|
OK, so the first set of justifications for the "appearance" argument, at 56-59, have to do with the appearance of coordination and still don't speak to amount spent. 59-60 appears to be what you're referring to, but even there Stevens' sources are just burden-shifting- they have no evidence of either influence or resultant cynicism except via the circularity of their own opinions. In particular, the "are seen to exert outsized control" at 59 is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm vaguely reminded of the debates around Hillary Clinton in YCS here- if I say an act signifies corruption loudly enough, then people will believe there is corruption, so therefore there is corruption, so therefore the act must be stopped. Stevens raises his own desire for the court to enforce a public finance system and a fairness doctrine at FN 65, but he also immediately retreats from it (probably because he knows how at odds with conventional 1st Amd reasoning it is). The Souter dissent in WRTL v. FEC, flawed though it is, is probably a better set of sources to rely on for articulating this argument, assuming as it does that quantity of funding for political speech is a persuasive quality unto itself, and that that quantity can be justifiably restricted. (Souter's dissent in general seems to be making much more empirically grounded claims, though subsequent elections throw his arguments about the effects of spending into doubt. EvilWeasel's downticket argument seems to fare better in this framing, but it's still not clear what wrong is occurring by some people spending more, and having more of an influence on public opinion, than others.) At 61 Stevens performs a neat trick by conflating the historical "undue influence" construct with corporate election spending. He carries this through to a rereading of Buckley at 63., which I think is pivotal to the problems of the whole argument we're having here. There two words here are "magic words". The problem of asserting that corporate independent spending (per Stevens) or large amounts of independent spending (HM and EW, here in the thread) is unduly influential in democratic politics is that it assumes that more spending == stronger electoral influence. This assumption isn't just a problem for how it effects individual citizen voting behavior. If spending influence on voters doesn't hold, then it also fails to effect politicians' calculus of influence. If corporate or other major spending doesn't effect the vote outcome, then the politician no longer has a reason to de facto be influenced by corporate speakers. Instead, the reason the politician is likely to be influenced by, or create policies that favor, elites, is because the elites are already separately powerful in their ability to influence policy outcomes. $hillary/Bu$h/Nobama/Drumpf bend the knee to google, not because Google spends money on campaigns, but because Google can do other things to screw up economic or policy systems that have nothing to do with electioneering. Such corporate influence may be a problem, but it's not one that's remotely addressed by restricting campaign spending.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Absolute majoritarianism has never been a good hallmark of government, and variations in how much civic majorities prefer particular policy outcomes aren't material to the health of the general democratic system. Inner Narrative peaking through.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:So on another topic, an opinion was released today, with Sotomayor and Roberts dissenting together. I have no idea what this case is on about. Anyone know? That was Ocasio. A group of police officers accepted a bribe to tell tow trucks to deliver cars to a specific yard from the yards owners. The appellant was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to extort the yard owners, to get around federal statutory issues preventing bribery charges. He appealed because "hey how can I be accused of extortion of my co-conspirators" The majority held that it's extortion because even if they were conspirators, the officer still did it under the color of law, so it was done by force Sotomayor and Roberts held that conspiracy and extortion are incompatible Thomas held that bribery shouldn't be considered extortion and that if you listened to him 25 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:That was Ocasio. Thanks! Interesting, for all it seems like a minor case. quote:Thomas held that bribery shouldn't be considered extortion and that if you listened to him 25 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess today. This amused me far more than it should have, I think!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
I didn't see this among CU chat, SCOTUS refused to hear the challenge against Seattle's minimum wage law, i.e. the $15 min wage law stands.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
alnilam posted:I didn't see this among CU chat, SCOTUS refused to hear the challenge against Seattle's minimum wage law, i.e. the $15 min wage law stands. Wow not Quite four horseman of the apocalypse anymore. Also DV that was good analysis which I agree with. A bit too much begging the question in Stevens.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:That was Ocasio. As far as the decision, that is certainly an interesting pair of justices.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Thomas held that bribery shouldn't be considered extortion and that if you listened to him 25 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess today. I read about the history behind this last night and this made me chuckle, but it's funny because it's right.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Inner Narrative peaking through. It's an accurate observation. The American political system was never designed to place any particular weight on national majorities, and indeed to this day contains absolutely no elections which poll the national popular vote. Though the system has undergone several reforms to make it more populist-- direct election of senators and binding of presidential electors are probably the biggest-- it remains resistant to change based on national majorities. And this is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Quorum posted:It's an accurate observation. The American political system was never designed to place any particular weight on national majorities, and indeed to this day contains absolutely no elections which poll the national popular vote. Though the system has undergone several reforms to make it more populist-- direct election of senators and binding of presidential electors are probably the biggest-- it remains resistant to change based on national majorities. And this is a good thing. Yes, the system was designed to favor landed white men. Yes, it is more populist now but not nearly enough. Now we have a tyranny of the minority where elites fund both major parties to such a degree that the bulk of the body politic tends to be beholden to those elite interests. And the response is to say that democracy is thriving? Your high school civics class notwithstanding, the enlightenment assumption of "rational man," who dispassionately weighs information and votes in accordance with his self interest, is a lie. Consent of the governed is not given but manufactured through elite-controlled institutions, including the ever-consolidating broadcast and print media. There is increasingly less likelihood that our political system will function in such a way as to give voice to the vast majority of Americans' grievances. This isn't democracy at work, it's the middle-stage of a transfer of more wealth and authority to, if not the top one percent, perhaps the top ten. CU accelerated this descent into oligarchy. Ours is a dying republic, and a spectacular case study in how tyranny of the minority can subvert democratic systems while still maintaining the veneer of responsiveness to the public insofar as most citizens are still allowed to vote. Never mind the constraints on their information, choices, and where and when they may freely exercise speech and assembly. CU is one cog in a democracy-killing machine.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Yes, the system was designed to favor landed white men. Yes, it is more populist now but not nearly enough. Now we have a tyranny of the minority where elites fund both major parties to such a degree that the bulk of the body politic tends to be beholden to those elite interests. And the response is to say that democracy is thriving? Your high school civics class notwithstanding, the enlightenment assumption of "rational man," who dispassionately weighs information and votes in accordance with his self interest, is a lie. Consent of the governed is not given but manufactured through elite-controlled institutions, including the ever-consolidating broadcast and print media. There is increasingly less likelihood that our political system will function in such a way as to give voice to the vast majority of Americans' grievances. This isn't democracy at work, it's the middle-stage of a transfer of more wealth and authority to, if not the top one percent, perhaps the top ten. CU accelerated this descent into oligarchy. Ours is a dying republic, and a spectacular case study in how tyranny of the minority can subvert democratic systems while still maintaining the veneer of responsiveness to the public insofar as most citizens are still allowed to vote. Never mind the constraints on their information, choices, and where and when they may freely exercise speech and assembly. CU is one cog in a democracy-killing machine. Lol enlightenment age political theorists were terrified of democracy, that's why our current system is littered with so many safety mechanisms to weaken majority rule. Democracy was a bad word, a necessary evil of republican government, until pretty much the 20th century. Our system is at this point more democratic then it's ever been.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Yes, the system was designed to favor landed white men. Yes, it is more populist now but not nearly enough. Now we have a tyranny of the minority where elites fund both major parties to such a degree that the bulk of the body politic tends to be beholden to those elite interests. And the response is to say that democracy is thriving? Your high school civics class notwithstanding, the enlightenment assumption of "rational man," who dispassionately weighs information and votes in accordance with his self interest, is a lie. Consent of the governed is not given but manufactured through elite-controlled institutions, including the ever-consolidating broadcast and print media. There is increasingly less likelihood that our political system will function in such a way as to give voice to the vast majority of Americans' grievances. This isn't democracy at work, it's the middle-stage of a transfer of more wealth and authority to, if not the top one percent, perhaps the top ten. CU accelerated this descent into oligarchy. Ours is a dying republic, and a spectacular case study in how tyranny of the minority can subvert democratic systems while still maintaining the veneer of responsiveness to the public insofar as most citizens are still allowed to vote. Never mind the constraints on their information, choices, and where and when they may freely exercise speech and assembly. CU is one cog in a democracy-killing machine. This rant is pretty out of date. The Internet has "democratized" political communication to a great degree. The other things you mention are just the results of capitalism and so on and not really related to super pacs buying bad advertisements on cable tv. The concentration of wealth is happening world wide and places which severe restrictions on politicos speech so I'm not buying that correlation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Lol enlightenment age political theorists were terrified of democracy, that's why our current system is littered with so many safety mechanisms to weaken majority rule. Democracy was a bad word, a necessary evil of republican government, until pretty much the 20th century. And therefor it's good and we should stop seeking to improve it?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Quorum posted:It's an accurate observation. The American political system was never designed to place any particular weight on national majorities, and indeed to this day contains absolutely no elections which poll the national popular vote. Though the system has undergone several reforms to make it more populist-- direct election of senators and binding of presidential electors are probably the biggest-- it remains resistant to change based on national majorities. And this is a good thing. How can the possibility of a minority winning the presidency, house and senate be a good thing? At least one of these elections should automatically go to the winner of the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:And therefor it's good and we should stop seeking to improve it? more democratic != improved, necessarily If we were fully democratic Jim Crow would still be in effect for example. edit: but I was mostly just responding to that hysterical rant, so thanks for that strawman
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:edit: but I was mostly just responding to that hysterical rant, so thanks for that strawman What strawman? You are defending the status quo, and the status quo is pretty garbage. Drawing logical inferences from reading your post isn't the same as inventing your argument you disingenuous gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:How can the possibility of a minority winning the presidency, house and senate be a good thing? Well it really riles the Republicans up. Torrannor posted:At least one of these elections should automatically go to the winner of the popular vote. The winner of the House elections has always been whoever gets the most popular vote.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:The winner of the House elections has always been whoever gets the most popular vote. Except with Gerrymandering this isn't entirely true because you end up with states like NC(?) where a majority of voters picked Democrats but the districts are so rigged that the GOP stilled ended up winning a majority of seats.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What strawman? You are defending the status quo, and the status quo is pretty garbage. Drawing logical inferences from reading your post isn't the same as inventing your argument you disingenuous gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:How can the possibility of a minority winning the presidency, house and senate be a good thing? At least one of these elections should automatically go to the winner of the popular vote. Not necessarily-- the way it's set up now isn't perfect, but one thing it does do is ensure that you generally need more than 50.01% of the popular vote to derive a sweeping governing mandate, especially with regard to the Presidency. You can definitely argue that the Presidential election should be tied directly to the popular vote, but this isn't actually something I'm disputing, just that blind adherence to the principle of majority rules is very damaging to a democracy. Well, actually, the thing I'm disputing is the idea that a cautious attitude towards populism is necessarily Prester Jane's authoritarianism thingy, because that's frankly preposterous. Populism can be aimed at good things, but just as often in history it's been destructive to the rights of the few. A well-constructed state should contain both mechanisms for allowing the populace to express its will, and checks on that expression.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
The only thing any part of the insane redpill movement got right was that political philosophy- all of it, including every flavor of marxism- was in agreement that absolute majoritarianism, pure democracy, wasn't a functional form of government or society and would produce negative outcomes, especially as scale increases (the only thing that comes close is Switzerland, which has a population the size of NYC, is incredibly homogenous, practically exists in a pressure bubble, and still isn't "truly" democratic). The neoreactionaries took this fact and ran with it all the way in the opposite direction, which is, again, completely insane. That said, the whole reason democratic republicanism has been effective is that it has both democratic and republican elements- popular opinion has influence, but is not controlling of outcomes. I'd recommend reading Federalists 10 and 51.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 3, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What strawman? You are defending the status quo, and the status quo is pretty garbage. Drawing logical inferences from reading your post isn't the same as inventing your argument you disingenuous gently caress. That's not a logical inference from either the content or context of my post, it's just you poo poo posting some sick burns
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
I would posit that the problem is not that the government is democratic or non-democratic, bit rather that it is profoundly neglectful of the needs of its citizens. We aren't living in an age of noblesse oblige; we are living in an age of gently caress you, got mine. Hell look at the crisis in Puerto Rico. Whole island with millions of American citizens getting flushed down the toilet because Congress doesn't give enough of a poo poo to bother to fix the problem. Partly it's that Puerto Rico isn't represented, but the larger issue is that hedge funds matter more to Congress than poor / brown people do, even when those people are citizens. The problem is purely a legislative creation and the fix is straightforward and the harm is demonstrable and massive, but all we hear from Congress is crickets, because financial interests prefer crisis to bankruptcy. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:09 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
I thought Puerto Ricans weren't technically American citizens because it's a colony or foreign holding or some other category. What actually is the status of Puerto Rico?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
They are as American as John McCain.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
botany posted:I thought Puerto Ricans weren't technically American citizens because it's a colony or foreign holding or some other category. What actually is the status of Puerto Rico? It's a territory. Puerto Ricans are citizens but people living in Puerto Rico are not directly represented democratically in Congress.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
At this point they should probably just make PR a state to give them the right sort of benefits they need to unfuck their economy and laws, but good luck getting congress to let them in or care for them even when they've basically write themselves into a tax haven wet dream.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:At this point they should probably just make PR a state to give them the right sort of benefits they need to unfuck their economy and laws, but good luck getting congress to let them in or care for them even when they've basically write themselves into a tax haven wet dream. Well, first PR would need to decide it really wants to be a state. The various referenda on statehood have all failed but one to this point. The one that passed in 2012 is suspect because it wasn't statehood y/n, it was a list of alternatives and left off a couple of popular ones. Regardless, its government needs to apply first. Congress can't act unilaterally.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
botany posted:I thought Puerto Ricans weren't technically American citizens because it's a colony or foreign holding or some other category. What actually is the status of Puerto Rico? You're thinking of one of the Pacific Islands that the US owns, where they are nationals of the USA but not citizens of the USA because of some weird noble savage nonsense or something.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Populism can be aimed at good things, but just as often in history it's been destructive to the rights of the few. A well-constructed state should contain both mechanisms for allowing the populace to express its will, and checks on that expression. This is an egalitarian principle that is arguably defensible when it comes to protecting minority rights and regional devolution (although that leads to plenty of terrible results also) because those are at least groups of people. This argument is far less persuasive when the general gist of the people in this thread defending the status quo are claiming a Constitutional protection to the free speech rights of capital. And while I get that there is extensive common law jurisprudence defending this principle, the result is that some people or groups of people are able to generate more and louder political speech simply because they have more money. And again, while I get that democracy is a bad word to some of the older-fashioned people in this thread, personally I consider the conclusion that more money makes someone more deserving of a voice in the nation's political discourse absurd. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:43 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
duz posted:You're thinking of one of the Pacific Islands that the US owns, where they are nationals of the USA but not citizens of the USA because of some weird noble savage nonsense or something. American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas and Guam. John Oliver did a bit on it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, first PR would need to decide it really wants to be a state. The various referenda on statehood have all failed but one to this point. Sure, they need to decide either yes or not to statehood. But aren't they also in some weird legal problems, one of which no one knows why its a law? Like the fact that they apparently can't file for bankruptcy since 1984? I'm probably wrong in thinking either statehood or becoming their own sovereign nation could be the easiest ways to fix their legal problems and not their current economic issues, but PR sadly has both of them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not a logical inference from either the content or context of my post, it's just you poo poo posting some sick burns Thanks for acknowledging that my burns are sick but still that guy wants change for specific reasons and you just call him hysterical and wave away his concerns so yeah I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that you are defending the status quo and the status quo is still garbage. Maybe you can actually post an opinion other than making GBS threads on the guy for having concerns or maybe you can try not accusing people of strawmanning you every time someone misunderstands your lovely posts.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Thanks for acknowledging that my burns are sick but still that guy wants change for specific reasons and you just call him hysterical and wave away his concerns so yeah I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that you are defending the status quo and the status quo is still garbage. Maybe you can actually post an opinion other than making GBS threads on the guy for having concerns or maybe you can try not accusing people of strawmanning you every time someone misunderstands your lovely posts.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Thanks for acknowledging that my burns are sick but still that guy wants change for specific reasons and you just call him hysterical and wave away his concerns so yeah I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that you are defending the status quo and the status quo is still garbage. Maybe you can actually post an opinion other than making GBS threads on the guy for having concerns or maybe you can try not accusing people of strawmanning you every time someone misunderstands your lovely posts. Inferring what "team" someone is on and then deciding to affix whatever lovely arguments you think that side of the debate makes to a person so you can knock it down isn't making reasonable inferences, it's a textbook example of a strawman Maybe you can actually post an opinion or argument or something instead of just throwing "witty" one liner shitposts from the audience. AreWeDrunkYet posted:This is an egalitarian principle that is arguably defensible when it comes to protecting minority rights and regional devolution (although that leads to plenty of terrible results also) because those are at least groups of people. This argument is far less persuasive when the general gist of the people in this thread defending the status quo are claiming a Constitutional protection to the free speech rights of capital. And while I get that there is extensive common law jurisprudence defending this principle, the result is that some people or groups of people are able to generate more and louder political speech simply because they have more money. And again, while I get that democracy is a bad word to some of the older-fashioned people in this thread, personally I consider the conclusion that more money makes someone more deserving of a voice in the nation's political discourse absurd. Herein lies the rub, because "I can pay to make my speech louder" isn't a corruption problem it's an equality problem. Trying to keep people with money from using that money to broadcast their opinions louder is like trying to hold back the tide because people with money are people with power (even if only the power to change that money into other non-fungible things) and there's always some way that power can be used to support politicians they favor. I think we're much better off focusing on stopping quid pro corruption which is both the easiest and most damaging way money can cause undue influence, and making sure that we know clearly who is donating to and supporting who.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Inferring what "team" someone is on and then deciding to affix whatever lovely arguments you think that side of the debate makes to a person so you can knock it down isn't making reasonable inferences, it's a textbook example of a strawman Quit strawmanning me. twodot posted:You can dislike the status quo and also think someone else who dislikes the status quo is hysterical, further if someone is being hysterical, I don't see why anyone needs to post more than "No, this is ridiculous". Well, if that's all you post and people disagree with you they might think you are being an rear end in a top hat and also wrong, which is how we got here. Welcome. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
On the topic of corruption the curious change I've seen since working in government had nothing to do with the interaction with the public but rather how internal data sets being created that actually showed emperical evidence of corruption seems to do far more to clean up bad behavior than any suspicion of foul play can possibly muster. Concurrent, if there is a desire in mid level management to not rock the boat because it's not TECHNICALLY illegal or against policy, it will be ignored at all costs. I think we tend to get a bit myopic at times and forget that not everything needs to be in the law, and is probably a general human inclination to try to impose order on general chaos. But that's about as anti-law talk as possible for the SCOTUS thread so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well, if that's all you post and people disagree with you they might think you are being an rear end in a top hat and also wrong, which is how we got here. Welcome.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even presuming you're correct about both that they're an rear end in a top hat and also wrong, it doesn't justify you making up positions and ascribing them to assholes. If you want to express someone is being an rear end in a top hat, the correct thing to do is call them an rear end in a top hat. Edit- nevermind derailing the thread so you can have this stupid meta whatever. rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Antti posted:American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas and Guam. John Oliver did a bit on it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
