3 ms·

Should we blame Comcast for attempting to maximize their own profits in legal ways (the purpose for which their company exists)? Or is it the government's fault

Should we blame Comcast for attempting to maximize their own profits in legal ways (the purpose for which their company exists)? Or is it the government's fault for allowing lobbyists to exert that kind of control over legislation? One of the two organizations has the power to create and enforce laws; the other does not.

Avshalom 9y ago
Well, no, as it turns out Comcast is also entirely capable of creating laws, thats the problem.
- curiousgeorgio 9y ago
  Hmmm, I'm not aware of that change to the constitution.
  - crispyambulance 9y ago
    No change is necessary. Anybody can "write the law" and have their well-compensated politician do the formalities. More advanced players will simply put their stooge in an office of power (see Ajit Pai).
    - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
      If legislators are so easily influenced by those with money, how is that not a failure of government? If a criminal gets caught and blames his peers for being a poor influence, do you suppose he should go free because he can't help being influenced to commit crime? Why then should we act as if the problem lies in the companies and special interest groups attempting to influence government? Do you (as many other do) really think the best course of action involves more legislation from those we know can't be trusted? Or do you expect companies to simply "shape up" because a group of people wag a finger at them? The bigger the government becomes, the easier it is for these kinds of things to fly under the radar. As government grows, so does its power, and as power grows, so do the incentives to infiltrate and control that power. If you'd like it to stop, reduce the size of the organization ultimately responsible rather than add fuel to the fire.
      - Avshalom 9y ago
        when a criminal bribes a cop we blame them both we don't blame the notion of law enforcement
        curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        The criminal bribing a cop has broken the law by bribing a cop, whereas lobbying is perfectly legal (and justifiably protected as free speech), so there's a pretty big difference.
        crispyambulance 9y ago
        Sure, lobbying is legal. I can see how, for instance, it can be helpful and needed to inform politicians about complex issues faced by corporations. Unfortunately, lobbying is also easy to abuse when you have very powerful amoral and greedy entities use it and vast sums of money, directly or indirectly, to influence politicians against the interests of the people.
crispyambulance 9y ago
> ...or is it the government's fault for _allowing_ lobbyists to exert... That's a good question. Notice, however, that NOT "allowing" the lobbyists of carriers to override the good of the people is sort of a form of "regulation". The fact that these politicians don't have their asses handed to them upon the next election illustrates that this is a bigger problem than just regulation or not. Citizens who aren't informed are as much to blame as Comcast and the politicians who are lining their pockets with Comcast money.

Avshalom 9y ago

Well, no, as it turns out Comcast is also entirely capable of creating laws, thats the problem.

curiousgeorgio 9y ago
Hmmm, I'm not aware of that change to the constitution.
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  No change is necessary. Anybody can "write the law" and have their well-compensated politician do the formalities. More advanced players will simply put their stooge in an office of power (see Ajit Pai).
  - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
    If legislators are so easily influenced by those with money, how is that not a failure of government? If a criminal gets caught and blames his peers for being a poor influence, do you suppose he should go free because he can't help being influenced to commit crime? Why then should we act as if the problem lies in the companies and special interest groups attempting to influence government? Do you (as many other do) really think the best course of action involves more legislation from those we know can't be trusted? Or do you expect companies to simply "shape up" because a group of people wag a finger at them? The bigger the government becomes, the easier it is for these kinds of things to fly under the radar. As government grows, so does its power, and as power grows, so do the incentives to infiltrate and control that power. If you'd like it to stop, reduce the size of the organization ultimately responsible rather than add fuel to the fire.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      when a criminal bribes a cop we blame them both we don't blame the notion of law enforcement
      - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        The criminal bribing a cop has broken the law by bribing a cop, whereas lobbying is perfectly legal (and justifiably protected as free speech), so there's a pretty big difference.
        crispyambulance 9y ago
        Sure, lobbying is legal. I can see how, for instance, it can be helpful and needed to inform politicians about complex issues faced by corporations. Unfortunately, lobbying is also easy to abuse when you have very powerful amoral and greedy entities use it and vast sums of money, directly or indirectly, to influence politicians against the interests of the people.

crispyambulance 9y ago

> ...or is it the government's fault for _allowing_ lobbyists to exert... That's a good question. Notice, however, that NOT "allowing" the lobbyists of carriers to override the good of the people is sort of a form of "regulation". The fact that these politicians don't have their asses handed to them upon the next election illustrates that this is a bigger problem than just regulation or not. Citizens who aren't informed are as much to blame as Comcast and the politicians who are lining their pockets with Comcast money.