And the people who post at TechDirt are well above average in intelligence and education. (And propensity to spout, of course.)
This is what the human race is like. Has always been like. Most people are clueless about most things.
This is the challenge for democracy - how do you get reasonable decisions out of people who on average don't know much about anything? Decisions that are not only reasonable, but also acceptable to most people (so you don't get a revolution, even if it's a revolution of idiots).
Yes. A "naked" short is when the short seller doesn't own a call option on the stock.
They still borrow the stock and sell it. They're called "naked" because they're 100% exposed if the stock price goes up - they'll have to buy it at the new price (no matter how high) and return it to the lender.
In a non-naked short, the short seller borrows and sells the stock, but also owns a call option on the stock. If the price rises too high, he/she executes a the option and buys the stock (to return it) at a pre-agreed price.
That's why I think we need major reform to the system - the voters are not going to change, so the system has to.
Altho I'm not at all a fan of Elisabeth Warren, despite being one of her constituents here in Massachusetts. But I will say she's a lot more honest than 90% of Congress. I think she's honestly wrong about a lot of things, but not corrupt.
I'll say the same for Rand Paul, who is actually running.
Actually, I'd love to see a Warren vs. Paul election - it would be fascinating. But without reform, probably not a successful administration for whoever wins.
"Worthless citizens" is needless hyperbole and provocation.
But, I agree with your point - voters chose the idiot politicians who hired the idiot school officials.
If you support our current form of democracy, then the voters who elected these people are clearly to blame, and deserve to pay the damages via taxes.
I look at it as illustrating the flaws in our democracy - voters don't vary that much, they are what they are. The point of a political system is to arrange things such that reasonable outcomes happen.
I've been a subscriber for about 30 years; some positions come and go, others stick around for a long time.
They've been steadily against the Drug War for all that time, and steadily for the British position on American guns (Americans shouldn't have any).
Other things they've flip-flopped on, depending mostly on who is editor-in-chief at the time.
The most recent-but-one editor was John Micklethwait (2006-2014), who IMHO was the worst in a long time. He took a lot of stupid positions - he's a real supporter of the status quo and powers-that-be, Wall Street Journal style.
But the new editor since 1/2015 Zanny Minton Beddoes is just great.
The Economist has a new editor-in-chief, Zanny Minton Beddoes. (http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/zanny-minton-beddoes)
She got the job in January of this year. Since then she's made some big changes to the editorial stance of the paper (magazine, whatever) - all vastly for the better, in my opinion. This is the latest result.
(The editor-in-chief approves the opinion pieces at the front of the magazine.)
I'm really happy with her - she's right on a lot of things.
Lessig has done a lot of good things, and I admire his idealism and dedication.
But money in politics is there because politicians have the power to choose winners and losers, to rig markets, to implement regulations that protect incumbents, to choose who is taxed and who isn't, etc., etc., etc.
As long as politicians have those powers (as opposed to the far more limited powers intended by the founders), those with power and wealth will find ways to influence politicians - one way or another.
No law can prevent that - laws can only force the influence under the table, underground where it can't be seen.
Money in politics is the symptom. Too much power in the hands of politicians is the disease.