Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
This may have been addressed before, but I couldn't find a thread that specifically talked about the role capitalism plays in any kind of democratic system.

When I look back at the different types of societies outside of the United States we see things like Fuedalisms or Monarchies or Caste systems that favored a certain type of citizen over another. If you were of the "chosen" you were likely granted specific status based on your parents status. If you were of the clergy class, again, often awarded special rights and considerations. Same for the merchant class, artisan class, and so on until you got down to the serf or slave, which had virtually no rights and no say in government. Even in old democracies and republics that were formed before, there was always a class system where some had more power and say in government than others-no system treated or even purported to treat each and every citizen as equal in the eyes of the law.

Then here comes the United States that claims "all men are created equal" and all the good stuff about how it doesn't matter who you are, where you come from, or what you did, as long as you love the United States you get a vote and a say in government. You get a vote and have equal access to government as anyone else. (This of course comes with a HUGE asterix because we all know it didn't mean that and still doesn't, but that is beside the point I'm trying to make here). A modern republic is supposed to throw off the shackles of the caste system or monarchies and provide equal opportunity for all to participate in government.

But, then we combine that republic idea with an economic system-Capitalism. Now, nearly every criticism that can be leveled against other types of government have to do with the inherent corruption that plagues them. Despots strong arm their way with favors for favored associates. Same for Monarchies. Oligarchies buy and/or steal their way to power, and we all know how Socialism and/or Communism are corrupt from the get go since they want to take everyones money :rolleyes:. Every single one of these common criticisms has to do with money, and the corrupting effect it may have on a government and how the imbalance of power enriches a few at the expense of the many.

So we turn our eyes back to Capitalism and its effect on government. We, in the United States, live in a relatively Capitalism economy and we can see the disparity it has caused. There is no doubt, at least among anyone I've seen that makes any sense, that the income and wealth disparity in the US is huge and is only getting bigger. Some say this is the fault of government, I say this is Capitalism working as intended-it will always lead to a larger disparity and an unequal distribution of resources.

This leads me back to the original point about the other systems of government and the effect capital has on a modern republic: If the reason so many of the other forms of government were bad were because citizens did not have equal say or equal opportunity in government, and much of that was because of a systematic exclusion from government through a institutionalized transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, doesn't this make Capitalism anathema to a fair and free government? Especially if Capitalism results in richer rich and poorer poor?

Doesn't the problem lie with the economic system that rewards wealthy with more access to the ballot box, and not necessarily with the form of government? Isn't it necessary, not preferential, but necessary to curb Capitalism in order to ensure a more free and just election cycle? Shouldn't any politician that runs on a platform of more unfettered Capitalism to be viewed as suspect in their trust in the democratic process?

I do understand that social and tribal aspects have a pretty large impact on government processes, and always had. I'm not saying that All Bad Things are because of Capitalism. I am merely wondering if Capitalism is the best vehicle All Bad Things can use to impact government. Think things like the Koch brothers funding voter ID laws or churches spending millions to ban same sex marriage. These are all extremely unDemocratic things to do but are made possible and legal because of the power of Capital and the Capitalist system that allows them to do so accumulate it at will. It should be noted that those that most benefit from the system are going to do their best to keep it going-you don't see wealthy billionaires en masse clamoring for socialism or higher tax rates (you do see a few). Maybe that has a lot to do with it too? Capitalism rewards certain unDemocratic behavior so we see a lot more push in that direction?

Or am I simply wrong and Capitalism isn't working as intended and we're somehow doing it wrong?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009
I think what you're saying is already so much the consensus that people don't feel the need to debate it.

Fill Baptismal
Dec 15, 2008

OwlBot 2000 posted:

I think what you're saying is already so much the consensus that people don't feel the need to debate it.

Maybe here, but that's not at all the case outside of leftist enclaves.

E: I mean I agree with a lot of what OP is saying (although I don't really see any systemic alternative) but it's always annoying when people act like the D&D consensus is the plainly self-evident truth when it's a relatively fringe opinion in the outside world.

Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Apr 29, 2014

Badera
Jan 30, 2012

Student Brian Boyko has lost faith in America.
In a word, yes. It is anti-democratic for the vast, vast majority of people who are subjected to it. Western democracy (invariably coupled with more or less restrained capitalism) is a class dictatorship that serves the class interest of the bourgeoisie.

Dystram
May 30, 2013

by Ralp

themrguy posted:

Maybe here, but that's not at all the case outside of leftist enclaves.

E: I mean I agree with a lot of what OP is saying (although I don't really see any systemic alternative) but it's always annoying when people act like the D&D consensus is the plainly self-evident truth when it's a relatively fringe opinion in the outside world.

That's because the outside world is full of dummies. :smuggo:

Also, of course it is.

Your ability to participate in a democracy - having the time to think and evaluate, being healthy enough to have the energy to think, having the time and money to become educated, the money to afford the technology which aids participation and education, etc. - increases with your income.

Dystram fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Apr 29, 2014

Silver2195
Apr 4, 2012

Badera posted:

In a word, yes. It is anti-democratic for the vast, vast majority of people who are subjected to it. Western democracy (invariably coupled with more or less restrained capitalism) is a class dictatorship that serves the class interest of the bourgeoisie.

By that standard, actual democracy has ever existed.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

My basic problem with the 'capitalism is anti-democratic' is that it denies people's agency.

Campaign contributions matter because they can be used to convince people to vote in a particular direction. So, the election is, in some sense, a legitimate expression of the people's will. The idea that people's opinions are mailable could be used as a legitimate criticism of the idea of democracy.

Maybe we should govern ourselves by something other than people's votes. (Though, most alternative plans come off, "If only we gave power to me, or someone like me...")

To call capitalism 'anti-democratic' a person pretty-much needs to claim that everyone's stated preferences somehow don't count. Sure, a random red-state voter will swear up and down that they're voting their conscience.

But our anti-capitalist knows better. Someone they are the clear-eyed ones who've somehow been unaffected by their culture's influence. They're the ones above marketing. And if only everyone shared their privileged vantage point, then all those other people would agree with the conclusions.

Lord Windy
Mar 26, 2010
How is it undemocratic if people spend money to advertise?

I mean, it is in the church's interest to fight gay marriage. How is it undemocratic that they spend money to stop it?

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

themrguy posted:

Maybe here, but that's not at all the case outside of leftist enclaves.

That's more or less what I meant. While it might be controversial elsewhere (though less and less) it's close to being the consensus here in DnD.

Job Truniht
Nov 7, 2012

MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

falcon2424 posted:

My basic problem with the 'capitalism is anti-democratic' is that it denies people's agency.

Campaign contributions matter because they can be used to convince people to vote in a particular direction. So, the election is, in some sense, a legitimate expression of the people's will. The idea that people's opinions are mailable could be used as a legitimate criticism of the idea of democracy.

Maybe we should govern ourselves by something other than people's votes. (Though, most alternative plans come off, "If only we gave power to me, or someone like me...")

To call capitalism 'anti-democratic' a person pretty-much needs to claim that everyone's stated preferences somehow don't count. Sure, a random red-state voter will swear up and down that they're voting their conscience.

But our anti-capitalist knows better. Someone they are the clear-eyed ones who've somehow been unaffected by their culture's influence. They're the ones above marketing. And if only everyone shared their privileged vantage point, then all those other people would agree with the conclusions.

Let's face it, the average American voted is hideously uniformed on all fronts: American history, foreign policy, demographics, war, class, and race. There are a bunch of one issue voters out there, who do vote on conscience, but are easy to exploit. The best example is Bush and the Evangelicals.

It's not unique to the United States, nor is it unique to Republics, it's just inherent in any system with disproportions among class/wealth.

Badera
Jan 30, 2012

Student Brian Boyko has lost faith in America.

Silver2195 posted:

By that standard, actual democracy has ever existed.

No, actual democracy exists and has existed before capitalism. It's just that where it exists now, it exists to promote the interests of a certain class rather than being a true expression of popular will.

Falcon2424 posted:

My basic problem with the 'capitalism is anti-democratic' is that it denies people's agency.

Campaign contributions matter because they can be used to convince people to vote in a particular direction. So, the election is, in some sense, a legitimate expression of the people's will. The idea that people's opinions are mailable could be used as a legitimate criticism of the idea of democracy.

Maybe we should govern ourselves by something other than people's votes. (Though, most alternative plans come off, "If only we gave power to me, or someone like me...")

To call capitalism 'anti-democratic' a person pretty-much needs to claim that everyone's stated preferences somehow don't count. Sure, a random red-state voter will swear up and down that they're voting their conscience.

But our anti-capitalist knows better. Someone they are the clear-eyed ones who've somehow been unaffected by their culture's influence. They're the ones above marketing. And if only everyone shared their privileged vantage point, then all those other people would agree with the conclusions.

You just made my argument for me. Money is influence.

Badera fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Apr 29, 2014

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
The two have always been in conflict, hence the aversion of the US founding fathers to direct democracy (which they pejoratively called "mob rule").
The issue isn't just about the effects of advertising, it's also just plain exposure. The idea of dismissing capitalism as anti-democratic because, what, you think the people saying it are arrogant or something, is hardly scientific. You don't even have to agree with all their political opinions to acknowledge that the tension exists.

Spazzle
Jul 5, 2003

Anyone can buy OCP stock and own a piece of our city.

What could be more democratic than that?

Silver2195
Apr 4, 2012

Badera posted:

No, actual democracy exists and has existed before capitalism. It's just that where it exists now, it exists to promote the interests of a certain class rather than being a true expression of popular will.

Pre-capitalist and early-capitalist "democracies" excluded more than half the adult population from voting. Or are you referring to something else?

asdf32
May 15, 2010

I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

I think what you're saying is already so much the consensus that people don't feel the need to debate it.

The consensus is that capitalism isn't anti-democratic.

asdf32 fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Apr 29, 2014

Capri Sunrise
May 16, 2008

Elephants are mammals of the family Elephantidae and the largest existing land animals. Three species are currently recognised: the African bush elephant, the African forest elephant, and the Asian elephant.
Then what is true large scale democracy (directed to Badera)? A currency-less communist state? I genuinely believe that transparent social democracies with significant capitalist components are the closest to an attainable representative democracy as is possible.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

rudatron posted:

The two have always been in conflict, hence the aversion of the US founding fathers to direct democracy (which they pejoratively called "mob rule").

The issue isn't just about the effects of advertising, it's also just plain exposure. The idea of dismissing capitalism as anti-democratic because, what, you think the people saying it are arrogant or something, is hardly scientific. You don't even have to agree with all their political opinions to acknowledge that the tension exists.

I'm saying that the anti-capitalist critique is that public policy is too mailable with respect to public opinion. People can make that critique if they want. But 'anti-democratic' is the wrong word for it.

Badera
Jan 30, 2012

Student Brian Boyko has lost faith in America.

Silver2195 posted:

Pre-capitalist and early-capitalist "democracies" excluded more than half the adult population from voting. Or are you referring to something else?

Well, you've got me there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that democracy doesn't exist in a vacuum--that the dominant class in society (in your example, non-slave, perhaps property-owning men) is going to be the only class that is meaningfully enfranchised. Rome is a good example of that.

In the US, although some concessions have been made over the existence of the country, the government still works in the interests of a class.

Badera fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Apr 29, 2014

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009
"Democracy" in capitalist countries is empirically rule by the rich: http://m.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

asdf32
May 15, 2010

I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

rudatron posted:

The two have always been in conflict, hence the aversion of the US founding fathers to direct democracy (which they pejoratively called "mob rule").

The issue isn't just about the effects of advertising, it's also just plain exposure. The idea of dismissing capitalism as anti-democratic because, what, you think the people saying it are arrogant or something, is hardly scientific. You don't even have to agree with all their political opinions to acknowledge that the tension exists.

When don't tensions exist between people in power and people that aren't? Socialism doesn't dispose of this disparity. It takes the power that exists within private enterprise and lumps it into government. On the surface this is a form of power concentration, and it's not at all clear that voting will be a more effective check of this relocated power.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

Badera posted:

You just made my argument for me. Money is influence.

I think you're buying into your own rhetoric too much. Ultimately, people (not dollars) vote. So, public opinion is influence. And money is useful for shaping public opinion.

You can call this a lot of things. Maybe it's too easy to move public opinion. But I don't see how a system that was less responsive to people's stated desires could possibly be called 'more democratic'.

If you're looking for a rule by The Right Sort of Person, perhaps people who are Educated On Important Topics, then that's an oligarchy. Perhaps a benevolent one. But an oligarchy none-the-less.

Peel
Dec 3, 2007

I wouldn't focus exclusively on the effect capitalism has on the official democratic system. More fundamentally, capitalism is one dollar one vote in the allocation of resources, so would be comparable to an extremely heavily weighted wealth voting system in its democratic character. Arguably more democratic than authoritarian socialism but less democratic than democratic socialism.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

Badera posted:

Well, you've got me there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that democracy doesn't exist in a vacuum--that the dominant class in society (in your example, non-slave, perhaps property-owning men) is going to be the only class that is meaningfully enfranchised. Rome is a good example of that.

In the US, although some concessions have been made over the existence of the country, the government still works in the interests of a class.

The government responds to votes. This is why money works. So, the only way to claim the government works for one class (as opposed to voters) is to claim that you know a class's interests better than its members.

And hey, maybe you do. Maybe religion is the opiate of the masses. Maybe the masses would be better off if they adopted your perspective, and your view that economic issues should outweigh various social or identity-based distractions.

But at that people you're setting yourself up as a Shepherd, who'd like to guide the masses for their own benefit -- even if it means temporarily restraining them from the things they think they want. That can be utilitarian if you're convinced of your own rightness. But I don't see how it's conceivably 'democratic'.

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

falcon2424 posted:

The government responds to votes. This is why money works. So, the only way to claim the government works for one class (as opposed to voters) is to claim that you know a class's interests better than its members.

You seem to think the problem is that people vote for the wrong candidates, when in reality it is that their voting doesn't have a meaningful effect on policy as compared to throwing huge sums of money at politicians. By and large poor people and minorities vote for the lefter party and rich white people vote for Republicans. Campaign finance is probably a smaller issue than being able to control any politician of any political orientation once he or she takes office.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Apr 29, 2014

Badera
Jan 30, 2012

Student Brian Boyko has lost faith in America.

falcon2424 posted:

The government responds to votes. This is why money works. So, the only way to claim the government works for one class (as opposed to voters) is to claim that you know a class's interests better than its members.

And hey, maybe you do. Maybe religion is the opiate of the masses. Maybe the masses would be better off if they adopted your perspective, and your view that economic issues should outweigh various social or identity-based distractions.

But at that people you're setting yourself up as a Shepherd, who'd like to guide the masses for their own benefit -- even if it means temporarily restraining them from the things they think they want. That can be utilitarian if you're convinced of your own rightness. But I don't see how it's conceivably 'democratic'.

I think we're talking past each other to an extent. I didn't necessarily mean to white-knight democracy per se. I guess what I'm saying is that a democracy is going to necessarily be an instrument of class...dictatorship? Power? Whatever you want to call it. As far as the government only working for one class...well, if you don't believe me, check out that study that OwlBot posted. To my mind, it's fairly obvious.

Job Truniht
Nov 7, 2012

MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

falcon2424 posted:

I think you're buying into your own rhetoric too much. Ultimately, people (not dollars) vote. So, public opinion is influence. And money is useful for shaping public opinion.

You can call this a lot of things. Maybe it's too easy to move public opinion. But I don't see how a system that was less responsive to people's stated desires could possibly be called 'more democratic'.

If you're looking for a rule by The Right Sort of Person, perhaps people who are Educated On Important Topics, then that's an oligarchy. Perhaps a benevolent one. But an oligarchy none-the-less.

You can create an oligarchy by having everyone equally uninformed about their own interests. The problem is that the public is complacent towards their own cognitive dissonance in regards how they should treat the upper class. People perceive meritocratic values as having access to wealth in society, but refuse to delve further into the coddling that goes in Washington.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy

falcon2424 posted:

I'm saying that the anti-capitalist critique is that public policy is too mailable with respect to public opinion. People can make that critique if they want. But 'anti-democratic' is the wrong word for it.
Then you're wrong. The critique about representatives is that voting isn't an expression of public will, because all the candidates have to tow to moneyed interests for their campaigns, and thus they all represent them. Those without large amounts of money are not represented.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

OwlBot 2000 posted:

You seem to think the problem is that people vote for the wrong candidates, when in reality its that their voting doesn't have a meaningful effect on policy as compared to throwing huge sums of money at politicians. By and large poor people and minorities vote for the lefter party and rich white people vote for Republicans. Campaign finance is probably a smaller issue than being able to control any politician of any political orientation once he or she takes office.

I just disagree with you.

Money matters to politicians only in as far as they can pocket it (as straight-up bribes) or use it in an election campaign. And it only matters in election campaigns only in as far as it gets votes. Collecting money is just a proximate goal for politicians. The ultimate goal is votes.

When we stop conflating the means (money) with the ends (votes) the bold line becomes: their votes don't have a meaningful effect on policy as compared to the ability to deliver their votes [via money]

And I'm saying this is a distinction without a difference, given that everyone feels that their ballot-box preferences are sincere.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

Job Truniht posted:

You can create an oligarchy by having everyone equally uninformed about their own interests. The problem is that the public is complacent towards their own cognitive dissonance in regards how they should treat the upper class. People perceive meritocratic values as having access to wealth in society, but refuse to delve further into the coddling that goes in Washington.

This is you saying that people have wrong-preferences.

Maybe they do. Maybe your preferences are better. But wanting the system to ignore the majority in favor of you is not a call for increased democracy.

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

falcon2424 posted:

Collecting money is just a proximate goal for politicians. The ultimate goal is votes.

Care to provide some sources for that, that they don't care about money, only votes? Politicians who play nicely with corporations get board positions, speaking tours, and much more access to wealth and power after the leave office. This is true of appointees as well, who are not elected and don't have to worry about votes but still wield a great degree of control and can get high-paying positions after they leave their posts. Please read that study that was posted, poor people do know what they want, politicians just don't care because there's no money in it for them.

Rob Filter
Jan 19, 2009

falcon2424 posted:

This is you saying that people have wrong-preferences.

Maybe they do. Maybe your preferences are better. But wanting the system to ignore the majority in favor of you is not a call for increased democracy.

Democracy is a system. The system has a goal; ensure that the actions of the government best represent the will of the people.

If you double someone's free time, they have more time to research political parties and ensure they vote for the politician they agree with the most. This makes a country more democratic.

If you ensure someone has no free time, they have no time to research political parties and must instead rely on advertisements and short content news to decide on who to vote. This means their vote is less likely to be for the politican they agree with the most.

Keeping wide swaths of the population with no free time would drastically hinder a democratic systems ability to ensure the actions of the government best represent the will of the people.

Do you disagree with any of this?

Debunk
Aug 17, 2008

by Fluffdaddy

falcon2424 posted:

I just disagree with you.

Money matters to politicians only in as far as they can pocket it (as straight-up bribes) or use it in an election campaign. And it only matters in election campaigns only in as far as it gets votes. Collecting money is just a proximate goal for politicians. The ultimate goal is votes.

When we stop conflating the means (money) with the ends (votes) the bold line becomes: their votes don't have a meaningful effect on policy as compared to the ability to deliver their votes [via money]

And I'm saying this is a distinction without a difference, given that everyone feels that their ballot-box preferences are sincere.

Can you back this up somehow? Alternatively, could you comment on the paper linked below?

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...es%203-7-14.pdf

quote:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizensand mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Edit: in fact, everyone ITT should read that paper

Debunk fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Apr 29, 2014

Job Truniht
Nov 7, 2012

MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

falcon2424 posted:

This is you saying that people have wrong-preferences.

Maybe they do. Maybe your preferences are better. But wanting the system to ignore the majority in favor of you is not a call for increased democracy.

Wrong preferences? I'm saying people find it absolutely necessary to vote against their own interests in this country.

Rodatose
Jul 8, 2008

corn, corn, corn
One vote is one voice and every person's vote has the same value.

One coordinated mass media campaign sways many votes and only certain people have access to set that.

falcon2424 posted:

Money matters to politicians only in as far as they can pocket it (as straight-up bribes) or use it in an election campaign. And it only matters in election campaigns only in as far as it gets votes. Collecting money is just a proximate goal for politicians. The ultimate goal is votes.

Money gives one security against future uncertainties, as it is a reasonably reliable store of power. However, there are other ways besides bribes that interest groups can offer this security to politicians: an offer of a job, for instance.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/our-corrupt-politics-its-not-all-money/?pagination=false

quote:

Abramoff talks at length about how he would go out of his way to hire the staffers of powerful legislators. “How did we get this access?” He asks rhetorically. “By hiring people who already had access of their own.”

From the taxpayers’ point of view, it was even worse than that. Abramoff would often extend the opportunity a few years before they were ready to retire. Abramoff relays the upshot of the strategy in almost mafioso terms:

quote:

Once I found a congressional office that was vital to our clients—usually because they were incredibly helpful and supportive—I would often become close to the chief of staff of the office. In almost every congressional office, the chief of staff is the center of power. Nothing gets done without the direct or indirect action on his or her part. After a number of meetings with them, possibly including meals or rounds of golf, I would say a few magic words: “When you are done working for the Congressman, you should come work for me at my firm.”

With that, assuming the staffer had any interest in leaving Capitol Hill for K Street—and almost 90 percent of them do, I would own him and, consequently, that entire office. No rules had been broken, at least not yet. No one even knew what was happening, but suddenly, every move that staffer made, he made with his future at my firm in mind. His paycheck may have been signed by the Congress, but he was already working for me, influencing his office for my clients’ best interests. It was a perfect—and perfectly corrupt—arrangement. I hired as many of these staffers as I could, and in return I gained increasing influence on the Hill.

But notice how Abramoff says this worked: he would first find a congressional office that was “helpful and supportive” to him, and then he would become personally close with the chief of staff—someone who probably already agreed with Abramoff on most issues, and liked him personally—by going out for good meals and playing golf. Only after years of this would the job offer come. Today, Abramoff admits it was a “corrupt” arrangement. But it probably didn’t feel that way to either side. The job offer only came after years of successful collaboration and, even more importantly, personal friendship. The gifts preceded the cash.


And the gifts are, if anything, better than the cash. Because the gifts do more than the cash. If someone walks up to you with a bag full of money and asks you to vote to make coal companies more profitable, that’s not a very persuasive argument. Even if you take the money, you’re going to feel dirty the next day. And most people don’t like to feel dirty. But if one of your smartest, most persuasive friends, a friend you agree with on almost everything, is explaining to you that those environmentalist nuts are going too far again—they’re always doing that, aren’t they?—and they have sneakily tucked a provision into a bill that would make it more expensive for your constituents to buy electricity, that’s very persuasive. And if it’s also in your self-interest to listen to him—and lobbyists are good at nothing if not making sure it is in a politician’s long-term self-interest to listen to them—then all your incentives are pointing in the same direction. You’ll listen.

The outcome of this is that a disproportionate number of people who have access to politicians, and who are owed favors by politicians, are lobbyists. And so those politicians are listening to a lot of lobbyists—lobbyists who are being paid by a client to invest in their relationships with politicians in order to advance the client’s interest. On some level, the politicians know that. But it doesn’t feel that way to them. It feels like they’re listening to reasonable arguments by people they like and respect on behalf of interests they’re already sympathetic to. And what’s so wrong with that?


The answer, of course, is that players with money are getting a lot more representation than players without money, not in sacks of cash delivered in the middle of the night, but through people a politician listens to and trusts and even likes having lunch with in the bright light of the day. That’s why savvy and well-funded players will contract with a number of different lobbyists at a number of different firms. Every lobbyist will have legislators he’s close to and legislators he isn’t. Some lobbyists, like Abramoff, specialize in conservatives. Others are more connected among liberals. Some firms have the former chief of staff to the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Others can offer the former legislative director to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. If all a client needed was the money, all he would need to do is cut a big check to one lobbyist. But what you need isn’t the money. It’s the relationships. And each lobbyist only has so many of those.


Which is why it’s so drat difficult to actually kill off lobbying. Outlawing bribes is easy. Outlawing relationships isn’t.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

Rob Filter posted:

Democracy is a system. The system has a goal; ensure that the actions of the government best represent the will of the people.

If you double someone's free time, they have more time to research political parties and ensure they vote for the politician they agree with the most. This makes a country more democratic.

If you ensure someone has no free time, they have no time to research political parties and must instead rely on advertisements and short content news to decide on who to vote. This means their vote is less likely to be for the politican they agree with the most.

Keeping wide swaths of the population with no free time would drastically hinder a democratic systems ability to ensure the actions of the government best represent the will of the people.

Do you disagree with any of this?

Actually, yes.

The argument seems to rely on a premise that people have a 'true' will, distinct from that they merely think they want. And you appear to be judging systems based on how close they get to that 'true' goal. I disagree in that I'm not convinced that this true will exists. And I don't think the metric is a good way to measure democracy.

Problem with the metric is that we could imagine some Oracle that would answer the question, "What party would I vote for if I had full-information and arbitrary time for contemplation?"

We run an election. The Green-Party wins the majority of human votes. The Yellow-Party wins the majority of Oracle's simulated votes. A system which chooses the Yellow-Party might be a better outcome. It might be a better representation of what people's preferences would be if they were different. But I don't think we can call it 'more democratic'.

Debunk
Aug 17, 2008

by Fluffdaddy
Whether the average voter's policy preferences would change if they had more information and time to deliberate is of minor concern compared to the fact that the average voter's policy preferences do not actually matter when it comes to determining policy.

Rodatose
Jul 8, 2008

corn, corn, corn

Debunk posted:

Whether the average voter's policy preferences would change if they had more information and time to deliberate is of minor concern compared to the fact that the average voter's policy preferences do not actually matter when it comes to determining policy.

Well, that's getting away from the question of whether theoretical governmental-power-source of (direct) democracy is compatible with the theoretical economic-form of capitalism.

The US and many other countries in its example have a predominantly capitalistic economy and a representative-republican (indirect democratic) source of government. Sounds like your complaint is that voting in a representative republic is not democratic, which is true. But it's as meaningful as saying that monarchy is not democratic. By definition, a direct democracy is the only one where people directly set policy through democratic means. All other statist power structures amount to representatives claiming to be acting in the name of some other body or force.

Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Apr 29, 2014

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Care to provide some sources for that, that they don't care about money, only votes? Politicians who play nicely with corporations get board positions, speaking tours, and much more access to wealth and power after the leave office. This is true of appointees as well, who are not elected and don't have to worry about votes but still wield a great degree of control and can get high-paying positions after they leave their posts. Please read that study that was posted, poor people do know what they want, politicians just don't care because there's no money in it for them.

Here's a study that finds the opposite:

http://cori.missouri.edu/pages/seminars/AES_JEP_2003.pdf

Abstract posted:

We summarize the data on campaign spending, and show through our descriptive statistics and our econometric analysis that individuals, not special interests, are the main source of campaign contributions. Moreover, we demonstrate that campaign giving is a normal good, dependent upon income, and campaign contributions as a percent of GDP have not risen appreciably in over 100 years: if anything, they have probably fallen. We then show that only one in four studies from the previous literature support the popular notion that contributions buy legislators' votes. Finally, we illustrate that when one controls for unobserved constituent and legislator effects, there is little relationship between money and legislator votes. Thus, the question is not why there is so little money politics, but rather why organized interests give at all. We conclude by offering potential answers to this question.

I'm going to take a bit to really read through the paper you linked. (I'm also looking for some literature reviews to avoid the temptation to cherry-pick studies based on their conclusion)

While I do, I'd like to see if we have agreement on a narrower point:
I'll claim that campaign donations are valuable in as far as they're able to influence people's votes. And I'll stay that this happens via changing people's perceived preferences over candidates. Do we agree?

Again, I'm walking back to just campaign donations and PAC spending.

Rob Filter
Jan 19, 2009

falcon2424 posted:

Actually, yes.

The argument seems to rely on a premise that people have a 'true' will, distinct from that they merely think they want. And you appear to be judging systems based on how close they get to that 'true' goal. I disagree in that I'm not convinced that this true will exists. And I don't think the metric is a good way to measure democracy.

Problem with the metric is that we could imagine some Oracle that would answer the question, "What party would I vote for if I had full-information and arbitrary time for contemplation?"

We run an election. The Green-Party wins the majority of human votes. The Yellow-Party wins the majority of Oracle's simulated votes. A system which chooses the Yellow-Party might be a better outcome. It might be a better representation of what people's preferences would be if they were different. But I don't think we can call it 'more democratic'.

Firstly, I agree that in the oracle situation, its better if the green party is elected as opposed to the yellow party.

I think how well a democratic country represents the policies people want is an excellent way to measure how well that system accomplishes democracy. If 80% of people support policy Y, and then the government does not support it, that's a bad sign, and a mark against the effectiveness of that democracy.

I don't think my argument relies on someone having a "true" will as opposed to a "thought" will. If someone thinks that policy Y is a good policy, then someone's true will is that policy Y is a good policy.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009
I'll read that article as well, but one obvious response to "why there is so little money in politics" is because it just doesn't cost that much..

  • Locked thread