Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Five minute Corruption Game

AOC makes a good point about how little oversight both Congress and The Office of the President actually have and how easy it is for those with malignant intentions to actually take over the US government.
Watch this FIRST:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJlpS4vhKP0

I do think this is going to be a struggle to rectify considering we have so many of these very people not only in Congress and the White House, and all levels of federal and state governments but sitting on the bench cementing the corruption in place. What would it actually take to put anti corruption laws in place and overturn citizens united?

O...M...G!!!

That was a real eye opener, Lil Devils x!!!

The pendulum is swinging against Executive Power now. I dunno how far it will swing given that we can almost certainly (to my mind) expect the next POTUS to be a Democrat who shall most likely serve for two terms and that they shall have to counter the Judicial branch being packed with idealistic extremists from the Right all too many of whom are scandalously unqualified for their life long appointments.

There's so much stuff here involving beaurocracy that I don't begin to know about that I cannot begin to offer an informed opinion on what/how, etc to attend to AOC's points.

But this new generation of Democratic ground breakers are going to work for the good of the country. Of that I have no doubt. They may cannibalize each other (in true, historic Democratic tradition) but at least they're sincere in working for the betterment of the country and people.

Unlike the current generation of GOP Reps.

*sighs*

Go AOC!!! ^_^

The is not a partisan issue. As I understand it, the law that was declared unconstitutional by Citizens United was the McCain/Feingold Act, which was sponsored by and supported by members of both parties. Democrats and Republicans are both equally corrupted by corporate campaign funding declared free speech by Citizens United.

I think the only way it gets overturned is by the courts changing the ruling that corporations have the same free speech protections that humans have. Otherwise, this type of corruption will continue to be a core component of our democracy. Basically, in order for most high level politicians to get elected, they have to be corrupt or they can't afford to spend the money necessary to win an office.

It is a huge problem, and needs to fixed, but it can't be fixed at the expense of free speech of individuals, which is our country's most important right. So there needs to be new legislation written or a new court ruling that differentiates between the rights of corporations and individuals.

Kerg3927:

It is a huge problem, and needs to fixed, but it can't be fixed at the expense of free speech of individuals, which is our country's most important right. So there needs to be new legislation written or a new court ruling that differentiates between the rights of corporations and individuals.

Right of mobility? Due process? Privacy? Freedom of thought? Freedom of association? If freedom of speech is legitimately your most important right, then that's pretty disastrous. Especially since the U.S. has laws impinging on it in the past. The Espionage Act for instance. Also McCarthyism, but that falls more so into the realm of freedom of thought.

It's not just corporate "speech", it's the domination by rich people in general that is a problem for democracy. Citizens United made corruption more efficient; it was corrupt before that too, but in more steps.

Political donations that exceed $100 per year should be taxed at 900%, which is to say that any individual who spends more than that on political donations should have to pay in tax $9 for every $1 over the first $100 in political donations that they spend in that year. Corporations can have this deal too. Raise the price of de facto bribery.

Seanchaidh:
It's not just corporate "speech", it's the domination by rich people in general that is a problem for democracy. Citizens United made corruption more efficient; it was corrupt before that too, but in more steps.

Political donations that exceed $100 per year should be taxed at 900%, which is to say that any individual who spends more than that on political donations should have to pay in tax $9 for every $1 over the first $100 in political donations that they spend in that year. Corporations can have this deal too. Raise the price of de facto bribery.

Yeah, but as if that would legitimately happen. And there's nothing to say that they can't just bribe politicians by instead of donating, rather just paying some or perhaps even all campaign costs. And even if you bar corporations doing this directly, they almost always use lobbyist proxies anyways.

I'm somewhat surprised to see CNN displaying this, having seen it a few different ways (C-SPAN, NowThis news, various left-leaning Youtubers) a couple of days ago when it was going viral on Twitter.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:
It's not just corporate "speech", it's the domination by rich people in general that is a problem for democracy. Citizens United made corruption more efficient; it was corrupt before that too, but in more steps.

Political donations that exceed $100 per year should be taxed at 900%, which is to say that any individual who spends more than that on political donations should have to pay in tax $9 for every $1 over the first $100 in political donations that they spend in that year. Corporations can have this deal too. Raise the price of de facto bribery.

Yeah, but as if that would legitimately happen. And there's nothing to say that they can't just bribe politicians by instead of donating, rather just paying some or perhaps even all campaign costs. And even if you bar corporations doing this directly, they almost always use lobbyist proxies anyways.

That would count as a donation. The lobbyists would be free to pay $9 in taxes for every $1 over $100, too.

Seanchaidh:
It's not just corporate "speech", it's the domination by rich people in general that is a problem for democracy. Citizens United made corruption more efficient; it was corrupt before that too, but in more steps.

Political donations that exceed $100 per year should be taxed at 900%, which is to say that any individual who spends more than that on political donations should have to pay in tax $9 for every $1 over the first $100 in political donations that they spend in that year. Corporations can have this deal too. Raise the price of de facto bribery.

I see that would only make the inequality worse, not better. The people on the right here have no problem paying that, it is everyone else that does.

image

It would only ensure that the wealthiest control the funding even moreso than they do already, this just punishes the little guy, hard caps would punish the big guy more than taxes. The reality is though they will just pay people to go around whatever we put into place, as they already do via law firms and other organizations. We need caps on how much can be given, who can give it and how much can be received of we really want to make any sort of difference. Corporate "person hood" needs to be removed, but the only way to do that is via amendment at this point. We also desperately need accountability. We need to be able to press criminal charges against officials, CEO's and the rest of the " above the law" elites who receive golden parachutes when they should be in jail.

Alexandria OC is best American Politics Waifu. We can all agree on that, right?

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
It's not just corporate "speech", it's the domination by rich people in general that is a problem for democracy. Citizens United made corruption more efficient; it was corrupt before that too, but in more steps.

Political donations that exceed $100 per year should be taxed at 900%, which is to say that any individual who spends more than that on political donations should have to pay in tax $9 for every $1 over the first $100 in political donations that they spend in that year. Corporations can have this deal too. Raise the price of de facto bribery.

I see that would only make the inequality worse, not better. The people on the right here have no problem paying that, it is everyone else that does.

image

It would only ensure that the wealthiest control the funding even moreso than they do already, this just punishes the little guy, hard caps would punish the big guy more than taxes. The reality is though they will just pay people to go around whatever we put into place, as they already do via law firms and other organizations. We need caps on how much can be given, who can give it and how much can be received of we really want to make any sort of difference. Corporate "person hood" needs to be removed, but the only way to do that is via amendment at this point. We also desperately need accountability. We need to be able to press criminal charges against officials, CEO's and the rest of the " above the law" elites who receive golden parachutes when they should be in jail.

First $100 of political donations in a year isn't taxed at all; who is this 'little guy' that you're talking about?

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
It's not just corporate "speech", it's the domination by rich people in general that is a problem for democracy. Citizens United made corruption more efficient; it was corrupt before that too, but in more steps.

Political donations that exceed $100 per year should be taxed at 900%, which is to say that any individual who spends more than that on political donations should have to pay in tax $9 for every $1 over the first $100 in political donations that they spend in that year. Corporations can have this deal too. Raise the price of de facto bribery.

I see that would only make the inequality worse, not better. The people on the right here have no problem paying that, it is everyone else that does.

image

It would only ensure that the wealthiest control the funding even moreso than they do already, this just punishes the little guy, hard caps would punish the big guy more than taxes. The reality is though they will just pay people to go around whatever we put into place, as they already do via law firms and other organizations. We need caps on how much can be given, who can give it and how much can be received of we really want to make any sort of difference. Corporate "person hood" needs to be removed, but the only way to do that is via amendment at this point. We also desperately need accountability. We need to be able to press criminal charges against officials, CEO's and the rest of the " above the law" elites who receive golden parachutes when they should be in jail.

First $100 of political donations in a year isn't taxed at all; who is this 'little guy' that you're talking about?

The many little guys who sent Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez $250. Small businesses, working and middle class will be the only ones who will not be able to afford the taxes, it won't make a difference at all to the wealthy. Even I sent more than that To Bernie Sanders.

In addition, the wealthy can just pay others to make the payments for them splitting it up, they already do this to conceal their identities, it would be nothing new. Source identification, Hard caps on what can be sent and received is the only way to make a difference here really.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
I see that would only make the inequality worse, not better. The people on the right here have no problem paying that, it is everyone else that does.

image

It would only ensure that the wealthiest control the funding even moreso than they do already, this just punishes the little guy, hard caps would punish the big guy more than taxes. The reality is though they will just pay people to go around whatever we put into place, as they already do via law firms and other organizations. We need caps on how much can be given, who can give it and how much can be received of we really want to make any sort of difference. Corporate "person hood" needs to be removed, but the only way to do that is via amendment at this point. We also desperately need accountability. We need to be able to press criminal charges against officials, CEO's and the rest of the " above the law" elites who receive golden parachutes when they should be in jail.

First $100 of political donations in a year isn't taxed at all; who is this 'little guy' that you're talking about?

The many little guys who sent Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez $250. Small businesses, working and middle class will be the only ones who will not be able to afford the taxes, it won't make a difference at all to the wealthy. Even I sent more than that To Bernie Sanders.

In addition, the wealthy can just pay others to make the payments for them splitting it up, they already do this to conceal their identities, it would be nothing new. Source identification, Hard caps on what can be sent and received is the only way to make a difference here really.

The current individual maximum of $2500 per election would cost $24100 to deliver under my tax proposal. And a contribution of $100 would cost $100. A sufficiently rich person could certainly afford $24100 to make $2500 worth of contribution. On the other hand, that's $21600 less money they have to abuse the system in other ways.

A PAC's $1,000,000 contribution would cost around $10,000,000. We could change the numbers, of course-- go still higher.

0% on first $200, 900% to $1000, 9900% above $1000. Make 'em spend ~$100M to donate $1M.

Why this instead of a hard cap? Because such a tax specifies an amount owed for when they try to abuse the murky gray areas you gesture at (which aren't at all addressed by a hard cap) and a judge decides against them.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Kerg3927:

It is a huge problem, and needs to fixed, but it can't be fixed at the expense of free speech of individuals, which is our country's most important right. So there needs to be new legislation written or a new court ruling that differentiates between the rights of corporations and individuals.

Right of mobility? Due process? Privacy? Freedom of thought? Freedom of association? If freedom of speech is legitimately your most important right, then that's pretty disastrous. Especially since the U.S. has laws impinging on it in the past. The Espionage Act for instance. Also McCarthyism, but that falls more so into the realm of freedom of thought.

If the government is controlling all sources of information, all of the other rights become irrelevant, because people don't even know what they need to know to form a legitimate opinion about anything.

Also, freedom of speech is the only way to settle disagreements between people besides violence. So it's pretty fucking important.

Kerg3927:

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Kerg3927:

It is a huge problem, and needs to fixed, but it can't be fixed at the expense of free speech of individuals, which is our country's most important right. So there needs to be new legislation written or a new court ruling that differentiates between the rights of corporations and individuals.

Right of mobility? Due process? Privacy? Freedom of thought? Freedom of association? If freedom of speech is legitimately your most important right, then that's pretty disastrous. Especially since the U.S. has laws impinging on it in the past. The Espionage Act for instance. Also McCarthyism, but that falls more so into the realm of freedom of thought.

If the government is controlling all sources of information, all of the other rights become irrelevant, because people don't even know what they need to know to form a legitimate opinion about anything.

Also, freedom of speech is the only way to settle disagreements between people besides violence. So it's pretty fucking important.

What does the U.S. Constitution's freedom of speech have to do with disagreements between two people? It guarantees that the government will allow someone reasonable space to protest. And that the government won't persecute someone or arrest a person for something they say... unless the government really needs to. The only governmental "assistance" that exists to settle disagreements between citizens is the civil court system... and that doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment.

Americans' "Freedom of Speech" is generally thought to be much more significant than it actually is. The "free" speech is granted under fairly specific guidelines and can only protect someone from specific government reprisal. It is an important right, but it is important for people to understand that it only protects from a very specific type of reprisal, and it is worded vaguely enough that there is plenty of room for exceptions to (and already have been allowed to) exist.

Kerg3927:
If the government is controlling all sources of information, all of the other rights become irrelevant, because people don't even know what they need to know to form a legitimate opinion about anything.

Same goes if you replace 'the government' with 'a handful of corporations', but the Constitution has nothing to say about that.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

First $100 of political donations in a year isn't taxed at all; who is this 'little guy' that you're talking about?

The many little guys who sent Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez $250. Small businesses, working and middle class will be the only ones who will not be able to afford the taxes, it won't make a difference at all to the wealthy. Even I sent more than that To Bernie Sanders.

In addition, the wealthy can just pay others to make the payments for them splitting it up, they already do this to conceal their identities, it would be nothing new. Source identification, Hard caps on what can be sent and received is the only way to make a difference here really.

The current individual maximum of $2500 per election would cost $24100 to deliver under my tax proposal. And a contribution of $100 would cost $100. A sufficiently rich person could certainly afford $24100 to make $2500 worth of contribution. On the other hand, that's $21600 less money they have to abuse the system in other ways.

A PAC's $1,000,000 contribution would cost around $10,000,000. We could change the numbers, of course-- go still higher.

0% on first $200, 900% to $1000, 9900% above $1000. Make 'em spend ~$100M to donate $1M.

Why this instead of a hard cap? Because such a tax specifies an amount owed for when they try to abuse the murky gray areas you gesture at (which aren't at all addressed by a hard cap) and a judge decides against them.

I am not seeing this impact the problem though. Let's take a look at the last presidential election, and hell even since then. The wealthy didn't have to send their $ directly to the GOP or Trump, they took out Political ads themselves. They are still running them right now all across the US and the GOP and Trump's campaign isn't spending a dime on them. They find ways to work around what you put in place. If they bypass the parties and campaigns and do their own advertising, none of that matters regardless. They are paying for their own signs, people on the ground, billboards, commercials directly and it is all perfectly legal as well.

In addition, look at what AOC pointed out above, it isn't just campaign money, they do not have to donate a cent to make the politicians wealthy from malignant actions because the politicians can make laws that increase the value of the stock they own for personal benefit and it is perfectly legal. No one has to send them a contribution at all for them to make millions screwing the people over for their own benefit. It is going to take a good deal of legislation to unwind this mess.

The US electorate knows corporations owns almost all of the politicians. What I can't understand is why the media don't pick on a random politician and create a scandal out of their campaign contributions whenever they need to boost ratings.

Kerg3927:

If the government is controlling all sources of information, all of the other rights become irrelevant, because people don't even know what they need to know to form a legitimate opinion about anything.

You could literally say the same thing about goverments throwing you arbitrarily into an concentration camp for gassing under the crime of 'Degeneracy' that you were convicted of in a shadow trial you weren't even present at.

So patently false.

If the government told you not to say things, that's pretty survivable. So freedom of speech ranks pretty low all things considered.

Governments tell me not to say a lot of things. Like don't sell state secrets. Don't broadcast a subject's medical data. Don't vandalize property. Don't make bomb threats.

And yet I still breathe.

Lil devils x:
The wealthy didn't have to send their $ directly to the GOP or Trump, they took out Political ads themselves.

Why can't that be included?

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
The wealthy didn't have to send their $ directly to the GOP or Trump, they took out Political ads themselves.

Why can't that be included?

How do you police that?

Seanchaidh:

That would count as a donation. The lobbyists would be free to pay $9 in taxes for every $1 over $100, too.

Hrm... Does it count as a campaign donation, however, under U.S. laws?

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
The wealthy didn't have to send their $ directly to the GOP or Trump, they took out Political ads themselves.

Why can't that be included?

How do you police that?

It's notable that such is just as great a problem with your 'hard cap' proposal. As for policing ad-buys... come up with a standard that marks an advertisement as political and treat those who bought it like a political campaign.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:

That would count as a donation. The lobbyists would be free to pay $9 in taxes for every $1 over $100, too.

Hrm... Does it count as a campaign donation, however, under U.S. laws?

I think the FEC regulates in-kind donations, so it should be.

Saw this doing the rounds a couple of days ago and am relieved you linked a version that wasn't edited by someone in the firm belief they were making a cheap kids comedy sketch. Satan only knows what was going through those people's minds to think that was an appropriate tone to go with. If we shake them really hard, will their reasons fall out and reveal themselves? Somebody should try that.

There should be more people like Alexandria in politics, so much more. But it's a hive of treacherous snake-bee-spiders where, if you desire to fight the good fight, you need not only the strength and pure determination to wade through the constant bullshit they'll keep inventing to pull you down, but also a squeaky clean history of moral perfection due to the wonderful double standards at play, and that filters out a lot of good-hearted potential.

Can't help but fear somewhat for her safety in that particular country however. Like, Jo Cox got murdered here by a neo nazi just for daring to show humanity towards the plight of refugees. And we don't even have the gun obsession or the terrible access to mental health services here that would encourage such festering issues. (Though that doesn't stop the government from trying, for the sole grace of corporate fellation).
I'm not saying the US is full of crazies with guns, it's just that, well...it is. Right-wing nuts with guns. And bombs. And an administration that restricts funding for countering right-wing terrorism.

Seanchaidh:

I think the FEC regulates in-kind donations, so it should be.

But here's the million dollar question: is a conservative group producing a documentary about how much Hillary Clinton sucks during the democratic primary an in-kind contribution to anyone specifically? And if it isn't, would people intend to prohibit or tax political speech that's not actually in support of a candidate?

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Why can't that be included?

How do you police that?

It's notable that such is just as great a problem with your 'hard cap' proposal. As for policing ad-buys... come up with a standard that marks an advertisement as political and treat those who bought it like a political campaign.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:

That would count as a donation. The lobbyists would be free to pay $9 in taxes for every $1 over $100, too.

Hrm... Does it count as a campaign donation, however, under U.S. laws?

I think the FEC regulates in-kind donations, so it should be.

What constitutes a political ad? Paying thousands of people to go talk you up on social media? Owning a televisions network and promote their candidate 24/7? Trump has hired half of Fox news to come work in the White house in exchange for their positive constant coverage. People with money to burn do not have to adhere to the rules the rest of society does. Trying to police political ads will definitely infringe upon free speech. You have a better chance of constitutionally amending that money =\= speech, since more money should not mean they have more of a voice. If Money=speech only the people on the far right here will ever be heard:

image


The reality here is there is no way to police it because those advertising can own their own news networks and pay people to do what they want. It doesn't have to be a blatant political ad for it to be political advertising.

Kyrian007:
What does the U.S. Constitution's freedom of speech have to do with disagreements between two people? It guarantees that the government will allow someone reasonable space to protest. And that the government won't persecute someone or arrest a person for something they say... unless the government really needs to. The only governmental "assistance" that exists to settle disagreements between citizens is the civil court system... and that doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment.

Americans' "Freedom of Speech" is generally thought to be much more significant than it actually is. The "free" speech is granted under fairly specific guidelines and can only protect someone from specific government reprisal. It is an important right, but it is important for people to understand that it only protects from a very specific type of reprisal, and it is worded vaguely enough that there is plenty of room for exceptions to (and already have been allowed to) exist.

I think you answered your own question. If two people with differing viewpoints argue, and one person can go to the cops and get the other arrested simply for disagreeing, that makes for an uneven playing field in the marketplace of ideas.

Seanchaidh:

Kerg3927:
If the government is controlling all sources of information, all of the other rights become irrelevant, because people don't even know what they need to know to form a legitimate opinion about anything.

Same goes if you replace 'the government' with 'a handful of corporations', but the Constitution has nothing to say about that.

This is certainly a problem. But at least we are protected from the government.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Kerg3927:

If the government is controlling all sources of information, all of the other rights become irrelevant, because people don't even know what they need to know to form a legitimate opinion about anything.

You could literally say the same thing about goverments throwing you arbitrarily into an concentration camp for gassing under the crime of 'Degeneracy' that you were convicted of in a shadow trial you weren't even present at.

So patently false.

If the government told you not to say things, that's pretty survivable. So freedom of speech ranks pretty low all things considered.

Governments tell me not to say a lot of things. Like don't sell state secrets. Don't broadcast a subject's medical data. Don't vandalize property. Don't make bomb threats.

And yet I still breathe.

Good point. But what if the government were to decide to take away other rights, those which you deem more important, and we were unable to voice objection to it because it was illegal to do so? We would just have to silently watch it happen. So it protects those other rights.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
How do you police that?

It's notable that such is just as great a problem with your 'hard cap' proposal. As for policing ad-buys... come up with a standard that marks an advertisement as political and treat those who bought it like a political campaign.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Hrm... Does it count as a campaign donation, however, under U.S. laws?

I think the FEC regulates in-kind donations, so it should be.

What constitutes a political ad? Paying thousands of people to go talk you up on social media? Owning a televisions network and promote their candidate 24/7? Trump has hired half of Fox news to come work in the White house in exchange for their positive constant coverage.

All of that constitutes political advertisement. In the case of e.g. Fox News, the compensation paid to those who produce the relevant opinion/"news" segments should be subject to the same tax, the tax paid by whoever paid the creators of the segment. That could make for quite a fun IRS audit.

Lil devils x:
People with money to burn do not have to adhere to the rules the rest of society does.

OK.

Lil devils x:
Trying to police political ads will definitely infringe upon free speech. You have a better chance of constitutionally amending that money =\= speech, since more money should not mean they have more of a voice.

Lil devils x:
If Money=speech only the people on the far right here will ever be heard:

image


The reality here is there is no way to police it because those advertising can own their own news networks and pay people to do what they want. It doesn't have to be a blatant political ad for it to be political advertising.

Whatever you want to do with such an amendment, the same objections you raised would apply... and it'd require a Constitutional amendment.

But you know what? Let's say you're right that it's hopeless to try to nail the rich down on compliance with tax or any other kind of law. Better idea: just stop there from being rich people. Graduated progressive income and wealth tax it all away however they might spend it. Seize the means of production, redistribute those means to the workers who produce with them and equitably transmit the wealth created to the whole of society rather than just a wealthy few. Power inequity solved (more or less).

Kerg3927:

Good point. But what if the government were to decide to take away other rights, those which you deem more important, and we were unable to voice objection to it because it was illegal to do so? We would just have to silently watch it happen. So it protects those other rights.

Right, but we compartmentalize rights for a reason. There is also a hierarchy of rights. There is also the clause of 'progressive realization', which was stipulated in the ICESCR. Freedom of Speech (more accurately freedom of expression) is better realized in an Australia than it is practically anywhere in the U.S.

During the Cold War Australians could legitimately vote in a communist majority government if the people so desired. Gender neutral passports and multiple state governments pushing to scrap gender on birth certificates entirely as the moral argument is the government should not dictate prescriptivism of people's identification--though the financial argument of cost reduction naturally holds more sway with politicians.

Federal clauses that prevent the descrimination of people along race, gender and sexual identity in the purchase of goods and services, and the exchange of labour for coin, as the moral argument of one's dollar and its market presence is more important than (usually) religious inclinations that would seek to devalue people's market and social agency.

And the U.S. is terrible at most things people can reasonably argue falls under freedom of expression. It's almost as if it didn't ratify the ICESCR for a reason, as that would publicly beholden it to increasing civil liberty and actually publicly argue their case.

Freedom of expression ultimately protects nothing but people's general happiness and equity of representation. But the undermining of it in the U.S. fundamentally weakens that happiness for scores of your own people. So while I agree with the tone of your argument, I think you should more meaningfully examine whether you even have it and whether your government legitimately cares about it.

So, to give an example, basically Australia's mission statement to the UN at the ratification of the ICESCR looked a little something like this...

http://www.lawright.org.au/_dbase_upl/E_HumanRights.pdf

Since then under the "progressive realization" clause that governments should, wherever possible and realistically can attain, should increase upon existing legislation to promote civil liberty.

So we got rid of the death penalty, we put in public healthcare initiatives, we put in additional non-discrimination clauses, we improved ease of trade union memberships, etc. Note well where freedom of expression falls. And most countries look at human rights in a holistic sense like this.

The disturbing thing I find in the U.S. is the complete lack of attempt to obectively measure civil liberty through an introspective gaze. They just assume they have things, but honestly the foundation for them is lacking in accepted moral philosophy behind a government's actual legislation.

This is why governments upon a nation's creation often espouse a central guiding ethos. So when Australia was first seeking Federation a lot of politicians looed to, and espoused, a John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. Now whether a country lives up to that moral philosophy is not even in debate, Australian governments routinely don't... but by at least saying; "This is our philosophical groundworks..." they at least cement the basis of the argument towards the relationship between people and their governments.

And the U.S. is fucking weird in that sense that it doesn't even bother to do even this, so it makes it hard to even discuss what are human rights?

The whole reason I get really worried when Australians start pretending we need a bill of rights is basically ending up torpedoing even basic philosophical inquiry in favour of blunt force populism. The native ascension of sound bytes and egoism over the pursuit of first priciples of utility that can not be argued in slogans. But require articulation and forces people to uplift themselves to a sufficient point where they can reconcile hedonism against mere egocentrism, the whole idea of the vauted 'other-regarding' ala principles of utility. Which, upon the ideal of achieving, is the only means of government and people achieving the most happiness of the body-politic.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here