Citizens, lend me your ear!

[BigBallinStalin]

<stands behind a podium>

Gentlemen, the very place you are in is the forum, the public space for deliberation, chit-chatting, and making jokes. Since Ancient Rome the forum has served the good, and sometimes the bad, intentions of citizens who pursue various designs. Recall Cicero who argued in favor of the rule of law and prostitution. He was a true man! Ah, but what of the wicked men? In the city of Cumæ, there once was a wise man who successfully mated a woman with a horse. It may have been foul times, my friends, but the whores were great.

Nowadays, the forum ain't quite like it used to be. Here we discuss some fact but mostly opinions on issues ranging from politics, economics, social, literature, and art! Do we shape public policy? I'm not sure, but my!, do we advertise express ideas!

Here, we can cry out, "Why is this happening?" "What is to be done?" "I know! Listen to me!" But the subtle sound of money drifts closer to politicians' ears.


<seats himself at the CC table>

My fellow ConquerClubbers, one does not simply walk into the forums. Now, is the time to deliberate... As citizens we have a vote. From the cities to the villages we all produce and exchange ideas and arguments on 'what is to be done'. Within our governments and bureaucracies are more or less well-intended people who are as 'self-interested' as you or I. And within all countries, there are interest groups.*

*

show

Click here for the Questions

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) Those of us who earn less than $1,000,000 a year, I ask you: what is our actual impact on the decision-making of politicians?

(2) Compared to lobbies and the contributions received from >$1 millionaires, how much slop do we carry to the troughs of politicians?
(I say that we don't get enough 'bang for our buck'. )

(3) Are interest groups 'good for society'? Which kind most influence politicians to produce benefits that are either (a) for the people or (b) good for a group? Should they be banned?


tl;dr
(4) Hey, asshole. Derp (A): Does your vote really matter? Derp (B): Compared to 'the wealthy', the politicians, bureaucrats, and policymakers, do you as a citizen really matter? How so?

[nietzsche]

If we wanted to have a real vote we would get there. To that forum.

We are lost in the land of procrastination and formless thought behind a computer or a tv. We seek the internet to shape our minds and fill our hours out of duty.

We are 2nd class citizens because we choose to.



Alas, politicians could be as formless of thought as us, only they are driven.

[thegreekdog]

(1) Those of us who earn less than $1,000,000 a year, I ask you: what is our actual impact on the decision-making of politicians?

(2) Compared to lobbies and the contributions received from >$1 millionaires, how much slop do we carry to the troughs of politicians?
(I say that we don't get enough 'bang for our buck'. )

(3) Are interest groups 'good for society'? Which kind most influence politicians to produce benefits that are either (a) for the people or (b) good for a group? Should they be banned?


tl;dr
(4) Hey, asshole. Derp (A): Does your vote really matter? Derp (B): Compared to 'the wealthy', the politicians, bureaucrats, and policymakers, do you as a citizen really matter? How so?

(1) Individual non-voters making less than $1 million a year have no impact on decision making. Individual voters making less than $1 million a year have negligible impact on decision making (although some would argue they also have no impact). Just a thought, but I think you can probably increase the $1 million limit somewhat. Individuals that I know that make $1 million don't have much impact on political decision making, individually, other than being on Millionaire Matchmaker.

(2) Votes. Individually, we carry no slop to national politicians. In a group, we can carry some slop.

(3) Interest groups are not good for government. I'm not sure I understand the second part of question (3). They should not be banned.

[muy_thaiguy]

[_sabotage_]

It's all waste. We waste our time and resources and the end effect is inefficient within the delivery of basic goods. Big business is the problem. Huge business is the solution. A company would not buy 10000 separate Internet accounts, they would get one, which would be cheaper to set up and maintain, but 40,000 people in a community have 10,000 accounts, it's waste. A big company, at least in some places, would not sub contract to the highest bidder, but in a thousand ways we do. Each step is inefficiency. We need to organize communities through efficiency and competition between each other, not between 40,000 separate units within a community. We are letting big business have a competitive advantage and profiting the few. We need to take back the competitive advantage through our size, efficiency and willingness to adapt. We need to organize as businesses and with a sustainable, burgeoning community as the product. In each of those lobbies, their base of influence, at least in word, is that they create jobs, or provide for the people, but we know that capital is the true winner. We know that most of the product of our labor is concentrated to make the few powerful, through influence and money. If we want to take back this influence we need to compete and give communities an example, a way out of the trap, or let the system continue and keep us hungry and cold.

Art of War

(My own words)

After a series of victories, the troops had become sated on the spoils and the general could not push them on. So he announced a celebration. And as the troops feasted and made merry, the general sent a secret contingent to the camp and burned it down. When the troops saw this, the general blamed the enemy and was able to push on in the war.

If we are sated, we cannot be lead.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you vote, why?