Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
You are confusing "freedom" with "influence". EVERYONE is free to donate money to campaign funds. Just that corporations are able to donate more.
If they're using a freedom that most other people can't, then yes they have access to more 'freedom'. They have more influence also, but that's only because they have that access to that freedom.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Also, just because someone has a lot of campaign funding does not mean that person is guaranteed to get elected. I could have all the funding in the world and still not get elected because I'm an asshole and only my mother would vote for me. Every politician has a company behind him. It's just a matter of which ones pick the right people to back.
Yeah, obviously not everyone gets elected. Those who do get elected, like you said, have companies behind them - which is the problem.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
It's always better for people who are experts in a subject to make decisions on that subject. That is not to say that laypeople are barred from voting for anything because they don't have a degree, but perhaps the experts' votes count for more than the average person.
Better decisions would probably be made, yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that part. But in the scenario Pig is proposing, your average guy isn't voting on anything. It's no less oligarchic than the current situation - it doesn't fix the problem of power not being in the hands of the people.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»