Subject:
|
Re: Is Nader Really a Threat to Democracy?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:07:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
351 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Neb Okla wrote:
> > Hey, that reminds me of something I occasionally think about. Since
> > all politicians are corrupt, but they're all we have to work with, what
> > works best?
>
> I think pork-barrel spending leads to corruption, but all hail the community
> so noble that they refuse to accept it. The lobbiests are at the root of
> the pork. The lobbiests represent corporations - and corporations represent
> their workers (if my employer gets tax incentives to be where it is, then I
> get a job where I am - and you won't see me complaining).
I think I disagree with this argument. Corporations represent their
shareholders, not their employees. Would you complain if some other
place goes beyond tax incentives and actually pays the company to
relocate elsewhere, without you? The problem with pure capitalism
in a global context is that there's *always* going to be somebody
somewhere willing to undercut you. Perhaps if corporations were
actually compelled to represent their employees then this wouldn't
be an issue. But how do you do that?
> > Two parties that may both marginally represent an insignificant
> > portion of your interests, or many parties, one of which may marginally
> > represent your interests a bit more than the others?
>
> You're assuming that a party can only marginally represent one's interests.
> I can think of at least one fringe party that would represent my interests
> much more than the two Republicrat parties we have now.
Yeah sure, if I form my own party of one person it'll represent ALL
my interests. Is that the sort of fringe party you're talking about?
Right now we have 2 real parties. Other countries seem to have
multiple real parties. I was just wondering which works better.
Also, do you think the 2 party system is fairly stable? Or are we
heading for a breakup?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is Nader Really a Threat to Democracy?
|
| "Don Heyse" <dheyse@hotmail.spam....away.com> wrote in message news:HtrMwH.7KL@lugnet.com... (...) community (...) of (...) represent (...) then I (...) Many of my fellow employees are shareholders. They benefit when the company benefits. The (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is Nader Really a Threat to Democracy?
|
| "Don Heyse" <dheyse@hotmail.spam....away.com> wrote in message news:Htr6A9.1wy9@lugnet.com... (...) I think pork-barrel spending leads to corruption, but all hail the community so noble that they refuse to accept it. The lobbiests are at the root (...) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
