Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Obviously I have no idea whether this will be better than the current system or not. However, I'm completely left cold by most of the the argumentation in the article.

For example, it complains that 40% of Congress are lawyers, effectively arguing that it's better to have substantially fewer people making laws who are trained in law. Why? because people don't like lawyers.

Also, it complains that 50% of Congress are millionaires so reducing the number of millionaires will remove the influence of lobbyists. Presumably because it's only millionaires who are influenced by marketing and free money?

The one good argument that I can see is that it definitely means that there's no money spent on campaign financing as there are no campaigns. Obviously the suggestion that that money will then be spent on soft and fluffy causes is just silly but at least the original argument makes sense.

Maybe it's just me. A big part of my day to day is understanding the consequences of the decisions I make and mitigating for them. So I get particularly irritated by arguments that only have pro columns. But if one does just make pro arguments they really ought to be better than this.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: