"Mental Dictatorship"
"The loud voice" always takes over. The loud voices of the big companies, the lobbyists, the small interest groups, etc. Whose voice is the loudest? Who owns the media?
If the media mediate the loud voice by the money they get paid, we'd say 'money is speech'. The sponsor of the ads affect the media reports. Healthcare industries, oil companies, financial companies, etc.
The companies pays the most is likely have the influence already and successful. While the vested interests have the unduly advantage, say GAFA already running much of our social life. The natural consequences of the influences is that those companies pay taxes at the rate less than their company CEO gets each year.
What if the politics is run by the loud voices? We'd be hearing more from CEO's than the voters. The big pharma CEO's would be complaining about importing the drugs from Canada while what we and the politicians should be hearing is the voices of the people not taking the expensive medication.
The most obvious flaws of this system is the money flow does not measure the degree at which they serve the public. Namely, you can not buy happiness; you can not buy degrees; the big pharma takes advantages of the sick. The notion of public and public services can not be rated by the money flow.
The money flow fails in capturing the most essential public services that we need. Education. Public transportation systems. Healthcare. Environment. And private life and the pursuit of happiness.
What if what we hear must be bought and paid for? What if we hear the people that pay the most? The mental capitalism?
Your enthusiasm for scientific discovery may coincide with the amount of donation money from the public; your zeal toward the environmental conservation may paid up by the public interests; your love for your family may coincides with the money you spend. Yet they may not. The amount of the public interests may not match up with the money flow.
The election is getting more and more expensive. It may get more people's interests while there hardly no incentives for solving the problems. We only can make the matter interesting without solving it.
The voters preference should not be marred by someone else's (financial) interests.
"The loud voice" always takes over. The loud voices of the big companies, the lobbyists, the small interest groups, etc. Whose voice is the loudest? Who owns the media?
If the media mediate the loud voice by the money they get paid, we'd say 'money is speech'. The sponsor of the ads affect the media reports. Healthcare industries, oil companies, financial companies, etc.
The companies pays the most is likely have the influence already and successful. While the vested interests have the unduly advantage, say GAFA already running much of our social life. The natural consequences of the influences is that those companies pay taxes at the rate less than their company CEO gets each year.
What if the politics is run by the loud voices? We'd be hearing more from CEO's than the voters. The big pharma CEO's would be complaining about importing the drugs from Canada while what we and the politicians should be hearing is the voices of the people not taking the expensive medication.
The most obvious flaws of this system is the money flow does not measure the degree at which they serve the public. Namely, you can not buy happiness; you can not buy degrees; the big pharma takes advantages of the sick. The notion of public and public services can not be rated by the money flow.
The money flow fails in capturing the most essential public services that we need. Education. Public transportation systems. Healthcare. Environment. And private life and the pursuit of happiness.
What if what we hear must be bought and paid for? What if we hear the people that pay the most? The mental capitalism?
Your enthusiasm for scientific discovery may coincide with the amount of donation money from the public; your zeal toward the environmental conservation may paid up by the public interests; your love for your family may coincides with the money you spend. Yet they may not. The amount of the public interests may not match up with the money flow.
The election is getting more and more expensive. It may get more people's interests while there hardly no incentives for solving the problems. We only can make the matter interesting without solving it.
The voters preference should not be marred by someone else's (financial) interests.