Comments on: Non-ethical Non-dilemma

By: JohnX

JohnX — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:44:17 +0000

Representative Dunn from KNoxville should be praised for not going along with this. If we had a lot of people like him in the legislature, we would be a lot better off.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:23:22 +0000

Let me see if I can simplify this;
It shouldn’t matter where legislators got their money, unless they stole it. They take an Oath of Office to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
If they’re doing that, they’re fine and good. If they’re violating that Oath, how should it matter where they got their money? They’re criminals, and Enemies of the State, regardless. Forget about the money.
Now, does that make sense?

By: Blounttruth

Blounttruth — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:44:04 +0000

I added a comment during the scandels uncovering and stated basically what you did Uncle. There will be little to no penalties, and everyone will walk away looking ike the cat that ate the mouse.

http://theblountfacts.blogspot.com/2005_05_22_theblountfacts_archive.html

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:33:33 +0000

I’m not sure public financing actually solves this problem. Well, it only solves the narrow campaign contribution problem, not corruption from other forms of bribery, err, lobbying. I think you have to have an independent, non-partisan monitoring body (with real power, as you say) to clamp down on corruption.

By: kevin

kevin — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:12:58 +0000

“Politicians pass the laws that apply to them and how they operate. Said laws usually benefit said politicians and are designed to ensure they have power. We have here an entity that regulates and oversees itself. That�s not good. It�s rather like if an SEC company could audit itself. Why would you care about a financial report from a company that audits itself? You wouldn�t because the information would be skewed.”

Ya realize that you just kicked the underpinning ut form under one of the rationales of libertarinaism, right?

This is an old problem — who polices the policemen. The solution is, in the case of campaign contributions, to publically fund all campaigns. But you hate that idea. the only other choice is one not likely to happen unless a govenor makes it an issue: an outside body to police ethics with subpenoa and punishment, up to and including removal from office, power.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:09:53 +0000

It�s rather like if an SEC company could audit itself. Why would you care about a financial report from a company that audits itself? You wouldn�t because the information would be skewed.

Err, don’t libertarians generally assert that we should trust companies to self-police? The market, after all, will decide…

By: _Jon

_Jon — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:29:57 +0000

I think the one positive you can take from this is that most voters are fully aware that it is all a show. Sometimes common sense isn’t that common, but I’m becoming aware that it is.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t turned into voter-based change.