4 ms·

No it's not a fact of life, it's a known quantity but not a fact and not life-related. And you can definitely ban it as well. It's not a requirement, and it's n

No it's not a fact of life, it's a known quantity but not a fact and not life-related. And you can definitely ban it as well. It's not a requirement, and it's not the best, only or 'current' way. It's just a weak side-effect of the status quo (yes, technically that means 'weak' and 'current' but that is besides the point).

chrisseaton 5y ago
> It's just a weak side-effect Isn't it literally a constitutional right? It's not a side-effect of anything - it's a right by itself.
- oneplane 5y ago
  Perhaps from a US-centric perspective. I don't know for a fact if a company or non-person is universally allowed to direct the facility that is the government to do something or not do something everywhere in the world.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Lobbying isn't directing the government. It's presenting your point of view to the government. What the government does with the information you give them is then up to them but sometimes they're obligated to show they've considered it. It's a super-basic part of democracy everywhere. It's usually a right and also actively encouraged through consultation periods while legislation is drafted. I can't understand anyone suggesting that we should not be allowed to present our opinions to the government. What are you in favour of? Just voting once every four years or so and never saying anything else the rest of the time? Bizarre.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > I can't understand anyone suggesting that we should not be allowed to present our opinions to the government. What are you in favour of? Just voting once every four years or so and never saying anything else the rest of the time? Bizarre. It's not the "saying anything else", it's the listening: Sure, anyone has the right to say anything they want. The difference is that the government doesn't listen to most people -- how could they? Where would they take the time to listen to everyone; when would they get anything else done? It's not as if there's any constitutional right to be heard -- but some people and organisations, they do somehow magically find the time to listen to. Pretending that this is just "a super-basic part of democracy everywhere" in stead of highly correlated with how much money the ones who get heard have contributed to the campaigns of the ones doing the sympathetic listening is disingenuous in the extreme.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      I think you have missed the point so many times it's hard to come up with a number... Intuit isn't a person, it didn't vote and it has no place telling the government what to do for the people. A company has no opinions, only a bottom line and in many lobbying cases a bunch a shareholders. A government isn't a company and doesn't need to have financial gain, it needs to support the collective people of the country it governs.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        What do you think is the difference between Intuit lobbying and a representative of Intuit lobbying? If the CEO of Intuit phones their representative and says they think some change to the tax code is bad that's lobbying and that's fine to me.
        NineStarPoint 5y ago
        The difference is that Intuit also throws money in directions that make sure they get heard. If the CEO of Intuit (or a representative of Intuit) just called the same phone line the rest of us get, sure there wouldn’t be a difference there. Even if the representatives were calling on Inuit from their side because they believed Intuit has relevant insights into the tax code, that would be fine. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s the way political donations buy access to representatives attention in ways that the non-rich don’t have access to that people take issue with.
        oneplane 5y ago
        It's not about what I "think" the difference is. The difference is, in fact, that a company is not a person. And a person doing something in the name of the company or as a representative of the company is not acting as a person either, but as an extension of the company. A company is essentially a sociopath that does not have to follow a social contract, has no limited lifespan, doesn't need to eat, sleep, have shelter, and doesn't feel pain or joy. All it does is extract as much value as possible, at any cost, including joy, safely and general lives of others. A government that panders to sociopathic wealth hoarders isn't a government, but just another company and the people in general are worse off for it.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> It's just a weak side-effect Isn't it literally a constitutional right? It's not a side-effect of anything - it's a right by itself.

oneplane 5y ago
Perhaps from a US-centric perspective. I don't know for a fact if a company or non-person is universally allowed to direct the facility that is the government to do something or not do something everywhere in the world.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Lobbying isn't directing the government. It's presenting your point of view to the government. What the government does with the information you give them is then up to them but sometimes they're obligated to show they've considered it. It's a super-basic part of democracy everywhere. It's usually a right and also actively encouraged through consultation periods while legislation is drafted. I can't understand anyone suggesting that we should not be allowed to present our opinions to the government. What are you in favour of? Just voting once every four years or so and never saying anything else the rest of the time? Bizarre.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I can't understand anyone suggesting that we should not be allowed to present our opinions to the government. What are you in favour of? Just voting once every four years or so and never saying anything else the rest of the time? Bizarre. It's not the "saying anything else", it's the listening: Sure, anyone has the right to say anything they want. The difference is that the government doesn't listen to most people -- how could they? Where would they take the time to listen to everyone; when would they get anything else done? It's not as if there's any constitutional right to be heard -- but some people and organisations, they do somehow magically find the time to listen to. Pretending that this is just "a super-basic part of democracy everywhere" in stead of highly correlated with how much money the ones who get heard have contributed to the campaigns of the ones doing the sympathetic listening is disingenuous in the extreme.
  - oneplane 5y ago
    I think you have missed the point so many times it's hard to come up with a number... Intuit isn't a person, it didn't vote and it has no place telling the government what to do for the people. A company has no opinions, only a bottom line and in many lobbying cases a bunch a shareholders. A government isn't a company and doesn't need to have financial gain, it needs to support the collective people of the country it governs.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      What do you think is the difference between Intuit lobbying and a representative of Intuit lobbying? If the CEO of Intuit phones their representative and says they think some change to the tax code is bad that's lobbying and that's fine to me.
      - NineStarPoint 5y ago
        The difference is that Intuit also throws money in directions that make sure they get heard. If the CEO of Intuit (or a representative of Intuit) just called the same phone line the rest of us get, sure there wouldn’t be a difference there. Even if the representatives were calling on Inuit from their side because they believed Intuit has relevant insights into the tax code, that would be fine. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s the way political donations buy access to representatives attention in ways that the non-rich don’t have access to that people take issue with.
      - oneplane 5y ago
        It's not about what I "think" the difference is. The difference is, in fact, that a company is not a person. And a person doing something in the name of the company or as a representative of the company is not acting as a person either, but as an extension of the company. A company is essentially a sociopath that does not have to follow a social contract, has no limited lifespan, doesn't need to eat, sleep, have shelter, and doesn't feel pain or joy. All it does is extract as much value as possible, at any cost, including joy, safely and general lives of others. A government that panders to sociopathic wealth hoarders isn't a government, but just another company and the people in general are worse off for it.