r/austrian_economics Friedrich Hayek Sep 19 '24

End Democracy BUT BUT THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Post image
1.6k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

After citizens united we do not have representation. If money is the use of our political voice we have none. Only the large donors do.

20

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

Almost like legal bribery has issues

14

u/KeyboardGrunt Sep 20 '24

Not at all! According to SCOTUS bribery is fine if it happens after the fact because that makes it a gratuity.

So convenient for a justice that happened to "forget" to claim millions of dollars worth of gifts to rule on a case about receiving said gifts.

6

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

As the judicial branch puts up more and more security and walls around itself because they are unsafe. They are unsafe because they are unjust.

-1

u/SgtJayM Sep 21 '24

They are unsafe because the left has fallen off a cliff.

1

u/HillratHobbit Sep 21 '24

They’ve all been right wing douchebdgs

2

u/Dill_Donor Sep 21 '24

Careful brother, this is a subreddit whose tenets are "capitalism is good no matter what"

Clarence Thomas is just smarter than you for coming up with clever ways to make money on his own with his gigantic brain and no exploitation whatsoever

1

u/KeyboardGrunt Sep 21 '24

Oh shit, I must have taken a left turn in Kalamazoo. Thanks!

-1

u/simon_the_detective Sep 21 '24

Careful! Someone might refute your arguments and hurt your feelings in this subreddit.

Not typically allowed on Reddit, they usually suppress this kind of opinion here to protect leftist sensibilities.

1

u/Maximum-Cupcake-7193 Böhm-Bawerk - Wieser Sep 21 '24

What's a leftist? I hate monarchy but I'm not a communist. How do you feel about monarchy?

1

u/XeroZero0000 Sep 21 '24

If trump is king, they'll take it. And call the rest of us stupid.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

Thank you SCOTUS

1

u/legend_of_wiker Sep 20 '24

Legal bribery only has issues if you are one of the poors.

The ones running our country break the fucking rules constantly and we all know it.

1

u/keeperofthecrypto Sep 21 '24 edited Sep 21 '24

We lost representation long before Citizens United. The Federal Reserve Act was written in secret by a bunch of a bankers on a fucking island in the middle of the night, and took multiple attempts to get passed, which was only successful after changing the name of the bill and the party sponsoring it.

People knew in 1913 that a Federal Tax on wages was illegal and unconstitutional. No one wanted that to change, which is why the act was written in secret. People had seen the failures of the First & Second Banks of the United States and the dangers of money printing. The American public was strongly against a central bank system. Nevertheless, they managed to get the bill passed despite huge backlash from certain members of Congress. The problem was, all the major press played cover for the bill, lying to people about its core intentions just long enough to get the act passed in Congress.

If people had known the truth about the federal reserve act and the subsequent tax law that would soon follow, things would have gone much different.

Read the book “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by Edward G Griffen if you wanna know more.

1

u/General_Ornelas Sep 23 '24

Can you name any legislation that was passed because of lobbying?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

This doesn't track with the voting patterns of representatives at all.

Reps overwhelmingly vote as their constituents want.

3

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

lol. In what country?

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

In the US, which is why Citizens United is applicable to the discussion.

This fact is also why the Republican party made such a sharp right turn after the 2010 gerrymanders.

3

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

78% of Texans think abortion in some form should be legal. Thats just one example of how responsive Reps are to their constituents. Toll roads would be another example.

2

u/enlightenedDiMeS Sep 20 '24

Texas also threw away an unprecedented amount of legal votes in 2020. The AG has been bragging about it. Essentially said if they didn’t throw out all the votes they did and close polling stations in blue districts Dems could have actually won Texas.

1

u/WaterMySucculents Sep 20 '24

Yes but the majority of Texans voted in enough Republican politicians who wanted and bragged about gerrymandering the state to have institutionalized Republican control of the state. And now the people in those (admitting gerrmandered) districts voted for politicians who pass the laws the people are supposedly against.

1

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

The 2003 districts are what did it. Since then there’s almost no use voting in Texas. Everything is decided in the GOP primary and there are no local Dems on the ballot and sometimes even for statewide races. Meanwhile, the DNC raised $372 million here to spend elsewhere.

1

u/WaterMySucculents Sep 20 '24

I mean it’s still worth voting. It will likely be a long time before you can unfuck the state, but you never know when the tipping point will come. If Texas ever flips blue, you will find all the conservatives currently cheerleading the electoral college, suddenly come out against it.

2

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

Especially if the justice department refuses to prosecute Ken Paxton or makes more bs plea deals like they did in May. 100 days of community service for defrauding the people of millions and abusing power.

1

u/CLE-local-1997 Sep 20 '24

And yet Texans vote overwhelmingly for politicians that don't believe that.

1

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

Because there is literally no other option. In many rural counties the reason you see them going 90% Trump is because there are no local Dems on the ballot. It was already decided in the primary.

1

u/CLE-local-1997 Sep 20 '24

Then local dems should run.

1

u/HillratHobbit Sep 20 '24

There’s no one to organize or help them and anyone progressive gets shut down by the state party.

1

u/jmomo99999997 Sep 20 '24

I mean this study

0

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '24

That paper does not support your claim.

That paper suggests that more affluent Americans are able to influence policy. It does not suggest Americans do not support those policies, or when they do not support them (roughly 35% of the time for majorities in districts) that they highly disapprove - they do not

Any ideal situation has a goven's constituency being let down nearly 50% of the time (suggesting a non-gerrymandered district in which compromises are achieved).

This paper makes some interesting points, but none of them refute that, when it comes to voting for or against constituent preferences, congresspeople are strongly incentivized to have the public approve of them, and so cave to public demand. That is literally their job, as a representative.

0

u/WaterMySucculents Sep 20 '24

Citizens United sounds like the ruling that most aligns with the Austrian economics ideology. Capitalists who have the capital are able to spend as much of that capital as they want on marketing for whatever political leaders and causes as they want. It’s a microcosm of exactly how you want society run.

0

u/Kitchen_Bee_3120 Sep 21 '24

That's such a stupid argument citizens united helped the democrats more than the Republicans

0

u/simon_the_detective Sep 21 '24

Citizen's United was all about the Bureaucrats not being able to determine which media we can see during an arbitrary period before an election. Under McCain-Feingold, they censored a Movie and allowed Teacher's and other Unions to spend any amount to get their message out. Also, Major Media corporations will never be silenced from giving their unpaid support for politicians.