I Wear Pants;983402 wrote:Maybe so, but the real problem here is, again, lobbying. We're literally allowing who pays the most to talk about shit decide our policy instead of, in this case nutritionists and facts. It's absurd.
Letting nutritionists make the decision wouldn't help that much. You're still letting a few make the choice for many, and nutritionists are not any more impervious to corruption and being bought off. Nobody is, really. It might shift who the food manufacturer is lobbying, but it wouldn't likely solve anything.
Now, if you just let people or schools make the choice, then you don't quite have the same problem.
I have become convinced that Paul simply makes too much sense for most people to like him as a complete politician, because the two main parties' views are so often inconsistent, and so many seem like they'd rather remain loyal to the logical inconsistency of "their" party.
majorspark;983415 wrote:The real problem is political power and the concentration of it on one place. You can't outlaw people and organizations of people from being able to lobby and redress their grievances to their representatives. The problem you have here is an increasing Federal monopoly of political power. As with any monopoly you break it up and the resulting division of interests competing against each other and competitive markets for their product solves the problem.
In no way shape or form should the central government in Washington have any say what kids are fed at their local school district. I am struggling to find this one in the constitution. When you create an unconstitutional department of the federal government like the department of education this is the kind of shit you end up with. Your solution is more federal government controls and regualtions to correct the results of an out of control federal government operating in this case outside the constitution. Creating an even bigger more powerful monopoly of power.
I'd certainly agree that this would lessen the reach of damage caused by the corruption there. Problem is, I think the machine is already too big to be easily put check in the way you mention.
I Wear Pants;983417 wrote:Disagree, at least we can the current way.
It literally works like this:
Have money:Get bill.
That's not right.
On some level, this will always happen. Whether the money goes to political institutions, lobbying campaigns (Issue 2 was a good example of that), or even regulatory agencies, money will always try to leverage itself to increase itself, whether by hook or by crook.
I Wear Pants;983428 wrote:I don't think "dividing and conquering" will work anymore. Shit's too big for them to let that work.
Reminds me of Jurassic Park. Men created dinosaurs that became unrestrained and killed the men. By that point, nobody could do anything about it.
sleeper;983537 wrote:Then they'll just claim its the 5% who are the problem. "We are the 95%!"
lol'd
