Power Corrupts; Ergo, Limited Government

Status
Not open for further replies.

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
Presidential elections don't seem to me to be by any means a process by which the popular sentiment is reflected considering several decidedly undemocratic processes. First, primary candidate selection is in most cases determined by political clout and personage with those party committees that determine the candidates, not through a direct primary. Second, a candidate's popularity depends largely on the coverage they are given by the increasingly consolidated corporate monolith we call the 'news media,' meaning the ability to consistently disseminate information on a mass scale is more important in choosing who is president than any sort of popular vote. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concent...edia_ownership) Incidentally, how much money you have determines this ability of dissemination. As in the first case, the problem lies more in candidate selection than the final choice between the two party candidates. Another problem is that it requires millions and millions of dollars in corporate donations to ever become president. It is hardly a democratic system where the primary means by which candidates are put on the final ballot is one in which political clout and money ties play the primary role. Still another problem lies in the barriers to entry perpetrated by the two ruling political parties, which creates a system whereby the individual doesn't vote on the candidate that actually fits his views, but rather must compromise and choose between what he sees as the lesser of two evils. There is a reason why the two major party candidates always have an air of demagoguery about them, why the choice is always between two evils, rather than a truly good candidate.

Nobody can truly call the election process in any way democratic or representative of the will of the masses. It is more characterized by wealth's undue influence on its outcome and a fundamentally centralized candidate selection system. The result is the selection of candidates which are utterly beholden to moneyed interests, meaning that policy, whether in the name of consumer protection, more equitable distribution wealth, charity, etc., is almost always biased in favor of these interests.

The corruption in our system is not incidental. It is an inevitable result of growing government power that that power be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford to exploit it. Power itself is what corrupts. Government power is the means by which those unscrupulous members of society who would choose to take advantage of others are empowered to do so. Any addition to this power is irresponsible and it is unreasonable to believe it to be used fairly or according to popular desire.

The whole idea of government successfully and fairly regulating is predicated on there being a ruling apparatus responsive to the public interest. How is it possible that in a world where money controls everything in politics and all of the above mentioned improprieties exist, people still call for government action, expecting it to be beneficial to the public?
 
Last edited:

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
38 views and no replies... what am I doing wrong? Verbose writing style? Bad topic?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,400
4,460
136
boeing-787-dreamliner.jpg
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
38 views and no replies... what am I doing wrong? Verbose writing style? Bad topic?

That's pretty much what we argue/debate about on these forums everyday.

The real issue is some people believe that if you expand government and make it larger then that it'll address these issues and while other people believe that you need to shrink/limit government in order to decouple it from the entire power and corruption cycle that is viewed as being inherent with the size and growth of government beyond fulfilling its defined and basic roles.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
All fair criticisms tcG, but how much more power would these same corrupting influences have without an intervening government?
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
The real problem is our party is not going to make the government any smaller and, actually, has a pretty astounding record of increasing government size and reach. When I say our party I mean the Repubs obviously, because the Dems have always preferred large government.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,206
28,227
136
Your options:

Corrupt corporations rule the land

or

Corporations corrupt politicians that are supposed to be keeping them under control

At least with the second option we can vote out the offenders. If you don't think it's possible to effect change, look at the SOPA/PIPA debacle for an example of how citizens, when motivated enough, can control our legislators. Re-election > money.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
There is no such thing as "big". The government needs to be the size needed to serve the people it represents.

The term you are looking for is "lack of transparency". Thus unaccountable to the people, for what is a government really but a reflection and tool of the people itself?

Problem is having a accountable government of the people by the people takes personal responsibility, something corporate propaganda and right wing tools of the corporations have told Americans is a pointless effort. (so just let THEM run it) this sowing of distrust in civil government is the first sign the corporations are going in for the kill -once government is out of their way.

This has happened in South America for centuries by our industry cabals, now its our turn to be farmed out while the capitalists move on once the bones are picked clean.

Why not? We have no real enemies anymore, might as well let the capitalists run amok and sink this ship, I mean....its not like our forefathers fought and died to save this liberal democracy. It is 100% safe now...just let GE or Boeing or Koch take over.

It's not like these "job creators" have ever been Un-American or supported our enemies/crashed our economy through reckless greed or anything.
 
Last edited:

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
There is no such thing as "big". The government needs to be the size needed to serve the people it represents.

The term you are looking for is "lack of transparency". Thus unaccountable to the people, for what is a government really but a reflection and tool of the people itself?

Problem is having a accountable government of the people by the people takes personal responsibility, something corporate propaganda and right wing tools of the corporations have told Americans is a pointless effort. (so just let THEM run it) this sowing of distrust in civil government is the first sign the corporations are going in for the kill -once government is out of their way.

This has happened in South America for centuries by our industry cabals, now its our turn to be farmed out while the capitalists move on once the bones are picked clean.

Why not? We have no real enemies anymore, might as well let the capitalists run amok and sink this ship, I mean....its not like our forefathers fought and died to save this liberal democracy. It is 100% safe now...just let GE or Boeing or Koch take over.

It's not like these "job creators" have ever been Un-American or supported our enemies/crashed our economy through reckless greed or anything.

Good points and well stated...up until the typical asshattery in the 3rd and following paragraphs. It's all the fault of the right wing because all big corporations that do harm are right wing tools and apparently any corporation run by someone who is left leaning is as clean as a whistle.

Until people admit both sides do wrong, then there will never be peace. And it's always fun to here the typical moron say: "Well, at least my side isn't as bad as your side". When they type that, I wonder if they stick their tongue out and put their fingers in their ears.

For the record, I believe we need to have our gov't held accountable and get rid of corporate interference (lobbying, etc.) completely.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
People cant figure out who the media is meant to serve, so they just keep falling for the same obomney crap every time. The media is just a propaganda placement agency for the wealthy. They protect their wealth by using their media arms to parrot garbage ideas in the hopes that people will eat it up and not have the common sense to even think about what it is they are being fed. Yep, just vote for obomney. As long as you pick one or the other, they are happy. They only need to spend a couple billion to create the false choice, and from that false choice they are able to reap trillions in profits. It is a very simple equation. It is an investment with a very large return.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,385
7,446
136
The distinction is that there needs to be a degree of separation between government and business. That way government can function as a proper watch dog against bad business.

This important separation is removed if you centralize power (money) in this nation and funnel it all through the government via handouts / bailouts / redistribution. The more money government manages, the more business it takes part in. The more corrupt it becomes, where it will not guard against its own business.

We must not have centralized planning. Only a limited government can serve as a proper watch dog.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
The corruption in our system is not incidental. It is an inevitable result of growing government power that that power be exploited for the benefit of those who can afford to exploit it. Power itself is what corrupts. Government power is the means by which those unscrupulous members of society who would choose to take advantage of others are empowered to do so. Any addition to this power is irresponsible and it is unreasonable to believe it to be used fairly or according to popular desire.

The whole idea of government successfully and fairly regulating is predicated on there being a ruling apparatus responsive to the public interest. How is it possible that in a world where money controls everything in politics and all of the above mentioned improprieties exist, people still call for government action, expecting it to be beneficial to the public?

Then fix the system. Radically downsizing government is not the answer. This is the libertarian fallacy that there is such thing as a "natural" vacuum of power. You complain that government is not responsive to the public interest because it is too beholden to narrower monied interests, which is true. However, take government away, and those same monied interests will become your new overlords. The difference being that government is at least *somewhat* accountable to the public by way of the ballot box, the aforementioned serious flaws not withstanding. Without government, all the power goes to those who control the resources, and that power is 100% unchecked by, and unaccountable to, anything or anyone.

Try taking the money out of the system. Publicly financed campaigns. That is just the beginning of it. We can't even begin to talk about radical solutions like seriously limiting the size of government when we have taken no major steps toward reforming the existing system. It's not like the reforms have been tried and failed. We've barely implemented any of them to begin with, and you just want to throw up your hands.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
The whole idea of government successfully and fairly regulating is predicated on there being a ruling apparatus responsive to the public interest. How is it possible that in a world where money controls everything in politics and all of the above mentioned improprieties exist, people still call for government action, expecting it to be beneficial to the public?

This argument rests on the assumption that there is some natural, default way to structure human society that is somehow more fair or more neutral. That is not the case. Humans always choose, explicitly or not, how to organize themselves. The way people choose is generally dependent on their interests. One can choose to reduce monied interests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.