5 ms·

Having experts seems like a great idea, but then I worry that it basically means having multiple lobbyists on staff, with a desk right in the senator's office.

acdha 3y ago
I think that’s the opposite of how to think about it: groups with money are going to lobby no matter what, because there’s simply no way those groups won’t want to influence what’s happening. Budgeting to hire people who report to the congress person costs a little bit (by national government standards) upfront but it avoids all of those conflicts of interest and pushes things out of the shadows into the government hiring process where there’s more of a paper trail and basic conflict of interest rules.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  I'm all for more transparency and less conflict of interest. But what you're saying is we still need to trust the congress person, otherwise they can just hire a list of names provided by the lobbyists.
  - acdha 3y ago
    I’m saying that do this officially as a normal federal job would still be an improvement over them getting the same advice over drinks at the country club, and paying normal wages means non rich people can accept those jobs. Think about it this way: say you get your wish and we zero out the staff budget. The guys who were going to put their signature on the latest draft from ALEC are going to do it anyway because you don’t need advisors for that. The impact of not having those positions would fall on anyone who _isn’t_ just following the big lobbying groups - the staffers are the ones who are going to give them alternatives to consider and think about what they’re not hearing from the well-funded lobbying organizations.
godelski 3y ago
The aides aren't lobbiests though. Actually I think the problem is that many politicians are using lobbiests as substitutes for aides. The aides work directly for the senator and thus the state, not for a private organization. Think of it as the continued decentralization that democracies are. The point is to increase the number of keys to power because then it becomes difficult to amass enough keys. If the politician has more aides, sure they can be corrupted too. But now you would need to corrupt many aides as opposed to only the singular politician. You can't just bribe the politician as the aide would then be likely to whistleblow.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  I fully agree with your first paragraph, but I have too little trust and the system has too little transparency for me to buy the picture you paint in your second paragraph.
  - theygotit 3y ago
    [dead]
  - godelski 3y ago
    I think my sibling comment will help[0]. You're exactly right to not trust. Certainly that's not something I am suggesting. What I'm saying is that it is simply harder to corrupt multiple people than it is to corrupt a singular person. This does not mean they cannot be corrupted. We cannot confuse these concepts. But beyond the robustness that is created by distribution, I think there is a more practical aspect to this. The world is fucking complex and no singular person can be an expert in all or even many subjects. There simply isn't enough time to do this, not to mention each subject changes with time, so we'd have to do things in parallel. I'm not sure how to do that yet haha. So practically there is an advantage because you can out source this knowledge. Which this is happening regardless. The knowledge outsourcing is either implicit to the system or explicit. I firmly believe that if it is not explicit in the system then this only creates an environment that is more prone to corruption. While we're on the topic, I think we often make a mistake when choosing the president. Absolutely no singular person is qualified. I fear people who say __I__ will solve problems, people who talk in the first person. The truth is that the world is too complex. The president's two most important roles are: 1) to be a representative figure head, 2) create a effective group of experts and be able to process and balance their opinions on their niche expertise. Even autocracies are having difficulties operating in the modern world due to this rising complexity. So I personally don't want a strong leader so much as a leader who knows how to manage and delegate properly. But even that's a difficult task. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487580

acdha 3y ago

I think that’s the opposite of how to think about it: groups with money are going to lobby no matter what, because there’s simply no way those groups won’t want to influence what’s happening. Budgeting to hire people who report to the congress person costs a little bit (by national government standards) upfront but it avoids all of those conflicts of interest and pushes things out of the shadows into the government hiring process where there’s more of a paper trail and basic conflict of interest rules.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
I'm all for more transparency and less conflict of interest. But what you're saying is we still need to trust the congress person, otherwise they can just hire a list of names provided by the lobbyists.
- acdha 3y ago
  I’m saying that do this officially as a normal federal job would still be an improvement over them getting the same advice over drinks at the country club, and paying normal wages means non rich people can accept those jobs. Think about it this way: say you get your wish and we zero out the staff budget. The guys who were going to put their signature on the latest draft from ALEC are going to do it anyway because you don’t need advisors for that. The impact of not having those positions would fall on anyone who _isn’t_ just following the big lobbying groups - the staffers are the ones who are going to give them alternatives to consider and think about what they’re not hearing from the well-funded lobbying organizations.

godelski 3y ago

The aides aren't lobbiests though. Actually I think the problem is that many politicians are using lobbiests as substitutes for aides. The aides work directly for the senator and thus the state, not for a private organization. Think of it as the continued decentralization that democracies are. The point is to increase the number of keys to power because then it becomes difficult to amass enough keys. If the politician has more aides, sure they can be corrupted too. But now you would need to corrupt many aides as opposed to only the singular politician. You can't just bribe the politician as the aide would then be likely to whistleblow.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
I fully agree with your first paragraph, but I have too little trust and the system has too little transparency for me to buy the picture you paint in your second paragraph.
- theygotit 3y ago
  [dead]
- godelski 3y ago
  I think my sibling comment will help[0]. You're exactly right to not trust. Certainly that's not something I am suggesting. What I'm saying is that it is simply harder to corrupt multiple people than it is to corrupt a singular person. This does not mean they cannot be corrupted. We cannot confuse these concepts. But beyond the robustness that is created by distribution, I think there is a more practical aspect to this. The world is fucking complex and no singular person can be an expert in all or even many subjects. There simply isn't enough time to do this, not to mention each subject changes with time, so we'd have to do things in parallel. I'm not sure how to do that yet haha. So practically there is an advantage because you can out source this knowledge. Which this is happening regardless. The knowledge outsourcing is either implicit to the system or explicit. I firmly believe that if it is not explicit in the system then this only creates an environment that is more prone to corruption. While we're on the topic, I think we often make a mistake when choosing the president. Absolutely no singular person is qualified. I fear people who say __I__ will solve problems, people who talk in the first person. The truth is that the world is too complex. The president's two most important roles are: 1) to be a representative figure head, 2) create a effective group of experts and be able to process and balance their opinions on their niche expertise. Even autocracies are having difficulties operating in the modern world due to this rising complexity. So I personally don't want a strong leader so much as a leader who knows how to manage and delegate properly. But even that's a difficult task. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487580