Please go easy on the downvotes—the point here is to try to understand a perspective that many of you probably won’t share.

  • AskewLord@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    money is speech, that’s the law of the land. more money = more representation.

    always has been, always will be.

    • Pamasich@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      But you can prevent that with laws and taking corruption serious.

      A politician taking bribes from rich people is corruption and wouldn’t be allowed with competent people in charge.

      Rich people influencing politics through ads and such can be outlawed by politicians taking election integrity serious.

      Money buys representation because the elite in charge prefers corruption over doing their jobs as politicians. Not because it inherently does. There are actions that can be taken to prevent it, they’re just not being taken.

      • AskewLord@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        You assume those are necessarily wrong/bad things, you are working off some ideal, that doesn’t really exist.

        Things have always been corrupt, it’s just a matter of degree and nakedness you find objectionable. I guess you’d prefer more of the backroom dealing of the early 20th USA century politics, and the massive lack of transparency therein.

        • Pamasich@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Corrupt politicians are incompetent politicians. That’s my point here.
          Competent politicians wouldn’t be corrupt. They might not exist, but that doesn’t make this untrue.

          You’re right that what I’m describing is an ideal. But OP asked a philosophical question, not one about today’s realities, or at least that’s how I interpreted their question.

          If politicians were competent, then they would redistribute the wealth from billonaires to social programs that would benefit the people.

          That said, I disagree with you on this being unsolvable. Like I said, laws can go a long way. And not everywhere does money buy you everything.

          There are countries with progressive wealth taxes on the rich, with the rate going higher the wealthier they are.
          Many countries, including rich ones like Switzerland, were in favor of the OECD minimum corporate tax deal until the US withdrew, which would have unfairly impacted their economies and caused every company to pack up and leave. But at least in my country, can’t speak for others, it still got implemented except for one aspect which is postponed indefinitely.

          But based on the news I’ve been seeing, isn’t New York also taking great steps in this direction? So I don’t think it’s quite the impossibility for politicians to go against big money even in the US.

          Money is powerful in the current world, but it’s not omnipotent. You can go against them, and you can create a world where it is powerless. You just need people willing to do so.