Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Lorizael]

None of those are relevant.

btw, trying to argue with me about probability or the philosophy thereof is a dumb idea. (OH NOES AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY)

My point is this: Updating your priors based on tradition is useful. Basing arguments solely on tradition is a fallacy. Yes, I'm aware that your argument isn't based solely on tradition. You updated your post to include a better argument, and I've since updated my priors about whether your argument was a fallacy.

You'll say I'm taking my ball and going home, but I think I'm done with this discussion. You're very smart, kuci, and I'd be willing to bet you're able to engage in very productive debates with people that have similar methods of problem solving (not similar opinions, just similar ways of thinking), but you come across as very hostile to people that don't approach problems the same way you do.

Before you say that I'm an idiot who resents people that think about things in the correct way when I'm incapable of doing so, do remember that I've recently set myself on the path of becoming a professional scientist. I've got a lot of math ahead of me, and I wouldn't be surprised if I am able to see things from a point of view similar to yours some time in the future (as long as I succeed, that is).

[MrFun]

Oh, sorry, I saw that and forgot about it. Will reply tonight

okay

[Kuciwalker]

protip: the first rule of Bayesian statistics is that if you expect to agree with me in the future you should immediately update to agree with me now (modulo some imagined future where you lose your powers of reasoning)

xpost

[Lorizael]

I didn't say I would agree with you in the future. I said I might be able to see things from a similar point of view. It might not be the only point of view I'm able to see things from, and you might still make errors in logic, so there's no particular reason why I should change my beliefs now.

[giblets]

There are many ways you can spread your beliefs, all of which cost you something. Some explicitly cost money, others implicitly cost money by taking time, effort, or professional reputation.

I don't see fit to eliminate any of these. The right to free speech shall not be infringed. Senator Sanders should be ashamed of himself for not taking our rights seriously.

This may have already been said, but the "speech" known as "donating money" () can effectively serve as a bribe. Candidate needs to spend lots of money to win the next election, rich billionaire can fund ads that help candidate, candidate is now beholden to rich billionaire in a way candidate wouldn't be beholden to an ordinary voter.

[kentonio]

1. It's not that tiny a group.

Billionaires make up a significant propertion of American society?

2. No, they don't. There are any number of ways a candidate can raise money. They could have one big donation from one guy or lots of little ones from lots of little guys.

How many poor presidential candidates have you seen lately, or candidates who weren't backed by rich donors?

3. After a certain point more campaign money doesn't help. There is tons of evidence of massive diminishing returns on political ads. Note how little the polls have moved despite Obama's incredible amounts of ad spending. Once you get through the gate, everyone's pretty much on equal footing.

Obamas spending has served to counter Romneys spending. If it hadn't happened, then you'd have seen a large move towards Romney. Do you not see how rigged the game really is? Without the mind boggling levels of spending, a candidate has simply no chance at all against the mass attack ads of their opponents. The only people who can serve as a counterweight to it are the media, and who owns the media companies? Oh yeah super rich billionaires.

[Guynemer]

It's telling that you don't want to expand on this further. If you did, you'd be intellectually steamrolled, because what you're ultimately complaining about is people convincing other voters to vote for the same person as them. Which is exactly how democracy is supposed to work.

It's cute because OF ****ING COURSE bribery is illegal. So is pot. Those laws are about as equally effective.

What I'm complaining about is the corrupting influence money has on the political system. This is not a new development, this is not unique to our system. It may be getting worse due to a variety of factors--the internet age and 24-hour cable news, the steady increase of income inequality, the hardening of political tribes, just to scratch the surface--but it isn't new.

It's like Israel. Just because a problem doesn't have a good solution doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.

[Wiglaf]

Why is Israel a problem?

[Guynemer]

Not sure if serious.

[Wiglaf]

You sound like Makmood Ahkmadeanajared.

[Guynemer]

Possibly, but my beard isn't nearly as dashing.

[kentonio]

You're too hard on yourself, and thats Wiggys job.

[Jaguar]

This may have already been said, but the "speech" known as "donating money" () can effectively serve as a bribe. Candidate needs to spend lots of money to win the next election, rich billionaire can fund ads that help candidate, candidate is now beholden to rich billionaire in a way candidate wouldn't be beholden to an ordinary voter.

The advertising donor - plus the people he convinces - count exactly the same as anyone else.

Presidential candidates are also beholden to the editorial boards of high-circulation newspapers by the same mechanism. You just want to restrict the apparatus of speech to people who already have control of big media networks - like Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly, Silvio Berlusconi, or George Soros.

You're citing inequality as a reason to restrict freedom, and then not even actually reducing that inequality.

[Jaguar]

It's cute because OF ****ING COURSE bribery is illegal. So is pot. Those laws are about as equally effective.

What I'm complaining about is the corrupting influence money has on the political system. This is not a new development, this is not unique to our system. It may be getting worse due to a variety of factors--the internet age and 24-hour cable news, the steady increase of income inequality, the hardening of political tribes, just to scratch the surface--but it isn't new.

It's like Israel. Just because a problem doesn't have a good solution doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.

What's wrong with people convincing others how to vote?

[Guynemer]

Nothing. What is somewhat problematic is that some people, by virtue of obscene amounts of wealth, are far more capable of convincing others to vote than you or I are; but what is far worse than that is that those same people can convince elected representatives how to vote by virtue of their wealth, and the representatives' need for money to remain representatives.