4 ms·

Comments like that suggest no such thing. There is plenty of middle ground, including restrictions on corporate election donations, and generally limiting corp

Comments like that suggest no such thing. There is plenty of middle ground, including restrictions on corporate election donations, and generally limiting corporate lobbyists access to our legislators.

WalterBright 5y ago
Again, you're saying government control won't have these problems. Socialist governments produced tremendous environmental problems because even though the government consisted solely of altruistic, self-sacrificing, dedicated, incorruptible administrators, the people still needed food, clothing, and washing machines. And the government would try to provide them, rather than face mass starvation.
- dmkolobov 5y ago
  No, I am not. I am saying corporate interests are not aligned with those of the people at large, they are aligned exclusively with those of their shareholders. I do not want my country’s laws to reflect a small group’s desires to make money.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    This completely overlooks the desires of the people that want the products the company provides at a reasonable price. This is not going away, regardless of how you structure things. People like to eat food and use washing machines. The notion that profit is the root of the problem is implying that removing the profit will resolve it. History shows that this never works. Socialism produces more environmental degradation, because it cannot produce things as efficiently as free market businesses can. So, to make up the gap, they pay little attention to the environment.
    - dmkolobov 5y ago
      I don’t know why you keep bringing up socialism. My point is that corporate lobbying and donations should be restricted, not that free market businesses shouldn’t exist. There is a broad, non-linear spectrum between socialism and unrestricted corporate influence on government.
      - mcguire 5y ago
        Because Walter doesn't see any difference between Stalin's Soviet Union and election regulations.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        You're never going to get money out of politics. Even in the Soviet Union. Do you really think the Soviet Union did not have endemic corruption in government? Here in Seattle, the Council created "democracy vouchers" paid by the taxpayer to give to the candidate of their choice. What it really is is the incumbents using taxpayer money to fund their campaigns. If you're not an incumbent, good luck getting any of those vouchers.
        dTal 5y ago
        >Do you really think the Soviet Union did not have endemic corruption in government? Literally no one thinks that or implied it in this conversation. What a non sequitur. I don't think you're even properly reading the comments you reply to.
        beerandt 5y ago
        Saying that "but for" corporate/capitalistic influence, government would be benevolent is very much implying that countries without capitalism shouldn't have corruption.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Who said that? There's a bunch of comments saying lobbying makes things worse than not having lobbying. I don't see the ones saying that's the only source of problems?
        Stupulous 5y ago
        I think the argument is that absent corporate lobbying, politicians can still be influenced. Something else will fill the position, and the total amount of influence over politicians not granted democratically will be unchanged. Maybe that's still through money, but taken as direct bribes under the table, or maybe it's populism, or something else entirely. I don't know if that's true. I also don't know if what replaced campaign contributions would be better or worse. I do know that lobbying is itself overstated. In 1999, the GDP was 10 trillion. 3 billion, or 0.03%, of that went into politics, mostly from individual donors rather than companies [1]. If lobbying were an effective way to buy political influence, more companies would shell out. Maybe it's already happening under the table, though. [1][pdf] http://www.nber.org/papers/w9409.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w9409.pdf
- dmkolobov 5y ago
  And speaking from a Russian perspective, your assertion that anyone in the USSR viewed their officials as self-sacrificing and altruistic is quite frankly hilarious.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    I have friends who grew up in the Soviet bloc. I once witnessed a hilarious conversation between one of them and another friend who was a committed socialist (I don't de-friend people because of their politics). My socialist friend would say "X under socialism would be better". The other would say "I lived under socialism, and here's how and why X was worse." Socialist would say "but that won't happen under socialism". The other would say "you have zero experience with this, I lived under it. You have no idea what you are talking about." The back and forth like this would go on for a while.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Clearly, there's nothing to be done. Thoughts and prayers, ivory-billed woodpecker, thoughts and prayers.
- bumby 5y ago
  I don't understand why this is portrayed as some sort of false dichotomy. There can be government regulation without reverting to socialism. There can also be systems of checks and balances to both the ills of unfettered free-market economics and government power structures.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Because the argument isn't for regulation, it's against lobbying and it's against having a government that's influenced by corporatism/ capitalism (because that's largely what lobbying is). Which pretty clearly makes the alternative socialism / communism, depending on how you want to define them.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Ok, I was reading that the alternative to current lobbying was to regulate the practice. How are you interpreting the "against lobbying" side of the argument? Lobbying is about the right to petition the government; I don't see the direct line to socialism/communism, which is generally more concerned with the means of production. I don't think there is "clearly" a connection but rather one used to shoehorn a divisive and emotional topic.
- scythe 5y ago
  It's ironic that in tarring all forms of "government" with the same brush, conservatives who lackadaisically compare the actions of multi-party democratic governments to those of single-party states minimize the importance of what was probably the most important structural difference between the Eastern Bloc and Western democracies. Eisenhower would be horrified.

WalterBright 5y ago

Again, you're saying government control won't have these problems. Socialist governments produced tremendous environmental problems because even though the government consisted solely of altruistic, self-sacrificing, dedicated, incorruptible administrators, the people still needed food, clothing, and washing machines. And the government would try to provide them, rather than face mass starvation.

dmkolobov 5y ago
No, I am not. I am saying corporate interests are not aligned with those of the people at large, they are aligned exclusively with those of their shareholders. I do not want my country’s laws to reflect a small group’s desires to make money.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  This completely overlooks the desires of the people that want the products the company provides at a reasonable price. This is not going away, regardless of how you structure things. People like to eat food and use washing machines. The notion that profit is the root of the problem is implying that removing the profit will resolve it. History shows that this never works. Socialism produces more environmental degradation, because it cannot produce things as efficiently as free market businesses can. So, to make up the gap, they pay little attention to the environment.
  - dmkolobov 5y ago
    I don’t know why you keep bringing up socialism. My point is that corporate lobbying and donations should be restricted, not that free market businesses shouldn’t exist. There is a broad, non-linear spectrum between socialism and unrestricted corporate influence on government.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Because Walter doesn't see any difference between Stalin's Soviet Union and election regulations.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        You're never going to get money out of politics. Even in the Soviet Union. Do you really think the Soviet Union did not have endemic corruption in government? Here in Seattle, the Council created "democracy vouchers" paid by the taxpayer to give to the candidate of their choice. What it really is is the incumbents using taxpayer money to fund their campaigns. If you're not an incumbent, good luck getting any of those vouchers.
        dTal 5y ago
        >Do you really think the Soviet Union did not have endemic corruption in government? Literally no one thinks that or implied it in this conversation. What a non sequitur. I don't think you're even properly reading the comments you reply to.
        beerandt 5y ago
        Saying that "but for" corporate/capitalistic influence, government would be benevolent is very much implying that countries without capitalism shouldn't have corruption.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Who said that? There's a bunch of comments saying lobbying makes things worse than not having lobbying. I don't see the ones saying that's the only source of problems?
        Stupulous 5y ago
        I think the argument is that absent corporate lobbying, politicians can still be influenced. Something else will fill the position, and the total amount of influence over politicians not granted democratically will be unchanged. Maybe that's still through money, but taken as direct bribes under the table, or maybe it's populism, or something else entirely. I don't know if that's true. I also don't know if what replaced campaign contributions would be better or worse. I do know that lobbying is itself overstated. In 1999, the GDP was 10 trillion. 3 billion, or 0.03%, of that went into politics, mostly from individual donors rather than companies [1]. If lobbying were an effective way to buy political influence, more companies would shell out. Maybe it's already happening under the table, though. [1][pdf] http://www.nber.org/papers/w9409.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w9409.pdf
dmkolobov 5y ago
And speaking from a Russian perspective, your assertion that anyone in the USSR viewed their officials as self-sacrificing and altruistic is quite frankly hilarious.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I have friends who grew up in the Soviet bloc. I once witnessed a hilarious conversation between one of them and another friend who was a committed socialist (I don't de-friend people because of their politics). My socialist friend would say "X under socialism would be better". The other would say "I lived under socialism, and here's how and why X was worse." Socialist would say "but that won't happen under socialism". The other would say "you have zero experience with this, I lived under it. You have no idea what you are talking about." The back and forth like this would go on for a while.
mcguire 5y ago
Clearly, there's nothing to be done. Thoughts and prayers, ivory-billed woodpecker, thoughts and prayers.
bumby 5y ago
I don't understand why this is portrayed as some sort of false dichotomy. There can be government regulation without reverting to socialism. There can also be systems of checks and balances to both the ills of unfettered free-market economics and government power structures.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Because the argument isn't for regulation, it's against lobbying and it's against having a government that's influenced by corporatism/ capitalism (because that's largely what lobbying is). Which pretty clearly makes the alternative socialism / communism, depending on how you want to define them.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Ok, I was reading that the alternative to current lobbying was to regulate the practice. How are you interpreting the "against lobbying" side of the argument? Lobbying is about the right to petition the government; I don't see the direct line to socialism/communism, which is generally more concerned with the means of production. I don't think there is "clearly" a connection but rather one used to shoehorn a divisive and emotional topic.
scythe 5y ago
It's ironic that in tarring all forms of "government" with the same brush, conservatives who lackadaisically compare the actions of multi-party democratic governments to those of single-party states minimize the importance of what was probably the most important structural difference between the Eastern Bloc and Western democracies. Eisenhower would be horrified.