Re:The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Se...
by salawat on Tuesday July 21, 2020 @08:24PM
(#23912511)
>Again, it seems impossible for you to even grasp that they might geniuely believe that their way of doing things might lead to better outcome for all, including people living in poverty.
Genuine belief does not excuse reality blindness or intellectual stop points.
I genuinely believe the world would have so many fewer problems if people would just stop being dicks.
Alas, I am neither justified nor reasonable to present that as an answer to every problem. I have to stop, consider the details of what is there, the history of the edifice, the use case it fulfills, the fact the existence of the service is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that if you want it changed, it's going to take a Constitutional Convention, plus a 2/3's ratification amongst the States. If I want what I consider a problematic piece of the infrastructure of the United States of America to go away, I must come to terms with reality.
>>The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not.
I'd qualify that with "the existence of billionaires [where large chunks of the capital flowing through them is not cycling back through the country via taxes] is a large threat to the country". Citizen's United alone is a bloody travesty against the very fabric of civic interaction, as a legal fiction by definition skews the equation away from all votes being equal; particularly when media exposure and marketing becomes more important in the act of campaigning than actually knowing what it is your Constituent's actually want, and the fact it is only management who gets to direct the support or capital of the legal fiction with no regard to wishes of the workers (in the case of a corporation directly) or well, workers again, in that it is infrequently seen that wages have gone up in anywhere near the proportion of income/revenue of corporate entities has. Therefore, it is rather obvious that value is likely being tied up in corporate or capital-gains tax write-offs in the forms of donations to possibly independent, yet aligned PAC's.
>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I realize that's the polite response, but for whatever reason, it has just always rung as condescending to me. I prefer a heartfelt "I disagree", or "I beg to differ;" but to each their own. Would still debate with over a beer or two.
Genuine belief does not excuse reality blindness or intellectual stop points.
I genuinely believe the world would have so many fewer problems if people would just stop being dicks.
Alas, I am neither justified nor reasonable to present that as an answer to every problem. I have to stop, consider the details of what is there, the history of the edifice, the use case it fulfills, the fact the existence of the service is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that if you want it changed, it's going to take a Constitutional Convention, plus a 2/3's ratification amongst the States. If I want what I consider a problematic piece of the infrastructure of the United States of America to go away, I must come to terms with reality.
>>The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not.
I'd qualify that with "the existence of billionaires [where large chunks of the capital flowing through them is not cycling back through the country via taxes] is a large threat to the country". Citizen's United alone is a bloody travesty against the very fabric of civic interaction, as a legal fiction by definition skews the equation away from all votes being equal; particularly when media exposure and marketing becomes more important in the act of campaigning than actually knowing what it is your Constituent's actually want, and the fact it is only management who gets to direct the support or capital of the legal fiction with no regard to wishes of the workers (in the case of a corporation directly) or well, workers again, in that it is infrequently seen that wages have gone up in anywhere near the proportion of income/revenue of corporate entities has. Therefore, it is rather obvious that value is likely being tied up in corporate or capital-gains tax write-offs in the forms of donations to possibly independent, yet aligned PAC's.
>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I realize that's the polite response, but for whatever reason, it has just always rung as condescending to me. I prefer a heartfelt "I disagree", or "I beg to differ;" but to each their own. Would still debate with over a beer or two.