3 ms·

Except local parliaments are also lobby-bought, so that doesn't solve the problem. Brexit is the politician's fallacy in action.

prepend 8y ago
This is an interesting problem to me. I sometimes think that having multiple locally bought lobbies with individual priorities is preferred to a single giant lobby doing winner take all on large scales. It’s pessimistic as it assumes always corruption. But pragmatic as it minimizes corruption by maximiing the inefficiency and cost necessary for lobbies to spread cash more thinly and come into conflict with lobby arbitrage country by country. For example, copyright lobby might win in country #1, but hardware lobby wins in country #2 and we end up with conflicting laws in different countries. As opposed to both countries using the same laws so it comes down to which country spends the most money in total gets their law in both countries. Of course, I think it would be better to have a law set that represents will of the people and Pareto frontier of max indicidual benefit and community benefit.
- icebraining 8y ago
  But you have giant lobbies anyway, because companies and cartels are multinational, even if the parliaments aren't. We already have three major international copyright treaties (Berne, UCC and TRIPS), two of which actually predate the EU, and the other was not primarily pushed by it, which set strict rules on how "independent" parliaments can legislate. So not having the EU doesn't seem to have helped.
Chris2048 8y ago
Solve what problem? The problem of lobbies in general? No, it doesn't. The problem of EU lobbying, and inter-national divide-and-conquer? Yes, to some extent. Framing this as politician's fallacy, action for the sake of action, suggests that lobbying won't be worse in the EU than at a local level. In reality, it's easier to consolidate a smaller same-nation population, than multiple international ones. Just look at how stereotypes are used to discredit - lazy greeks, racist little-englanders etc.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 8y ago
  That suggests further splitting up the UK would also improve the political situation; do you support such a proposal?
  - Chris2048 8y ago
    Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament
    - icebraining 8y ago
      That's not exactly spliting up the UK.
      - Chris2048 8y ago
        Then you'd have to tell me what kind of action my comments imply. Opposing consolidation of power over multiple populations who can only oppose it in aggregate is what I imply is bad, and discord / lack of unity among those populations gives umbalanced influence to that unified central power.
sisu2019 8y ago
Local parliaments are closer and have more contact with their constituents so they'll automatically be more transparent and if my local government becomes unbearable I can move 200 KM and be free of it but if the EU becomes unbearable I have to move 2000+ KMs to a new continent.

prepend 8y ago

This is an interesting problem to me. I sometimes think that having multiple locally bought lobbies with individual priorities is preferred to a single giant lobby doing winner take all on large scales. It’s pessimistic as it assumes always corruption. But pragmatic as it minimizes corruption by maximiing the inefficiency and cost necessary for lobbies to spread cash more thinly and come into conflict with lobby arbitrage country by country. For example, copyright lobby might win in country #1, but hardware lobby wins in country #2 and we end up with conflicting laws in different countries. As opposed to both countries using the same laws so it comes down to which country spends the most money in total gets their law in both countries. Of course, I think it would be better to have a law set that represents will of the people and Pareto frontier of max indicidual benefit and community benefit.

icebraining 8y ago
But you have giant lobbies anyway, because companies and cartels are multinational, even if the parliaments aren't. We already have three major international copyright treaties (Berne, UCC and TRIPS), two of which actually predate the EU, and the other was not primarily pushed by it, which set strict rules on how "independent" parliaments can legislate. So not having the EU doesn't seem to have helped.

Chris2048 8y ago

Solve what problem? The problem of lobbies in general? No, it doesn't. The problem of EU lobbying, and inter-national divide-and-conquer? Yes, to some extent. Framing this as politician's fallacy, action for the sake of action, suggests that lobbying won't be worse in the EU than at a local level. In reality, it's easier to consolidate a smaller same-nation population, than multiple international ones. Just look at how stereotypes are used to discredit - lazy greeks, racist little-englanders etc.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 8y ago
That suggests further splitting up the UK would also improve the political situation; do you support such a proposal?
- Chris2048 8y ago
  Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament
  - icebraining 8y ago
    That's not exactly spliting up the UK.
    - Chris2048 8y ago
      Then you'd have to tell me what kind of action my comments imply. Opposing consolidation of power over multiple populations who can only oppose it in aggregate is what I imply is bad, and discord / lack of unity among those populations gives umbalanced influence to that unified central power.

sisu2019 8y ago

Local parliaments are closer and have more contact with their constituents so they'll automatically be more transparent and if my local government becomes unbearable I can move 200 KM and be free of it but if the EU becomes unbearable I have to move 2000+ KMs to a new continent.