5 ms·

There is an implicit false choice here. I don't have to pick between one lobbying group or another. I can reject both, at least in principle. Both can be true:

There is an implicit false choice here. I don't have to pick between one lobbying group or another. I can reject both, at least in principle. Both can be true: - A union lobbies better for me than my employer. - No lobbying represents my views better than either employer or union lobbying.

deogeo 8y ago
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Because you may not perfectly agree with union lobbying, it's better to leave corporate lobbying unopposed, which will almost certainly leave you (and the entire working class) worse off?
- munk-a 8y ago
  I am so confused by this comment, the parent mentioned that they'd prefer if unions had a voice in lobbying over just having corporations lobbying but then mentioned that having no lobbying would be ideal. This seems like mentioning the perfect and then saying "And this other thing works too."
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Expecting corporations to stop lobbying is laughably unrealistic, so "no lobbying" isn't available.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      It is. The US spends enough money on elections that it really wouldn't be crazy to just switch over to public funding of elections and take money out of the equation entirely. But I do agree that there is no way companies would chose to refrain from lobbying if the option was available.
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        There's also my favorite subtle fix to U.S. democracy - require all members of Congress to reside full-time in their districts and conduct all government business electronically. Now instead of hiring 1 lobbyist who can wine & dine 535 members of Congress and build personal relationships with every one, you have to hire 535 lobbyists who can each wine & dine 1 member of Congress and have to compete with their actual constituents & neighbors for social attention. This also has a number of other benefits to democracy, notably that social science has shown that our allegiance is to those who we are in closest proximity daily with (i.e. representatives might actually represent their constituents instead of the political class) and it disincentivizes gerrymandering (if you're gonna shove all the black people in one district, you're gonna be living with them).
        munk-a 8y ago
        I hadn't seen this proposal before but that actually makes a lot of sense and would probably help out quite a bit. There are concerns with logistics and security when it comes to electronically submitted votes for elections (i.e. e-voting) but this sort of a solution side steps any concerns like that, heck it could be voting by show of hands over a video chat. I do disagree with the gerrymandering portion though, I think the US really needs to adopt a proportional representation system (I'm partial to MMP) which would just make any attempt at gerrymandering irrelevant, sure you can win a particular seat if you gerrymander, but the amount you can effect overall representation would be quite minimal.
masonic 8y ago
A union lobbies better for me than my employer. No, a union typically lobbies for the interests of the union leaders. Those interests may or may not coincide with yours.

deogeo 8y ago

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Because you may not perfectly agree with union lobbying, it's better to leave corporate lobbying unopposed, which will almost certainly leave you (and the entire working class) worse off?

munk-a 8y ago
I am so confused by this comment, the parent mentioned that they'd prefer if unions had a voice in lobbying over just having corporations lobbying but then mentioned that having no lobbying would be ideal. This seems like mentioning the perfect and then saying "And this other thing works too."
- deogeo 8y ago
  Expecting corporations to stop lobbying is laughably unrealistic, so "no lobbying" isn't available.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    It is. The US spends enough money on elections that it really wouldn't be crazy to just switch over to public funding of elections and take money out of the equation entirely. But I do agree that there is no way companies would chose to refrain from lobbying if the option was available.
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      There's also my favorite subtle fix to U.S. democracy - require all members of Congress to reside full-time in their districts and conduct all government business electronically. Now instead of hiring 1 lobbyist who can wine & dine 535 members of Congress and build personal relationships with every one, you have to hire 535 lobbyists who can each wine & dine 1 member of Congress and have to compete with their actual constituents & neighbors for social attention. This also has a number of other benefits to democracy, notably that social science has shown that our allegiance is to those who we are in closest proximity daily with (i.e. representatives might actually represent their constituents instead of the political class) and it disincentivizes gerrymandering (if you're gonna shove all the black people in one district, you're gonna be living with them).
      - munk-a 8y ago
        I hadn't seen this proposal before but that actually makes a lot of sense and would probably help out quite a bit. There are concerns with logistics and security when it comes to electronically submitted votes for elections (i.e. e-voting) but this sort of a solution side steps any concerns like that, heck it could be voting by show of hands over a video chat. I do disagree with the gerrymandering portion though, I think the US really needs to adopt a proportional representation system (I'm partial to MMP) which would just make any attempt at gerrymandering irrelevant, sure you can win a particular seat if you gerrymander, but the amount you can effect overall representation would be quite minimal.

masonic 8y ago

A union lobbies better for me than my employer. No, a union typically lobbies for the interests of the union leaders. Those interests may or may not coincide with yours.