3 ms·

You already have those problems. You'll be trying to fix two problems instead of just one.

by epicide 9y ago

Y_Y 9y ago
I think it's absurd for a private citizen to try to change a law by lobbying.
- epicide 9y ago
  I meant more trying to reduce/remove lobbying.
  - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
    I agree. I think we should hang all lobbyists and then shoot them while they're hanging just to be sure. It is absolutely anti-republican that entrenched special interests and corporations get more say and have larger influence in politics than the constituents of the state/district. Hang all the lobbyists, close the flow of donations from anyone other than individuals, and cut off the hands (metaphorically) of any representative that takes any money under suspicious circumstances. If powerful corporations or special interests want to influence legislation, make them convince the people that something is a good idea and have the people contact their representatives.
    - thephyber 9y ago
      > If powerful corporations or special interests want to influence legislation, make them convince the people that something is a good idea and have the people contact their representatives. (1) A "special interest" is any strict subset of the population. There is no necessity that it be nefarious, as you imply. (2) A republic, by definition, doesn't require the constant approval of the population for each action. That would be a democracy, which we in the USA don't have and never did. In fact, our founding fathers explicitly ruled out the idea of governance by "the mob". (3) The problem with "powerful corporations and special interests" is that they have receive concentrated benefits with diffuse costs. The solution is for every elected representative to always vote "no" to every change to the status quo unless it meets a very high bar for diffuse benefits. That kind of government would get even less accomplished than the "Do Nothing Congress". (4) It's simply unwieldily for elected representatives to talk to their entire constituency on any regular basis. The only time this does happen is when we have some sort of panic. Those with means figured this out and hired people that specialized in getting the attention of legislators, executives, and regulators. (5) I'm all for rooting out corruption and eliminating it. I'm not for hanging people for doing something that is perfectly legal under current US law.

You already have those problems. You'll be trying to fix two problems instead of just one.

Y_Y 9y ago

I think it's absurd for a private citizen to try to change a law by lobbying.

epicide 9y ago
I meant more trying to reduce/remove lobbying.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  I agree. I think we should hang all lobbyists and then shoot them while they're hanging just to be sure. It is absolutely anti-republican that entrenched special interests and corporations get more say and have larger influence in politics than the constituents of the state/district. Hang all the lobbyists, close the flow of donations from anyone other than individuals, and cut off the hands (metaphorically) of any representative that takes any money under suspicious circumstances. If powerful corporations or special interests want to influence legislation, make them convince the people that something is a good idea and have the people contact their representatives.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    > If powerful corporations or special interests want to influence legislation, make them convince the people that something is a good idea and have the people contact their representatives. (1) A "special interest" is any strict subset of the population. There is no necessity that it be nefarious, as you imply. (2) A republic, by definition, doesn't require the constant approval of the population for each action. That would be a democracy, which we in the USA don't have and never did. In fact, our founding fathers explicitly ruled out the idea of governance by "the mob". (3) The problem with "powerful corporations and special interests" is that they have receive concentrated benefits with diffuse costs. The solution is for every elected representative to always vote "no" to every change to the status quo unless it meets a very high bar for diffuse benefits. That kind of government would get even less accomplished than the "Do Nothing Congress". (4) It's simply unwieldily for elected representatives to talk to their entire constituency on any regular basis. The only time this does happen is when we have some sort of panic. Those with means figured this out and hired people that specialized in getting the attention of legislators, executives, and regulators. (5) I'm all for rooting out corruption and eliminating it. I'm not for hanging people for doing something that is perfectly legal under current US law.