has been around for a long time and damn few of its programs have yet been perfected. Our income tax is nearly a century old now and so far the government;s efforts to both sinplify it and distribute its burdens more equitably have not achieved much progress. The tax code is a hideous nightmare, more complex than ever - despite repeated "simplifications" initiated by Congress.

Once again, you are appealing to extremes. Nothing is ever perfected. Gov't programs will never run perfectly or efficiently. And yet, they continue to run and keep our country running.

Our tax code is a mess, yeah, but it has kept the monies coming in to run the gov't. It is hard to argue with the overall effectiveness of the system. And part of the reason there have been issues with, how do you put it, 'distributing the burdens more equitably' is the fact that many oppose your idea of 'equitable.' I for example would like to see the rich pay far more than they currently do, far more, and will fight to make it happen. Lack of tax reform in the way you want is affected by people's attitudes as much as it is gov't inefficiencies.

Quote:

I think you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate any systematic improvement in the operation of government programs over time. Indeed the opposite is more often true. Entrenched government bureaucracies eventually become more focused on the protection of themselves than on carrying out their intended mission. Moreover the people whom they are charged to "regulate" are usually both smarter than they are and more strongly motivated to outwith the bureaucracies than are the bureaucrats to really do their jobs. This is certainly true of both the income tax and political campaigns.

Once again, this is the same argument you gave above - 'it's difficult to do something, so we shouldn't even try.' Nope, we should try.

Regulation is difficult, so we work harder at it.

Political regulation is difficult, so we work harder at it.

The system never has to be perfect, hell, it doesn't even have to come close to being perfect; it just needs to work long enough to keep the whole thing lumbering along, and have the flexibility to be adjusted if needed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I would much prefer to trust the product of the free choices of individuals rather than the perfectability of even hard working bureaucrats. I don't claim that either alternative offers perfectiomn -- only that experience repeatedly teaches us that government is rarely a good manager of anything. We entrust it only with things that (1) must be done, and (2) no other agency can do.

How do you get people to agree as to just what is a "fair" election? How much access or public assistance is "enough" to constitute "fair" access to both information and the voting booths for all elements of the public?

With respect to campaign contributions, I notice that those who so vigorously decried corporate contributions very often excused George Soros' much larger direct contributions and contributions to organizations such as "Move On.org". Hypocrisy abounds on all sides of this issue. Where one stands usually depends on where he/she sits. If people can't agree as to what constitutes "fair", how can we possibly expect a government agency to do this for us? This, in my view, defies common sense.

Freedom is better.

0 Replies

You naturally completely discount the fact that 'freedom' allows for far greater control of the election process by the rich than anyone else. I guess this isn't really a problem for you.

You do realize that by proposing Public Financing of elections, I seek to do away with Soros' ability to donate money as well?

It is pretty amazing how fixated you Republicans are with the boogeyman known as 'SOROS.'

Cycloptichorn

ps

Quote:

only that experience repeatedly teaches us that government is rarely a good manager of anything.

INterestingly enough, gov't has managed to keep our country running, with all the essentials taken care of, for longer than any of our lifetimes. I consider that to be good management. I doubt individuals could do a better job, and businesses sure as hell couldn't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Claiming that we shouldn't do it, because it doesn't solve all the problems, is sort of a straw man argument because noone ever said it was such a panacea.

While we agree it doesn't solve all the problem, that isn't the reason George opposes it. He opposes it because he expects it to cause other problems, which are worse.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem is that individual freedom during the process under question (elections) is not a method for fair elections when monies can be used without regulation to 'spam' the populace with one's message, whereas your opponent doesn't have the money.

I like your use of the word 'spam' here. But the analogy also suggests limits to its effectiveness. You can spam people, but you can't make them pay attention to the spam and react to it. How many men do you think enlarge their penises as a result of spam e-mails? Why would the success rate of rich people's campaign spam any greater?

0 Replies

In recent elections the major campaign spenders (as opposed to legal "contributors") have been labor unions and George Soros -- hence my use of them as examples. They are the major spenders.

Interestingly both have rather easily found ways to keep their very large spending in support of Democrat candidates from being counted as official campaign contributions. The same is generally true of the greater number of relatively smaller Republican contributors. The point here is that is has proven to be so easy for advocates on all sides of the political debate to outsmart and get around the (necessarily) static and inflexible legal restrictions we erect in the vain attempt to regulate them, that a reasonable, discerning observer is compelled to doubt the potential effectiveness of yet another attemot to do this. The stakes are high in political campaigns, and I would always be inclined to put my bets on a strongly motivated person or organization pursuing his/its self-interest in any contest with a government bureaucracy enforcing some overly complex law,

It is true that our government has functioned for a long time, but that doesn't mean it has done everything well. Very little of the scientific and practical innovation that has occurred in the modern age was done by government. Indeed much of it developed in spite of government.

A fair comparison would come from an examination of things dome both by government and free individuals or corporations. In such comparisons, the private sector almost always comes out on top. The present difficulties of EADS/Airbus in Europe is a wonderful example of govrernment meddling nearly destroying an otherwise good company with a track record of successful innovation in the aircraft industry. (While European governments are very accomplished at shortsighted bureaucratic venality, ours is no less than their equal in this lamentable tendency.)

I guess I am inclined to ask you why you are so disinclined to accept the beneficial effects of free expression? Do you believe that we need a government agency to tell us how to be "fair" or how to persuade others of the rightness of our political views?

Freedom is not perfect, but generally it is better than the alternatives.

0 Replies

I'm not so sure the negatives outweighs the positives on Public Financing of our elections. Since some states already use the system, how are they fairing on this issue?

I think george has a legit concern about government interventions, but on the other side of the coin, it seems republicans are always able to get more donations than the democrats on the local and national level. If there's any way to balance this into a more level playing field, I can't see what the problem can be. To expect perfection is not realistic.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You do realize that by proposing Public Financing of elections, I seek to do away with Soros' ability to donate money as well?

Sure. Do you realize that George and I want to preserve Soros's ability to influence elections with his donations? We may or may not like Soros's influence, but we do want him to have it under election laws.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not so sure the negatives outweighs the positives on Public Financing of our elections. Since some states already use the system, how are they fairing on this issue?

How long have they been existing? It took decades until the Interstate Commerce Commission turned from a protector of consumers into a protector of railroad monopolists. But it eventually got there -- to the point where it outlawed trucking that competed with railroads. George suggests that whatever agency finances election campaigns will eventually take the same road. And when Cycloptichorn tells George the experience so far has been good, I guess George's response would be it's just a matter of time until that changes. So how long have states been financing election campaigns?

0 Replies

If anybody has info on the states with public financing of elections, I'd like to know more about the length of time it's been in existence, and the pros and cons of their experience with it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think george has a legit concern about government interventions, but on the other side of the coin, it seems republicans are always able to get more donations than the democrats on the local and national level. If there's any way to balance this into a more level playing field, I can't see what the problem can be. To expect perfection is not realistic.

I think that if you check, you will find that actual spending on the opposing sides is very nearly equal. This is mostly the result of the fact that certain Dwemocrat backers, mainly unions, the NEA and like orrganizations enjoy legal protections and protected positions of influence that make it very easy for them to evade having their very substantial political activities ever being considered as part of a political campaign.

The truth is that the playing field is already level. People just like to use supposed inequality as an excuse when they lose. Do any of us here really lack for political propaganda on either side of the divide???? Will clumsy, ineffective government efforts to regulate a process of such importance to the protagonists on both sides really make anything better???? Can you point to a single structural improvemnent that has resulted from our already extensive attempts to "regulate" campaign contributions and spending - by either party????

0 Replies

george, Good points, all. I've always been a skeptic of government intrusions into most things.

0 Replies

A thought that needs mentioning about equal fund raising by both parties. During the last election, republicans overspent democrats on many close races, because they had so much to lose. Their overspending didn't seem to help, so it's not always the losers that complain about "the other side gets more."

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm not so sure the negatives outweighs the positives on Public Financing of our elections. Since some states already use the system, how are they fairing on this issue?

How long have they been existing? It took decades until the Interstate Commerce Commission turned from a protector of consumers into a protector of railroad monopolists. But it eventually got there -- to the point where it outlawed trucking that competed with railroads. George suggests that whatever agency finances election campaigns will eventually take the same road. And when Cycloptichorn tells George the experience so far has been good, I guess George's response would be it's just a matter of time until that changes. So how long have states been financing election campaigns?

Thomas has given us here an excellent (and factual) example of a government agency that, over time and in the interests of preserving itself and its power, eventually became the perfect antithesis of its intended (and legislated) role. Moreover this perversion of the original intent was stable over many decades - because the perversion itself suited the self interests of the railroads that were to have been regulated and the Congressmen (and communities) that benefitted from the monopolistic situation it created.

So much for the built in tendency towards perfection that supposedly inhabits government.

0 Replies

I understand that it seems idealistic to some, but I refuse to believe that a good idea should be given up on just because it is difficult, or that people will try their damndest to stop the good idea for personal gain.

Quote:

Sure. Do you realize that George and I want to preserve Soros's ability to influence elections with his donations? We may or may not like Soros's influence, but we do want him to have it under election laws.

Sure, I realize this. Do you realize that public elections don't limit Soros' ability to influence elections - a whit more than they limit anyone else from doing so?

It is the great equalizer. Anyone who wants can talk about who they like to be elected. Those who have good things to say, who are thought to be intelligent and thoughtful by followers of their philosophy of gov't, will listen to them and hearken others to do so as well. It only removes the ability for people to use their financial resources to lever support for their ideas.

And what's so wrong with that? In our system everyone is supposed to be equal. In our system, they are not equal, because our election rules allow money to talk far more than anything else. I seek to end this.

I find arguments that this should not be ended because the rich would try to find ways to get around it to be rather uncompelling. If we decided as a nation to go with public financing, we could easily higher a bevvy of the smartest motherf*ckers you ever saw to think of every possible way to get around the law, and preemptively (or as soon as possible) take actions to stop said 'cheating' of the laws. When someone figures out a way to get around it, we study it and close the loophole. They do it again, we do it again. It would be a struggle, but elections would happen in the middle nonetheless and there is every indication that it would be far easier for candidates to retain their independence from the huge contributors they currently rely upon to stay in office.

It is quite interesting to me that some who are so positive in one area or another which they support, can be so defeatist in another. I find that most of the arguments made that support the concept that money = free speech, are made by the same people who continually argue that giving more money to the rich is a positive for everyone. Neither is anything more than a way to try and moralize the interior and innate greed pervasive in the political philosophy espoused by the same people.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Thomas wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm not so sure the negatives outweighs the positives on Public Financing of our elections. Since some states already use the system, how are they fairing on this issue?

How long have they been existing? It took decades until the Interstate Commerce Commission turned from a protector of consumers into a protector of railroad monopolists. But it eventually got there -- to the point where it outlawed trucking that competed with railroads. George suggests that whatever agency finances election campaigns will eventually take the same road. And when Cycloptichorn tells George the experience so far has been good, I guess George's response would be it's just a matter of time until that changes. So how long have states been financing election campaigns?

Thomas has given us here an excellent (and factual) example of a government agency that, over time and in the interests of preserving itself and its power, eventually became the perfect antithesis of its intended (and legislated) role. Moreover this perversion of the original intent was stable over many decades - because the perversion itself suited the self interests of the railroads that were to have been regulated and the Congressmen (and communities) that benefitted from the monopolistic situation it created.

So much for the built in tendency towards perfection that supposedly inhabits government.

This is yet another straw man, for I do not recall anyone arguing that there is supposedly a 'built in tendency towards perfection' that inhabits government. Can you see where this argument was forwarded? It certainly wasn't by me.

Nobody claims that gov't is perfect, but then again it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. And it doesn't have to work forever, it only has to work for a short time. All governance is short-term stuff. Once it breaks, you fix it; you work to try to keep it from breaking if you can, but if it does, it doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to try to begin with.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Another reason I like the idea of public finance of elections is to eliminate the appearance or reality of our elected officials getting bought by money, and some payback is expected. Public servants should work for all the people, not for interest groups that donate money for their campaigns.

0 Replies

Actually, I've the same mixed feelings ... as everyone.

No system is perfect - neither in practise nor in theory.

The main differences in "campaign financing" for instance between the USA and Germany are ... that we have a totally different system re political parties (and the financial structure and funding), and that this is hardly to compare.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I understand that it seems idealistic to some, but I refuse to believe that a good idea should be given up on just because it is difficult, or that people will try their damndest to stop the good idea for personal gain.

The problem isn't difficulty, it's unintended consequences. You say your policy's intended consequences are so good they're worth a lot of effort. This may well be true, but it's an inadequate defense against a charge about unintended consequences.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure, I realize this. Do you realize that public elections don't limit Soros' ability to influence elections - a whit more than they limit anyone else from doing so?

I do -- I also believe the good consequences of this outweigh the bad.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It only removes the ability for people to use their financial resources to lever support for their ideas.

Nothing short of repealing the First Amendment removes this ability, as opposed to limiting it. I know you don't want to repeal the First Amendment. But would you abolish 501(c)(4) organizations like the swift boat veterans? Think tanks funded by billionaires? Money-losing media outlets kept alive by rich people's donations? (The National Review, for example, never made an operating profit, according to its founder William Buckley.) Where would you draw the line on this?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And what's so wrong with that? In our system everyone is supposed to be equal.

No they're not. Your system was founded on the assumption that everyone is created equal. It now commands that everyone enjoy the equal protection of the law. Thus it gives everyone, rich and poor, the equal right to influence the political process. But it doesn't guarantee that everyone can influence the political process equally. This means that rich and poor alike can go golfing with any politicians who want to golf with them. They may all hire lobbyists for influencing Congress in their favor. They may all start up newspapers, talk radio stations, websites, think tanks, and 501(c)(4)s, and can participate in the marketplace of ideas in any way they choose. But your system is indifferent to poor people having less money to invest in political influence than rich people do. Equality of outcome isn't your system's concern. If you want to make it its concern, you have to change the system.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is quite interesting to me that some who are so positive in one area or another which they support, can be so defeatist in another. I find that most of the arguments made that support the concept that money = free speech, are made by the same people who continually argue that giving more money to the rich is a positive for everyone.

Can you name names please? I certainly never supported corporate welfare or the Bush tax cuts. George supports the Bush tax cuts, but not corporate welfare. I suppose even he views the tax cuts as a somewhat mixed blessing. I'm sure he doesn't doesn't like their contribution to the deficit. Neither of us is, in your words, "so positive" in this general area. So whom of your correspondents are you talking about?

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know