>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
RISKY:
>Sorry for the long intro, but the point is that Madison and others were more
>supportive of interests counteracting each other than of restricting the
>freedom of individuals or organizations to pursue their interests. To apply
>this to your issue of campaign contributions, the idea is that the interests
>of AOL may be the opposite of Microsoft. The interests of steel
>manafacturers is often quite opposite that of car manufacturers. Doctors
>rarely see eye-to-eye with lawyers or insurance companies. Unions rarely
>align completely with their employers. Newspaper editorials may contradict
>all these interests. Inner city voters may reflect another view. Wealthy
>individuals yet another. Farmers vs landowners vs industrialists vs
>environmentalists vs feminists vs libertarians vs gun owners vs
ERIN: Okay you see I was asking people's opinion because I wanted to figure
out how much influence corporate America has in the government. Micorsoft
interests may be different from AOL interests but the point is corporate
America in general. I was asking about the amount of influence and
competition to corporate America not the competition between corporations.
I find your dichtomoy feminists vs libertarians hilarious.... Please expand
for more laughs. Where does Osama bin Laden fall?
Makes me wonder about DMB's theory of righties and their mothers. Lay on the
couch and tell me about your mother Risky. (just kidding ya)
>There are large numbers of diverse contributers with diverse interests giving
>money or labor toward the funding of campaigns. Be careful about upsetting
>this balance and moving in the opposite direction from that framed by those
>that drafted our constitution.
I understand what you are saying about restricting corporations rights.
>RISKY:
>Madison would argue we are a representative republic, not a democracy. The
>problem is with the common usage of the terms. Representative republics are
>considered "democracies," but they are not democracies in the sense of
>simple MAJORITY RULES governments. The Constitution's framers tried hard to
>diversify government and build checks and balances against both governmental
>abuse and abuses of popular mob rule.
>The issue isn't whether government is influenced by corporate interests. It
>is, and it was specifically designed to be responsive to these (and other)
>interests. However, it is also responsive to very powerful non-corporate
>interests. Furthermore, corporations do not have many common interests.
ERIN: Okay very good argument but what I was inquiring in the last email was
HOW much influence not whether it should have influence. Your opinion is
that it is responsive to other powerful non-corporate interests. So you think
corporate America does not have too much influence. Thanks for your opinion.
I did really enjoy the history lesson Madison--very interesting.
But I am honestly still intrigued what Roshkoff is saying. Still just not
really sure where I stand. Rshkoff works with companies to make them more
responsible. This is the approach I like but I do understand your argument
about government doing it. I NEVER suggested that though.
ROSHKOFF:
In a sense nothing has changed: the same kinds of techniques that have been
used for centuries by emperors, kings, popes and priests, are now being used
in service of the corporation. Where it's different is that we have
technologies in place that make these coercive techniques automatic. There are
machines doing this now — machines are doing the research, machines are
adjusting the commercials and configuring the Web sites. What I'm trying to do
is to insert some human control, some human thought, and some real human
intention back into what we're doing.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:01 BST