I’m not sure I get this. Are they trying to say that there is gov’t corruption in the second but not the first scenario? That’s ridiculous. The real thing we should be considering is not how to have an un-corrupt system (because that’s impossible) but where do we want the corruption. It seems that the only way to deal with corruption is to have a balance of power. Balance would favor putting the corruption in the hands of private citizens and not directly into the hands of the lawmakers.
power in the hand’s of private citizens? I get that, but the power is not in the private citizen’s hands, it is in the wealthy private citizens’ hands. Don’t kid yourself if you think that citizens decide that shit now. The wealthy decide that. The corporations dictate that.
this particular political cartoon is simply pointing at one possible side of the argument. The second option includes government corruption, but also tosses in a slew of other corrupted entities.
2 Responses to “hmmm”
I’m not sure I get this. Are they trying to say that there is gov’t corruption in the second but not the first scenario? That’s ridiculous. The real thing we should be considering is not how to have an un-corrupt system (because that’s impossible) but where do we want the corruption. It seems that the only way to deal with corruption is to have a balance of power. Balance would favor putting the corruption in the hands of private citizens and not directly into the hands of the lawmakers.
power in the hand’s of private citizens? I get that, but the power is not in the private citizen’s hands, it is in the wealthy private citizens’ hands. Don’t kid yourself if you think that citizens decide that shit now. The wealthy decide that. The corporations dictate that.
this particular political cartoon is simply pointing at one possible side of the argument. The second option includes government corruption, but also tosses in a slew of other corrupted entities.
My two cents–a month late…
Leave a Reply