Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Modern Jesus (Score 1) 860

The reason the money is there is that there's so much for power for it to buy. I appreciate Lessig's work in general, but those who think that campaign finance measures will ever be anything more than an endless game of whack-a-mole are kidding themselves. (And even then that's without factoring in SCOTUS hostility toward the idea.)

Comment Re:Modern Jesus (Score 4, Insightful) 860

What third party? Do you really think that would make any difference? Under the current system anyone elected is controlled or made irrelevant. Until the money is removed from the electoral process this won't change.

Money is a symptom, not the disease. There's so much money precisely because there's so much federal power available to buy. Until political power is radically decentralized, this will not change.

Comment Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score 1) 679

Not at all. I'm simply disagreeing that the government is the most reliable institution to provide that sort of information. For example, Certified Humane has a special seal of approval that is meant to help consumers who eat things like eggs and meat make the choice to only buy from providers who treat the animals involved in a reasonably humane fashion. One could argue government could mandate this, but given the influence of agribusiness on politicians and bureaucrats, that solution is not realistic. Fortunately, we see that this private labelling system can do the same job to provide information to those who want it.

Now, you evidently disagree that non-profit groups are ideal for this, and if that's the case, well, we're each entitled to our own observations. But come on, does that really mean that either of us are doing mental gymnastics, making unreasonable justifications, moving goalposts, or violating core principles (routinely or otherwise)?

Comment Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score 1) 679

That's not because we intrinsically hate labels that help people make informed decisions about what they eat. It's because (1) we think if consumers who don't want to eat GMOs are serious, they'll refuse to buy food unless there's a seal of approval from a trustworthy private organization that has real standards, and (2) when a government that's in Monsanto's pocket inevitably comes up with a shitty labeling system it will crowd out the possibility of such private organizations developing because people will falsely believe it's a solved problem.

It's fair enough if you disagree, but don't assume bad faith.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker