On 14-10-2009 1:59, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> There is a risk associated with cash. I think there is a tendency here 
>> to pass regulation that minimizes the cost for the shop owner.
> 
> There's a risk to the shop keeper in accepting cash?
> 
>>>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
>>> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
>>> president can't just change everything if he wants to.
>>>
>>>     I'm guessing that in your country, those kinds of abuses have 
>>> probably been a lot rarer - hence more trust for the government.
>>
>> I am still in the dark what kind of abuse you are talking about.
> 
> Really!?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
> 
> That's one of *many* abuses.

Sure I know of abuse of power at that level. My problem is that I can 
not see how this has any effect of health care insurance, regulation of 
banks, regulating how election campaigns are funded etc.

>> No, what I think is that for at least the level of senator, but 
>> probably even some levels below that, the big companies decide who you 
>> can vote for.
> 
> They unfortunately also determine how that politician votes, regardless 
> of what they promised.

I could only assume that it will have some influence. I take your word 
for it.

>> Why don't you try the BBC model? Oh yes, because someone will pay the 
>> senators to prevent that.
> 
> We have that. It's called "PBS". The problem is people hear we're in 
> debt and taxes are too high, and they cut the funding for stuff like 
> that. Even tho it's 0.01% of the funding for something completely 
> unnecessary that the politicians want.

Indeed, cutting down on money for independent news would be a nice thing 
to put in some unrelated bill if your (re)election was paid for by a 
broadcasting company. At least I think I heard stories of putting 
totally unrelated things in a package deal in the US.

>> There is no way that any John Doe could figure that out for himself. 
> 
> I was amused at some of the stories here where the mortgage brokers and 
> real estate agents get loans and later complain they didn't know they 
> were adjustable. Come now, if you don't, who would?

Nobody.

>>>     Also, there's history behind this. Such laws over here would be 
>>> viewed as intending to keep "people we don't like" out (race, 
>>> religion, etc). Although perhaps they find legal ways to do that 
>>> already.
>>
>> What makes you think we don't have such a history?
> 
> Dunno. Did you ever have a civil war over whether to get rid of slavery 
> or not? :-)

Ever heard of WW2?

Post a reply to this message