The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Terrywoodenpic]

I agree with your shampoo example, and I agree with that category of situation.

But I disagree that that's all that advertising can do. It might be that if a person gets only a single exposure to an ad, then the only effect is the shampoo effect.

But ads come in campaigns. The power to coerce comes through repetition of messages, same as propaganda. And humans are quite coerce-able when exposed to repeated messages.

== taxes

Again, I somewhat agree. But it's also the case that if we watch "the news", we're relentlessly exposed to the propaganda that the rich are "job creators" and that they might just go away if they don't like us any more.

Mi

Exactly they need workers more than workers need them.

I was never sacked but I held a number of jobs. The choice of when and where to move on was mine.
This is the way it should be.

One interesting aspect was that the person who took me on always died within a few months of my leaving, but in one case he and his company went bankrupt as he had over extended an otherwise good business.

 

[Revoltingest]

News media, politicians and lobbying groups are already owned by the rich and some Union leads have been known to also be corrupt. That's why it's impossible to get money out of politics, because there will be no more politics in the US, when you take the money out.

Therefore, it is important to prevent money from accumulating in the first place.

Your goal is preventing moneyed folk from having political influence.
That sounds like an agenda driven solution in search of a problem.
The goal should be preventing political corruption.
Curbing influence of moneyed folk, would deny them some legit power.
More power would be transferred to other interests with all their
attendant corruption.
So you approach appears to both miss the boat, & enhance other problems.

One solution I'd like implemented is allowing entrapment of
public officials. If all feared that a bribe could be offered by
a covert agent collecting evidence for prosecution, it would
enhance honesty....if only out of fear.

 

[PureX]

I agree with your shampoo example, and I agree with that category of situation.

But I disagree that that's all that advertising can do. It might be that if a person gets only a single exposure to an ad, then the only effect is the shampoo effect.

But ads come in campaigns. The power to coerce comes through repetition of messages, same as propaganda. And humans are quite coerce-able when exposed to repeated messages.

== taxes

Again, I somewhat agree. But it's also the case that if we watch "the news", we're relentlessly exposed to the propaganda that the rich are "job creators" and that they might just go away if they don't like us any more.

Yep, that, too. They don't spend all that money for nothing.

 

[PureX]

Your goal is preventing moneyed folk from having political influence.
That sounds like an agenda driven solution in search of a problem.
The goal should be preventing political corruption.
Curbing influence of moneyed folk, would deny them some legit power.
More power would be transferred to other interests with all their
attendant corruption.
So you approach appears to both miss the boat, & enhance other problems.

It's amazing to me that you can write that with a strait face.

One solution I'd like implemented is allowing entrapment of
public officials. If all feared that a bribe could be offered by
a covert agent collecting evidence for prosecution, it would
enhance honesty....if only out of fear.

But bribery would have to be illegal. And right now it's not.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's amazing to me that you can write that with a strait face.

It's unsurprising to me that you can't spell "straight".

But bribery would have to be illegal. And right now it's not.

It's also unsurprising that you don't know this....

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Your goal is preventing moneyed folk from having political influence.
That sounds like an agenda driven solution in search of a problem.
The goal should be preventing political corruption.
Curbing influence of moneyed folk, would deny them some legit power.
More power would be transferred to other interests with all their
attendant corruption.
So you approach appears to both miss the boat, & enhance other problems.

One solution I'd like implemented is allowing entrapment of
public officials. If all feared that a bribe could be offered by
a covert agent collecting evidence for prosecution, it would
enhance honesty....if only out of fear.

Entrapment should be legal. Against most if not all criminals.
That and living at a level not possible on their salaries or unexplainable wealth.wealth.
And at odds with their tax payments.

 

[Revoltingest]

Entrapment should be legal.
Against most if not all criminals.

I favor it remaining illegal against mere citizens.
Legalization would give government too much power
to prey upon vulnerable people who ordinarily would
not commit a crime.
Public officials are different because they're entrusted
with the military, financial, & social interests of the
entire country. Such extraordinary danger posed
requires extraordinary monitoring & accountability.

 

[Heyo]

Your goal is preventing moneyed folk from having political influence.

I think you're old enough now to face the real problems. You've
outgrown the straw men.
My goal is preventing moneyed folk from having undue political influence.
One voice, one vote.

One solution I'd like implemented is allowing entrapment of
public officials. If all feared that a bribe could be offered by
a covert agent collecting evidence for prosecution, it would
enhance honesty....if only out of fear.

For that, bribery would first to be illegal.
Yes, I read your link to Cornell. That doesn't deal with campaign contributions, especially super PACs. It doesn't deal with lobbying groups. It leaves the door wide open for indirect payments, and it isn't applicable to SC Justices. Yep, with Thomas still in office, I know how serious you folks take fighting corruption.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're old enough now to face the real problems. You've
outgrown the straw men.
My goal is preventing moneyed folk from having undue political influence.
One voice, one vote.

Learn the difference between a
straw man & a counter argument.

For that, bribery would first to be illegal.

It already is.
The problem is that it's hard to catch.
I proposed a solution.

Yes, I read your link to Cornell. That doesn't deal with campaign contributions, especially super PACs. It doesn't deal with lobbying groups. It leaves the door wide open for indirect payments, and it isn't applicable to SC Justices. Yep, with Thomas still in office, I know how serious you folks take fighting corruption.

You don't like those.
I find them less problematic than outright bribery.
First solve problems that are easily solved.

 

[icehorse]

You're changing the claim.
It was about features paid for by property taxes.
Now you're making it about income taxes.
How much did Wells Fargo pay in property
taxes each year?

Your charge against me is inaccurate. Was that an honest mistake on your part?

 

[Revoltingest]

Your charge against me is inaccurate. Was that an honest mistake on your part?

Your mistake.

 

[icehorse]

Mistake by you.

bad faith, good to know.

 

[Revoltingest]

bad faith....

Good to see you admit it.

 

[icehorse]

Your mistake.

You made a claim against me in your post #469. If you're operating in good faith, prove that claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

You made a claim....

I make many claims.
I stand by them all.

 

[icehorse]

I make many claims.
I stand by them all.

prove it

 

[Revoltingest]

prove it

Why bother.
It'll only lead to more bickering.

 

[icehorse]

Why bother.
It'll only lead to more bickering.

So you make charges against other posters, but then won't back them up.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I favor it remaining illegal against mere citizens.
Legalization would give government too much power
to prey upon vulnerable people who ordinarily would've
not commit a crime.
Public officials are different because they're entrusted
with the military, financial, & social interests of the
entire country. Such extraordinary danger posed
requires extraordinary monitoring & accountability.

I would not legalize it for minor crimes like shop lifting, or the poor by temptation .


However the wealthy and powerful and criminals can be as dangerous as the the people you mention.
I would like to think it could be permitted by a judge in chambers. However I would not trust the American legal system nor the police.
So it is probably. A nonstarter.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is no defence of entrapment in English law.
However the Judge can cuse a stay if the entrapment was inappropriate.
So it can be something of a grey area.

Police entrapment and court proceedings - claims.co.uk ™

What is the common understanding of police entrapment? What constitutes Entrapment? Police entrapment and court proceedings, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Entrapment as a defence.

www.claims.co.uk