|
|
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
|
|