PDA

View Full Version : Why is OK to publish campaign donations...




BKV
04-20-2009, 01:45 AM
but not OK to publish a person's vote?

A bit retarded?

What can you know about a person's vote you can't based on his donations?

What good comes out of publicizing who got money from who you can't get by knowing who voted who?

What good is keeping votes private if donations are public?

idiom
04-20-2009, 02:19 AM
You can donate to two or three people?

Corporations can't vote?

Conza88
04-20-2009, 03:10 AM
The number who donate are usually much smaller than the number who vote.

Second, theoretically the donation thing is supposed to keep it honest. But government isn't a system tinged with the remotest bit of honesty, so that doesn't work.

Third, the votes are supposed to be kept quiet as to source so you can't bully someone to vote a certain way. A gunman outside the booth saying "you will vote XYZ or I will shoot you!" can't tell once you enter the booth which way your vote swung. In Theory.

Fourth, voting is irrelevant. Democracy is a degenerate form of government. There has never been one that's succeeded and there never will be. It has nothing to do with Liberty.

BKV
04-20-2009, 10:22 PM
You can donate to two or three people?

Corporations can't vote?

yes, you can donate to 2-3 people, but not far from whom you vote (and usually near the end of fund raising season it's irrelevant).

Corporations CAN and DO vote no matter how you regulate it.
(why would a free market have a problem with that?)

BKV
04-20-2009, 10:25 PM
The number who donate are usually much smaller than the number who vote.


Yeah, so?

Probably a lot of it is intimidated by the publicity.



Second, theoretically the donation thing is supposed to keep it honest. But government isn't a system tinged with the remotest bit of honesty, so that doesn't work.


Agreed. Why should candidates be honest about who gives them money? What happened to free participation and financial privacy?



Third, the votes are supposed to be kept quiet as to source so you can't bully someone to vote a certain way. A gunman outside the booth saying "you will vote XYZ or I will shoot you!" can't tell once you enter the booth which way your vote swung. In Theory.


Exactly, which negates the second point you made. How can we expect honesty AND security (without freedom and privacy)?




Fourth, voting is irrelevant. Democracy is a degenerate form of government. There has never been one that's succeeded and there never will be. It has nothing to do with Liberty.

Oh, I agree totally. But that's not the question here, the question is is there any reason voting is private and donations are not?
(from what you said, I agree, it's inconsistent)

I agree voting doesn't change crap or they'd make it illegal (you're the one who thinks LP is an alternative to two parties).

idiom
04-20-2009, 10:40 PM
yes, you can donate to 2-3 people, but not far from whom you vote (and usually near the end of fund raising season it's irrelevant).

Corporations CAN and DO vote no matter how you regulate it.
(why would a free market have a problem with that?)

Because a corporation isn't a person.

misterx
04-20-2009, 10:56 PM
The number who donate are usually much smaller than the number who vote.

Second, theoretically the donation thing is supposed to keep it honest. But government isn't a system tinged with the remotest bit of honesty, so that doesn't work.

Third, the votes are supposed to be kept quiet as to source so you can't bully someone to vote a certain way. A gunman outside the booth saying "you will vote XYZ or I will shoot you!" can't tell once you enter the booth which way your vote swung. In Theory.

Fourth, voting is irrelevant. Democracy is a degenerate form of government. There has never been one that's succeeded and there never will be. It has nothing to do with Liberty.

The number that donates may be much smaller, but it's also much more important. Their donations determine who the rest of the people will vote for.

Knowing that your donations are not private makes people afraid to donate to any candidate or cause that is not popular. The same bullying applies here.

I agree with you on the fourth point.

BKV
04-20-2009, 11:06 PM
Because a corporation isn't a person.

nor is a car, but you can be hit by a car and there's a person to blame.

the idea that corporations and governments are not human is SEMANTICS.

OK, the organization and the hardware are not humans, but they are not machines, they do not benefit, it's humans who head and operate the groups that we are concerned about.

So yes, corporate owners, employees and shareholders CAN AND DO donate and vote, like any other humans.

BKV
04-20-2009, 11:08 PM
The number that donates may be much smaller, but it's also much more important. Their donations determine who the rest of the people will vote for.


What I am talking about here is not

"Obama got $10M, Kerry got $6M", that's hard to keep secret anyway once spent.
(equivalent to publishing total votes)

I am talking about "who sent the money"(which is equivalent to who voted who). Something that should be as private as votes.



Knowing that your donations are not private makes people afraid to donate to any candidate or cause that is not popular. The same bullying applies here.


thanks, what I meant the whole time.



I agree with you on the fourth point.
except that's not what I'm asking here , and I agree too.

Conza88
04-20-2009, 11:40 PM
Yeah, so?

Probably a lot of it is intimidated by the publicity.

So what? Democracy is retarded and has nothing to do with Liberty. That's what.


Agreed. Why should candidates be honest about who gives them money? What happened to free participation and financial privacy?

The whole premise is flawed.



Exactly, which negates the second point you made. How can we expect honesty AND security (without freedom and privacy)?

You can't within this flawed and retardedly paradoxical system. When there is a paradox, check your premises. Read Mencken on this. Or I'll quote him for you.


Oh, I agree totally. But that's not the question here, the question is is there any reason voting is private and donations are not?
(from what you said, I agree, it's inconsistent)

I've addressed the underlying premise of the question. I addressed the ROOT cause. You can hack at the branches all fcken day and you'll miss the point entirely.

Why the fck do you agree, but keep attempting to elaborate with bullshit questions that clearly go against the grain - which if you ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD WHY YOU AGREE, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A REASON TO ASK.


I agree voting doesn't change crap or they'd make it illegal (you're the one who thinks LP is an alternative to two parties).

Alternative to spreading the message of Liberty. If you're gonna quote me, do it properly.



The number that donates may be much smaller, but it's also much more important. Their donations determine who the rest of the people will vote for.

Knowing that your donations are not private makes people afraid to donate to any candidate or cause that is not popular. The same bullying applies here.

I agree with you on the fourth point.

This changes fck all. And their donations have nothing to do with it essentially. MSM anyone? :rolleyes:

It could make people more accountable - even better, get people to NOT VOTE. Imagine 10% voting... SAME shit as if there was COMPULSORY VOTING.

BKV
04-20-2009, 11:45 PM
So what? Democracy is retarded and has nothing to do with Liberty. That's what.

The whole premise is flawed.

You can't within this flawed and retardedly paradoxical system. When there is a paradox, check your premises. Read Mencken on this. Or I'll quote him for you.


Actually HLM would be one person I might've read more than you on.

So are you saying both votes and donations should be equally private (or not)?

I am not arguing with you whether democracy is retarded, I already know that.



I've addressed the underlying premise of the question. I addressed the ROOT cause. You can hack at the branches all fcken day and you'll miss the point entirely.

Why the fck do you agree, but keep attempting to elaborate with bullshit questions that clearly go against the grain - which if you ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD WHY YOU AGREE, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A REASON TO ASK.


Because you don't know what I am asking.



Alternative to spreading the message of Liberty. If you're gonna quote me, do it properly.

This changes fck all. And their donations have nothing to do with it essentially. MSM anyone? :rolleyes:

It could make people more accountable - even better, get people to NOT VOTE. Imagine 10% voting... SAME shit as if there was COMPULSORY VOTING.

Let me get this straight, we should publish voting so people would be more accountable AND be encouraged to not vote at all? I hope that's what you mean because I totally agree (and that was my reason for starting this thread).

BKV
04-20-2009, 11:49 PM
Alternative to spreading the message of Liberty. If you're gonna quote me, do it properly.
.

Democrat in office vs Republican? - Libertarian Party for starter.

BKV
04-20-2009, 11:53 PM
So what? Democracy is retarded and has nothing to do with Liberty. That's what.


The question wasn't whether democracy is about liberty or whether it's retarded, what does that have to do with whether the voting numbers is bigger than donor numbers? Or whether one is reasonable keep private but another isn't?

You wanna talk about non-sequitur or changing the subject?

Conza88
04-21-2009, 12:18 AM
BKV = Josh_LA..

Faaaail! :D

What is your problem, seriously? Your mental issues are prolific.