5 ms·

Please explain how that makes the world worse. Everyone likes to rant about lobbyists and lobbying, which are strange names for something Thomas Jefferson chos

• irrational 3y ago
  Is gambling a grievance? There are lots of things the government rightly doesn’t let us do, or, strongly discourages us from doing, because they are bad for us. Of course, this is the same government that supports gambling in the form of the lottery, so clearly they don’t have people’s best interests in mind.
  • hammock 3y ago
    My uncle, who is disabled, made $10000 in Vegas last month. My second cousin won the lottery 7 years ago and bought emission-free vehicles for her entire family. Was gambling bad for them?
    • ajkjk 3y ago
      As you are no doubt aware, if you're evaluating if a thing is good or bad you have to consider its net effect, not a couple isolated examples. This is just a "smoking feels good and well I didn't get lung cancer" argument.
      • hammock 3y ago
        My uncle plays at the Mirage, so excess profits benefit a forgotten community (the Seminole tribe) that was historically and brutally marginalized by the privileged ‘society’ whose net effect you are considering. The lottery proceeds fund public schools.
        • WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
          > The lottery proceeds fund public schools. Because a corresponding amount of general budget funds were diverted away from schools, the inference is untrue.
          • hammock 3y ago
            Darn can’t get anything right. Just tell me who to vote for so I can get back to my shows
        • ajkjk 3y ago
          As with all things: if you ignore all the downsides, yes, the upsides look good.
        • plagiarist 3y ago
          The uncle that won $10,000? So that little tidbit wasn't good after all, he was stealing money from a historically marginalized community. And the lotto winner was similarly taking money from public schools.
    • evanriley 3y ago
      Someone in Las Vegas last month lost $10,000. For the last 7 years someone has religiously purchased lottery tickets, never winning. Was gambling good for them? See, we can all play this shit game.
    • triceratops 3y ago
      Yes. It taught them gambling pays, and makes them more likely to lose money in the future.
    • raincole 3y ago
      > Was gambling bad for them? Yes, without doubt. > who is disabled Even worse.
      • Ylpertnodi 3y ago
        How do you think it was bad for them, if you don't know them? And, why are disabled winners 'even worse'?
        • raincole 3y ago
          I notice another comment already explained, so I'll just borrow it: > It taught them gambling pays, and makes them more likely to lose money in the future. By definition gambling is losing money in long terms (otherwise it's investing, not gambling). A disabled is less likely to recover after a financial disaster.
          • aardshark 3y ago
            So if their net worth only goes up for the rest of their lives, you would consider them to have successfully invested, rather than gambled? Seems to me your definition is a bit lacking.
        • tourmalinetaco 3y ago
          Obviously because reinforcing what is most likely a psychological addiction is not a good thing, especially amongst a population who in other legal contexts cannot typically give informed consent? Frankly you come off as purposefully obtuse for the sake of arguing.
          • hammock 3y ago
            My uncle is a triple amputee war vet with a Stanford degree and I’m not sure how he would take to your removal of his agency via accusations of inability to consent or safely gamble
            • 3y ago
    • bezier-curve 3y ago
      Exceptions don't make it good for the majority of society. Those exceptions are also what keeps people hooked, chasing a carrot until their bank account is empty.
    • nicwolff 3y ago
      How much has your uncle lost gambling, in his life? How much has your cousin spent on lottery tickets, in her life?
• dimitrios1 3y ago
  There is a fundamental disconnect between people such as yourself, and the grievances about our broken system that we have today. I agree, in a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with the concept of lobbying. I would go out on a limb (well not quite a limb, I have family members that were lobbyists) and say the majority of lobbying that occurs in the US is actually good. But where it's bad, it's really bad. The loudest and most influential voices are the ones with the most money, and sometimes that's good, but a lot of times thats bad. They promise golden parachutes and shower politicians with money so much so that even if the politician gets burned, they are promised a career at the lobbying firm or with one of the "hookups". Again this is bad, because now instead of being accountable to the constituency, our politicians are accountable to their benefactors. There's a lot more reasons this is wrong, but this is the primary gist. I hope we can all agree this is an issue.
• jjoonathan 3y ago
  LOL, I'm sure Thomas Jefferson's redress of grievances was all about the bribes and grift required to legalize gambling.
• ajkjk 3y ago
  What do rights have to do with it? We'd prefer the world one way and one rich company would prefer it another way. Who wins? The rich company, turns out. These people -- the blogger, his friend, etc -- could easily 'exercise' their rights, as you say, in a good way, or a bad one. They choose a bad one, for greed. There's nothing better to dislike than "somebody did a bad thing on purpose."
• mandmandam 3y ago
  I think the reference to Jefferson, as if modern lobbying is a foundation of US Democracy, is extraordinarily distasteful. Here are some entire books written by people who studied this issue in great depth: "The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate" by Lee Drutman: In this book, Drutman explains how and why corporations became so invested in influencing politics, and what that means for the future of American democracy. "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It" by Lawrence Lessig: This book by a prominent legal scholar and activist provides a comprehensive analysis of the influence of money on politics and proposes innovative solutions for reform. "So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government" by Robert G. Kaiser: A detailed look at the rise of the lobbying industry in Washington and its impact on American democracy. This shit is killing people, no exaggeration. The rise in inequality over the last 50 years is rotting America's heart and soul out. US style lobbying is right at the center of it.
• rmilejczz 3y ago
  This is an extremely dishonest framing of modern lobbying practices
  • canoebuilder 3y ago
    In this case the “grievance“ being inability to operate a fundamentally exploitative and degenerate enterprise. Upon being redressed on such matters the proper response from a politician would be, gfy. Not, “well, just how much money do you plan to give me?“
    • NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      No, not the inability. Gambling prohibition never prevented gambling to any great degree (worse still, it definitely never prevented it for the people who have the most crippling gambling addictions). Gambling prohibition only prevents gambling regulation. You don't get to regulate illegal things. God save us from busybodies trying to protect us from ourselves.
      • canoebuilder 3y ago
        > Gambling prohibition never prevented gambling to any great degree You think there is no more gambling occurring in a world where you walk into a convenience store and there is a slot machine or whatever, or you watch a sporting event and 50% of the advertisements are for gambling, as opposed to a world where those things are not the case? > You don't get to regulate illegal things. Illegal things are regulated, these things are not allowed, do them and you will punished. The regulation is very clear. > God save us from busybodies trying to protect us from ourselves. I was once having a conversation with someone on this topic of gambling, and the problems it incurs to members of society, and by extension society as a whole. She had personal experience with a former spouse having a gambling problem. She said something to the effect of “Well yeah, it’s not good, but you can’t legislate morality.“ I kind of nodded in agreement like, yeah, fair point. But upon later reflection it occurred to me that what are laws if not the legislation of morality? That’s literally what laws are. Should we not bother being busybodies having laws preventing theft and murder? After all people still commit these acts should we not bother with regulations against them, attempting to protect people from themselves, and society from the negative downstream effects? Ah but you say, it’s a victimless act. Let people have their big gulps, let people gamble. It is a victimless act until it isn’t, like speeding or drunk driving. If a father downloads an app and blows through his families monthly resources with a few button presses that creates problems not just for him but the rest of his family and other people are going to have to pick up the slack. These ventures being allowed into the system of capital creates incentives for as much of these problems in society as possible from the perspective of the proprietors of these ventures in order for them to extract the most capital profits that they can. (“Capital profits” meaning profit in the most narrowly defined sense in terms of numbers in a database. Is someone involved in this stuff profiting in anyway spiritually or emotionally in the way that comes from providing something of value to society?) That is why it is de-generate. Nothing good is being created / generated. It’s an extractive, predatory venture. What is good for society? It used to be a chicken in every pot. Now a casino in every pocket? Come on….
• otikik 3y ago
  Lobbying (especially US-style lobbying) is a shortcut around democracy for the rich and powerful. People should be electing their representatives based on what they will do for them. Instead they choose who gets bought. As a result, I have one vote but Charlie McBucks Inc. has 10 million. > Is it that you don't bother to exercise those same rights yourself, It's a game only the extremely wealthy can play, and you can't lobby to abolish lobbying anyway.
  • sacrosancty 3y ago
    [dead]
• svnt 3y ago
  > they're better at it Is that what paying others to do something makes me? Better at it? So then it follows Stan Kroenke is the best multi-sport athlete the world has ever seen.
• feoren 3y ago
  > Is it that you just dislike it when other people exercise their rights? Is it that you don't bother to exercise those same rights yourself? Do you think this works as well when you replace "exercise one's rights" with "bribe politicians"? Let's see: "Is it that you just dislike it when other people bribe politicians? Is it that you don't bother to bribe politicians yourself?" Hmm, not as punchy. Another way to put it is: "what's wrong with rich people having orders of magnitude more power than you? Is it that you don't bother to already be rich?"
• hliyan 3y ago
  It is definitely not the same thing when money acts as a multiplier of "rights".