3 ms·

Also health insurance companies lobbying against single-payer healthcare. Also telecoms lobbying against municipal broadband. Also banks and investors lobbyin

Also health insurance companies lobbying against single-payer healthcare. Also telecoms lobbying against municipal broadband. Also banks and investors lobbying against regulation and oversight. Also firearms manufacturers lobbying against control amidst an epidemic of suicides and other gun-based violence. This seems to be a trend.

doubt_me 3y ago
[dead]
Spivak 3y ago
People who run businesses being opposed to government coming in and messing with them is a trend in the way that firefighters being found near fires is a trend. I guarantee you won't be happy the first time something you've been doing for 20 years (like cooking on a ventilated gas range, smoking menthols, using a leaf blower, not using afci outlets) is suddenly declared illegal and you have to switch at your own expense and to something worse for no gain. Like what do you expect someone's reaction to be? "Thank you Mr. Government for completely erasing my market by providing the goods/services I sell to people for 'free' but paid with tax dollars which I can't possibly compete with." It doesn't mean that you shouldn't make the law or that it's not a net good for society but people will be pissed, they will push back any way they can, and will be right to do it.
- Infinitesimus 3y ago
  I think it's not as clear cut as it sounds regarding "they will be right to do it". That depends on reference frame. Sure, the tobacco industry is "right" from the angle of their personal riches to push something that has cost millions of lives and fight government resistance. Same for oil companies, plastics, some parts of pharma, etc. From the reference frame of society, which the government represents (ideally), they are in the wrong to sell put millions of people for their own gains and what you'd want a representative government to do is help society's interests and adjust as the world evolves. In this case, the reason for making people spend hours of their lives, untold amounts of stress and billions of dollars is so some people can: 1. Make money, and 2. Fulfill a personal political philosophy Maybe it's okay if governments tip the scales in favor of the masses here...
- underlipton 3y ago
  I'm a black Millennial. I've never had the luxury of thinking of "the government (or private entities, for that matter) rolling in to disrupt my life with new policy" as an avoidable nuisance. I didn't have to wait 20 years to learn that someone is always under the steamroller. Rather, I take a, "What's good for the goose," outlook: hopefully the workers who built their upper middle-class lifestyles off of the unsustainable suffering of others were responsible enough to put money away for a revolt-y day, in the same way people displaced by economic necessity/gentrification/urban renewal/threats of violence were expected to pick up the pieces of their lives and compete, compete, compete against countrymen with generations of relative stability. It's also quite different when you're talking about unorganized individuals and families versus powerful lobbies backed by wealthy corporations. This is the important part: the latter can use that influence to push laws that AREN'T a net good for society. Both pragmatically and morally, we should have a problem with that. And we also have precedence for, "A corporation/industry that abuses its power doesn't necessarily HAVE to exist, going forward."
Clubber 3y ago
>Also firearms manufacturers lobbying against control amidst an epidemic of suicides and other gun-based violence. They do that, but the largest power block of the 2A is voters.

doubt_me 3y ago

[dead]

Spivak 3y ago

People who run businesses being opposed to government coming in and messing with them is a trend in the way that firefighters being found near fires is a trend. I guarantee you won't be happy the first time something you've been doing for 20 years (like cooking on a ventilated gas range, smoking menthols, using a leaf blower, not using afci outlets) is suddenly declared illegal and you have to switch at your own expense and to something worse for no gain. Like what do you expect someone's reaction to be? "Thank you Mr. Government for completely erasing my market by providing the goods/services I sell to people for 'free' but paid with tax dollars which I can't possibly compete with." It doesn't mean that you shouldn't make the law or that it's not a net good for society but people will be pissed, they will push back any way they can, and will be right to do it.

Infinitesimus 3y ago
I think it's not as clear cut as it sounds regarding "they will be right to do it". That depends on reference frame. Sure, the tobacco industry is "right" from the angle of their personal riches to push something that has cost millions of lives and fight government resistance. Same for oil companies, plastics, some parts of pharma, etc. From the reference frame of society, which the government represents (ideally), they are in the wrong to sell put millions of people for their own gains and what you'd want a representative government to do is help society's interests and adjust as the world evolves. In this case, the reason for making people spend hours of their lives, untold amounts of stress and billions of dollars is so some people can: 1. Make money, and 2. Fulfill a personal political philosophy Maybe it's okay if governments tip the scales in favor of the masses here...
underlipton 3y ago
I'm a black Millennial. I've never had the luxury of thinking of "the government (or private entities, for that matter) rolling in to disrupt my life with new policy" as an avoidable nuisance. I didn't have to wait 20 years to learn that someone is always under the steamroller. Rather, I take a, "What's good for the goose," outlook: hopefully the workers who built their upper middle-class lifestyles off of the unsustainable suffering of others were responsible enough to put money away for a revolt-y day, in the same way people displaced by economic necessity/gentrification/urban renewal/threats of violence were expected to pick up the pieces of their lives and compete, compete, compete against countrymen with generations of relative stability. It's also quite different when you're talking about unorganized individuals and families versus powerful lobbies backed by wealthy corporations. This is the important part: the latter can use that influence to push laws that AREN'T a net good for society. Both pragmatically and morally, we should have a problem with that. And we also have precedence for, "A corporation/industry that abuses its power doesn't necessarily HAVE to exist, going forward."

Clubber 3y ago

>Also firearms manufacturers lobbying against control amidst an epidemic of suicides and other gun-based violence. They do that, but the largest power block of the 2A is voters.