4 ms·

Whenever this kind of leaks appears, some minority of people get outraged for a few days, and it ends like that. For a change, I'd like to finally see some con

Whenever this kind of leaks appears, some minority of people get outraged for a few days, and it ends like that. For a change, I'd like to finally see some consequences for such behaviour. Some action to actually limit influence of lobbying from big corporations. But honestly, I just don't see this happening, as long as some distant government is allowed to take important decisions on its own. Maybe the only balance against lobbying would be if more countries had some form of Swiss-like direct democracy. Not perfect, since people can also be influenced through various means, but it's much harder to "lobby" people to vote for something that is not in their interest that to "lobby" a group of politicians that don't care about people.

nszceta 5y ago
Nothing will change in government long term until one or more of the following conditions are met: - talking heads on television stop telling people how to rationalize their diminished standard of living (resentment of the status quo will grow when people start to think independently) - fuel shortages (massive disruption to lifestyle) - electricity shortages causing blackouts or brownouts (massive disruption to lifestyle, damage to expensive household appliances) - food shortages Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure?
- handrous 5y ago
  > I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Eh, it's probably part of what it's intended for, but private ownership of small arms is, at best, a minor factor in whether revolutions succeed. Having the majority of your own, or a foreign, military on your side, is much more important. Or, if your military sits it out, widespread private ownership of small arms isn't really that big a factor anyway. ... now, if you're an unpopular faction trying to take over, and the military sits it out, that's another matter. Then having guns is very useful. Or if you're trying to destabilize things with guerrilla tactics and terrorism so the government becomes unpopular and successful revolution is feasible. TL;DR: "We need guns to protect us from tyranny" is a well-loved, but poorly-justified, case for the second amendment. > Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. Relative deprivation drives revolt. Guarantee every Somali exactly $2,500—no more, no less—a year and 99.99% of the population will deify you. Do the same in the US—let's say it's even PPP adjusted—and you'll be dead inside a month, and they may make a national holiday to celebrate the wonderful event that was your assassination. I suppose very very slow changes might not have this effect, but I don't think the effects of climate change will be that slow. > Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure? The "American revolution" itself was arguably better called a "war for independence" precisely because it had little effect on who was on top in American society—so, given that heritage, I'm going with "no, definitely not".
  - nszceta 5y ago
    That's an excellent point and I forgot about the role of military faction support plus civilian looting of military arms caches and theft of military vehicles in many revolutions. I agree that the war for independence should not be called a revolutionary war for the reasons you stated. A revolutionary war has not happened yet in North America. > it had little effect on who was on top in American society I'm not sure what this means
    - handrous 5y ago
      > > it had little effect on who was on top in American society > I'm not sure what this means Rich, politically-influential leaders before the war were largely still rich, politically-influential leaders afterward. The colonies became independent, but, aside from those who resisted independence (and hell, even some of those), colonial leaders stayed on top. The Constitution itself [edit: and, even more so, the Articles before it] was structured in support of preserving that order, even. The injustice the war sought to remedy was remote rule by fiat, not, to a substantial degree, the social or political order of the colonies themselves. This is not, however, to say that the development of a large, democratic nation-state was not significant—but a revolution of social & political power structures in the Americas, it was not. It'd be like if the French Revolution had skipped the beheadings and property-seizures and rolled directly into having a governing body comprising almost entirely high-level aristocrats, based on a constitution protecting aristocratic interests, with the king continuing to enjoy all his land and maybe a couple of his sons serving at the highest level of government a few years later—we'd scratch our heads in puzzlement at anyone calling that a revolution, unless maybe a failed one. A re-organization or, if you like, evolution, of government, sure, but not much of a revolution.
    - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
      > A revolutionary war has not happened yet in North America. Maybe not in the USA or Canada, but I'm pretty sure that Mexican Revolution [1] qualifies as a "proper" revolution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution
relax88 5y ago
As a foreign onlooker to American politics, it seems to me is what is required is a new movement to free the US government from the influence of corporate donations. Politicians will never care about the people while their wallets are being stuffed by PACs. A huge number of the problems facing America (and other nations) could be better addressed if the political class was less disconnected from the average voter.
- Bhilai 5y ago
  As a recently naturalized US citizen, I have the same observations about American politics. Both the parties enjoy the benefits of lobbyist and PAC donations when they are in power and thus no one wants to do anything about. Gun control - no action, climate change - no action, infrastructure - no action... list goes on. As if the only goal of the party in opposition is to obstruct progress at any cost.
- guntars 5y ago
  Donate to the Wolf PAC or a similar organization. Politicians can be lobbied to do anything, even pass reasonable laws that most people are in favor of.
oblio 5y ago
Soul searching only happens after a soul searching starting event. The last one that happened in the US was the Great Depression. The one before that was the American Civil War. Both the Global Financial Crisis and Covid-19 haven't been soul searching starting events.
criddell 5y ago
> but it's much harder to "lobby" people to vote for something that is not in their interest I don't think that's necessarily true. In the US look at how many relatively poor states consistently vote for right wing parties when they would likely get better healthcare, education, jobs training, and other social assistance programs under a more left leaning party.
- cmxch 5y ago
  Evidence says otherwise with respect to retraining and education. Healthcare quality differences are also questionable. Retraining schemes have been less effective than random chance - with the least success going to long-term SSDI recipients in Appalachian states (~12% in WV). You would have more success with paying them off to live as they see fit. As for education, that is a big mess that can't be easily quantified in the favor of the left. Homeschooling and private education have provided effective competition to government run education. As for healthcare, the US model has attracted people from European model systems. If the US model wasn't so good, people wouldn't travel there (especially from the UK and Canada). These so called "poor states" vote for right wing individuals for good reasons. The lights stay on, jobs largely stay or grow, and individuals can live a largely unobstructed life.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
It's the organised influencing that's pernicious. The lobbying is just the overt form. For every pro-climate-catastrophe fake 'citizen's group' there are ten or hundred similar groups influencing public opinion on questions of party support and policy platform. These groups directly act on voters, not on politicians. Some operate overtly through the media, many do it less overtly through think tanks and policy foundations, but even more do it covertly through fake citizen's groups. Currently many operate through troll and fake account posts online. The business of influencing is like an iceberg. Overt lobbying of politicians is the most visible part. Even if you could somehow get rid of that, the much bigger danger under the surface will still sink you.

nszceta 5y ago

Nothing will change in government long term until one or more of the following conditions are met: - talking heads on television stop telling people how to rationalize their diminished standard of living (resentment of the status quo will grow when people start to think independently) - fuel shortages (massive disruption to lifestyle) - electricity shortages causing blackouts or brownouts (massive disruption to lifestyle, damage to expensive household appliances) - food shortages Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure?

handrous 5y ago
> I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Eh, it's probably part of what it's intended for, but private ownership of small arms is, at best, a minor factor in whether revolutions succeed. Having the majority of your own, or a foreign, military on your side, is much more important. Or, if your military sits it out, widespread private ownership of small arms isn't really that big a factor anyway. ... now, if you're an unpopular faction trying to take over, and the military sits it out, that's another matter. Then having guns is very useful. Or if you're trying to destabilize things with guerrilla tactics and terrorism so the government becomes unpopular and successful revolution is feasible. TL;DR: "We need guns to protect us from tyranny" is a well-loved, but poorly-justified, case for the second amendment. > Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. Relative deprivation drives revolt. Guarantee every Somali exactly $2,500—no more, no less—a year and 99.99% of the population will deify you. Do the same in the US—let's say it's even PPP adjusted—and you'll be dead inside a month, and they may make a national holiday to celebrate the wonderful event that was your assassination. I suppose very very slow changes might not have this effect, but I don't think the effects of climate change will be that slow. > Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure? The "American revolution" itself was arguably better called a "war for independence" precisely because it had little effect on who was on top in American society—so, given that heritage, I'm going with "no, definitely not".
- nszceta 5y ago
  That's an excellent point and I forgot about the role of military faction support plus civilian looting of military arms caches and theft of military vehicles in many revolutions. I agree that the war for independence should not be called a revolutionary war for the reasons you stated. A revolutionary war has not happened yet in North America. > it had little effect on who was on top in American society I'm not sure what this means
  - handrous 5y ago
    > > it had little effect on who was on top in American society > I'm not sure what this means Rich, politically-influential leaders before the war were largely still rich, politically-influential leaders afterward. The colonies became independent, but, aside from those who resisted independence (and hell, even some of those), colonial leaders stayed on top. The Constitution itself [edit: and, even more so, the Articles before it] was structured in support of preserving that order, even. The injustice the war sought to remedy was remote rule by fiat, not, to a substantial degree, the social or political order of the colonies themselves. This is not, however, to say that the development of a large, democratic nation-state was not significant—but a revolution of social & political power structures in the Americas, it was not. It'd be like if the French Revolution had skipped the beheadings and property-seizures and rolled directly into having a governing body comprising almost entirely high-level aristocrats, based on a constitution protecting aristocratic interests, with the king continuing to enjoy all his land and maybe a couple of his sons serving at the highest level of government a few years later—we'd scratch our heads in puzzlement at anyone calling that a revolution, unless maybe a failed one. A re-organization or, if you like, evolution, of government, sure, but not much of a revolution.
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    > A revolutionary war has not happened yet in North America. Maybe not in the USA or Canada, but I'm pretty sure that Mexican Revolution [1] qualifies as a "proper" revolution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution

relax88 5y ago

As a foreign onlooker to American politics, it seems to me is what is required is a new movement to free the US government from the influence of corporate donations. Politicians will never care about the people while their wallets are being stuffed by PACs. A huge number of the problems facing America (and other nations) could be better addressed if the political class was less disconnected from the average voter.

Bhilai 5y ago
As a recently naturalized US citizen, I have the same observations about American politics. Both the parties enjoy the benefits of lobbyist and PAC donations when they are in power and thus no one wants to do anything about. Gun control - no action, climate change - no action, infrastructure - no action... list goes on. As if the only goal of the party in opposition is to obstruct progress at any cost.
guntars 5y ago
Donate to the Wolf PAC or a similar organization. Politicians can be lobbied to do anything, even pass reasonable laws that most people are in favor of.

oblio 5y ago

Soul searching only happens after a soul searching starting event. The last one that happened in the US was the Great Depression. The one before that was the American Civil War. Both the Global Financial Crisis and Covid-19 haven't been soul searching starting events.

criddell 5y ago

> but it's much harder to "lobby" people to vote for something that is not in their interest I don't think that's necessarily true. In the US look at how many relatively poor states consistently vote for right wing parties when they would likely get better healthcare, education, jobs training, and other social assistance programs under a more left leaning party.

cmxch 5y ago
Evidence says otherwise with respect to retraining and education. Healthcare quality differences are also questionable. Retraining schemes have been less effective than random chance - with the least success going to long-term SSDI recipients in Appalachian states (~12% in WV). You would have more success with paying them off to live as they see fit. As for education, that is a big mess that can't be easily quantified in the favor of the left. Homeschooling and private education have provided effective competition to government run education. As for healthcare, the US model has attracted people from European model systems. If the US model wasn't so good, people wouldn't travel there (especially from the UK and Canada). These so called "poor states" vote for right wing individuals for good reasons. The lights stay on, jobs largely stay or grow, and individuals can live a largely unobstructed life.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

It's the organised influencing that's pernicious. The lobbying is just the overt form. For every pro-climate-catastrophe fake 'citizen's group' there are ten or hundred similar groups influencing public opinion on questions of party support and policy platform. These groups directly act on voters, not on politicians. Some operate overtly through the media, many do it less overtly through think tanks and policy foundations, but even more do it covertly through fake citizen's groups. Currently many operate through troll and fake account posts online. The business of influencing is like an iceberg. Overt lobbying of politicians is the most visible part. Even if you could somehow get rid of that, the much bigger danger under the surface will still sink you.