4 ms·

Because there is no real difference between lobbying and bribing. And I think a lot of us have a problem with companies bribing politicians to get laws passed;

Because there is no real difference between lobbying and bribing. And I think a lot of us have a problem with companies bribing politicians to get laws passed; especially companies that have enough money to bribe <the number of politicians needed to pass the law regardless of what anyone thinks about it> of them.

SllX 6y ago
I question your premise that lobbying = bribery, but let’s let it stand unchallenged because it’s irrelevant here. If Google, Apple and Microsoft are all competing with each other and also doing business with each other in different markets, and they’re also all lobbying legislators, whose metaphorical bag of money is the winner and gets all of their hopes and dreams fulfilled when Congress starts meddling?
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > [who] gets all of their hopes and dreams fulfilled Well, not the citizens of the country, which is kind of the point.
  - SllX 6y ago
    What, the Americans working at Apple and Google and Microsoft and own stock in them suddenly aren’t citizens? What about the Board of Directors at each of them? Legislative bodies is where politics is supposed to happen, and legislators don’t live in a vacuum. We don’t elect them and send them up to the top of an ivory tower for two years to philosophize about policy with the occasional edict sent down. So how do legislators know what kinds of policies people actually want when there’s about 700K people in their districts (and 39M constituents if you’re a California Senator) unless people show up and say, “Hey, this is what I want from you, this is why I elected you.” You get a mixed bag because legislatures are a mixed bag representing a larger mixed bag, and sorry, newspaper polls aren’t a good stand in for showing up and putting your name down for consideration. Your interests as a citizen are not identical to the other 699,999ish of your neighbors, and the guy or gal representing you is just one person of a larger body.
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      But it should at least be a toss up between 1. What does the politician think is best for the people he represents 2. What the people he represents think is best for themselves 3. What is actually best for the people he represents Whereas it appears to be 1. What will get the politician re-elect (party line + avoiding even addressing any topics that will upset their base) 2. What will make the politician the most money (lobbying/bribes) It doesn't seem like "what's best for the people the politician represents" even comes into the discussion a lot of the time. ^ Bear in mind, I know there are good politicians. However, just like in the rest of life, it's the bad ones that _tend_ to succeed, the ones that don't care who they hurt.
      - SllX 6y ago
        You’re getting into inventing better people territory, politicians and constituents both. And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics, which involves a lot of talking, a lot of positioning, a lot of negotiating, and a lot of communication with their constituents (whether you’re paying attention or not, a disturbing trend recently has seen Congressmen downsizing or not investing in their policy shops in favor of investing more in their constituent services). The people they’re going to be negotiating with are the ones that show up, not the ones making wishes on a falling star on the other side of the country while scrolling their phone till death do they part.
        RHSeeger 6y ago
        > And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. > Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work.

SllX 6y ago

I question your premise that lobbying = bribery, but let’s let it stand unchallenged because it’s irrelevant here. If Google, Apple and Microsoft are all competing with each other and also doing business with each other in different markets, and they’re also all lobbying legislators, whose metaphorical bag of money is the winner and gets all of their hopes and dreams fulfilled when Congress starts meddling?

dane-pgp 6y ago
> [who] gets all of their hopes and dreams fulfilled Well, not the citizens of the country, which is kind of the point.
- SllX 6y ago
  What, the Americans working at Apple and Google and Microsoft and own stock in them suddenly aren’t citizens? What about the Board of Directors at each of them? Legislative bodies is where politics is supposed to happen, and legislators don’t live in a vacuum. We don’t elect them and send them up to the top of an ivory tower for two years to philosophize about policy with the occasional edict sent down. So how do legislators know what kinds of policies people actually want when there’s about 700K people in their districts (and 39M constituents if you’re a California Senator) unless people show up and say, “Hey, this is what I want from you, this is why I elected you.” You get a mixed bag because legislatures are a mixed bag representing a larger mixed bag, and sorry, newspaper polls aren’t a good stand in for showing up and putting your name down for consideration. Your interests as a citizen are not identical to the other 699,999ish of your neighbors, and the guy or gal representing you is just one person of a larger body.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    But it should at least be a toss up between 1. What does the politician think is best for the people he represents 2. What the people he represents think is best for themselves 3. What is actually best for the people he represents Whereas it appears to be 1. What will get the politician re-elect (party line + avoiding even addressing any topics that will upset their base) 2. What will make the politician the most money (lobbying/bribes) It doesn't seem like "what's best for the people the politician represents" even comes into the discussion a lot of the time. ^ Bear in mind, I know there are good politicians. However, just like in the rest of life, it's the bad ones that _tend_ to succeed, the ones that don't care who they hurt.
    - SllX 6y ago
      You’re getting into inventing better people territory, politicians and constituents both. And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics, which involves a lot of talking, a lot of positioning, a lot of negotiating, and a lot of communication with their constituents (whether you’re paying attention or not, a disturbing trend recently has seen Congressmen downsizing or not investing in their policy shops in favor of investing more in their constituent services). The people they’re going to be negotiating with are the ones that show up, not the ones making wishes on a falling star on the other side of the country while scrolling their phone till death do they part.
      - RHSeeger 6y ago
        > And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. > Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work.