Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 07:04:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Ethical Standards: Rich People & Large Companies Donating to Political Parties  (Read 304 times)
TopExchanger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0

I'am Exchanging With The Best Rate


View Profile
February 01, 2020, 11:09:57 AM
 #21

It seems to be 100% unethical. The problem is that the situation won't ever change. Just human psychology.
1710831877
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710831877

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710831877
Reply with quote  #2

1710831877
Report to moderator
1710831877
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710831877

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710831877
Reply with quote  #2

1710831877
Report to moderator
1710831877
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710831877

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710831877
Reply with quote  #2

1710831877
Report to moderator
"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710831877
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710831877

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710831877
Reply with quote  #2

1710831877
Report to moderator
1710831877
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710831877

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710831877
Reply with quote  #2

1710831877
Report to moderator
1710831877
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710831877

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710831877
Reply with quote  #2

1710831877
Report to moderator
JollyGood (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1696


Top Crypto Casino


View Profile
February 03, 2020, 10:03:03 AM
Last edit: February 03, 2020, 05:27:56 PM by JollyGood
 #22

@theymos

Do you think the comments you made can be applied broadly to all democracies? I know it was in-part specific to the US but some parts of what you said about the percentage of economies that democracy should impact are maybe not feasible otherwise what would the impact of government and all governmental agencies actually be? Surely that would be classed as a failure if they were not performing duties such as bettering trade and commerce, health, safety and security and so on.

Democracy itself literally means "rule by people" from its origin in Greek yet it has different meanings to different people worldwide. The interpretation and implementation of the word "democracy" varies across nations, religions and cultures. As in another link you mentioned, Polybius who made some very interesting claims. Do you think that any form of modification or reform akin to a complete change can be started without some form of incident such as a natural disaster or war - or do you think it is possible over a period of time for a different way of thinking to be slowly transitioned in to wider community?

Personally speaking, more people than ever are aware of their surroundings because of the information available at the touch of a button in this highly connected world. The tools for gaining traction towards making a change have been around for a long time but citizens are not exactly taking advantage of trying to make changes. The ones that are, are basically trying on a small scale.

One example that can be given is SYRIZA (the Greek political anti-establishment party) which started off as a protest party, went on to win elections and form government but eventually found their hands tied by EU regulations. They tried to make a change against the disastrous policies of previous governments which led Greece down a path of bankruptcy and bowing to every command the EU was making but in the end they never modified the system, it was the system that they eventually decided to not take on even after doing all the hard work to manoeuvre themselves in to position by getting elected in the first place.


If "democracy is just inherently not a good way for decisions to be made" then what system would be ideal to replace it? One thing to consider is that democracy in itself has different meanings to different people in different countries so that in itself is not a one-system-fits-all issue for those that proclaim it.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I believe that if you look at any particular function of government (eg. building roads, providing defense, etc.), then a voluntary, market-based solution is both possible and better than what a state can do. See The Machinery of Freedom (free PDF book). If you replace pieces of government with market solutions or eliminate pieces of government entirely (eg. road-building could be replaced, while drug laws could be eliminated), then you reduce the area that democracy (or any alternative system) can make poor decisions on, and this is good progress. It's better for democracy to impact 10% of the economy than 50% of the economy. Once you completely reach anarcho-capitalism, then democracy's ability to cause harm is eliminated. I want to defeat politics: democracy, monarchy, whatever.

Since we're probably not going to see an anarcho-capitalist society anytime soon (though maybe someday), the question remains of how best to structure the government that exists, even if we want to move toward reducing its role. For this I think that the Framers of the US constitution had the right idea: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy all have advantages and disadvantages, and it's a good idea to try to create a system which combines them, even though the result will still make a lot of bad decisions. (Also see my old thread on the concept Anacyclosis, which influenced the Framers.) One of the most harmful developments over the past ~100 years IMO has been the idea that democracy=morality. Democracy is a useful tool in a toolkit for designing a good system, but it shouldn't be seen as an end unto itself. The average person is easily-manipulated, not properly incentivized to vote properly, uninformed, and easily persuaded into supporting immoral policies. So in the US I think it'd be helpful to undo a lot stuff from the Progressive Era, such as the 17th amendment and party primary elections.

█████████████████████████
████▐██▄█████████████████
████▐██████▄▄▄███████████
████▐████▄█████▄▄████████
████▐█████▀▀▀▀▀███▄██████
████▐███▀████████████████
████▐█████████▄█████▌████
████▐██▌█████▀██████▌████
████▐██████████▀████▌████
█████▀███▄█████▄███▀█████
███████▀█████████▀███████
██████████▀███▀██████████
█████████████████████████
.
BC.GAME
▄▄░░░▄▀▀▄████████
▄▄▄
██████████████
█████░░▄▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██▄██████▄▄▄▄████
▄███▄█▄▄██████████▄████▄████
███████████████████████████▀███
▀████▄██▄██▄░░░░▄████████████
▀▀▀█████▄▄▄███████████▀██
███████████████████▀██
███████████████████▄██
▄███████████████████▄██
█████████████████████▀██
██████████████████████▄
.
..CASINO....SPORTS....RACING..
█░░░░░░█░░░░░░█
▀███▀░░▀███▀░░▀███▀
▀░▀░░░░▀░▀░░░░▀░▀
░░░░░░░░░░░░
▀██████████
░░░░░███░░░░
░░█░░░███▄█░░░
░░██▌░░███░▀░░██▌
░█░██░░███░░░█░██
░█▀▀▀█▌░███░░█▀▀▀█▌
▄█▄░░░██▄███▄█▄░░▄██▄
▄███▄
░░░░▀██▄▀


▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀███▄
██████████
▀███▄░▄██▀
▄▄████▄▄░▀█▀▄██▀▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀▀████▄▄██▀▄███▀▀███▄
███████▄▄▀▀████▄▄▀▀███████
▀███▄▄███▀░░░▀▀████▄▄▄███▀
▀▀████▀▀████████▀▀████▀▀
KingScorpio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 325



View Profile WWW
February 03, 2020, 04:27:29 PM
 #23

if rich people and large companies are not able to donate to political parties, then political parties will beg for rich people and large companies to donate to them.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!