8 ms·

… or the lawmakers could (gasp!) do their damn jobs themselves and do their own research instead of relying on moneyed interests.

pasc1878 2y ago
No - the lawmaker is a generalist and does not understand fully the issues for a particular proposal so they need a brief preferably from both sides. For example could you suggest the correct law for dealing with the environmental impact of a new building? If not where would you get the information from? Lawmakers do not have time to become experts in everything they deal with.
- ftth_finland 2y ago
  Lawmakers being generalists does not preclude them commissioning their own research. Just being briefed on an issue from both sides isn’t sufficient, they could both be wrong.
  - digging 2y ago
    Unclear what exactly you're asking here. The critical point is that lawmakers must not be tasked with doing their own research manually. It's not biologically possible for a person to become an expert on every topic, and even experts disagree. A real improvement would be a better framework for soliciting expert opinions to avoid bias/corruption, but I don't know exactly what that would look like.
    - ftth_finland 2y ago
      There are entire government departments dedicated to statistics, research and analysis. How about lawmakers avail themselves to these services, instead of relying on moneyed interests?
  - parineum 2y ago
    > commissioning their own research. With what money?
    - ftth_finland 2y ago
      Are you suggesting that lawmakers who control the whole budget, legislative taxes and have entire government departments at their disposal are short on money?
      - parineum 2y ago
        Given the current budget deficit, yes. Moreover, should a lawmaker be able to spend as much money as they want on "research"? Oh hey, look at that, turns out this research firm that employs my son is the perfect firm for this topic!
        ftth_finland 2y ago
        Surely you must be joking? The government entity that makes all the laws and decides how the money is spent, can’t allocate funds for their core purpose? Individual lawmakers may not want to, but they can if they wish to. There are already government departments that can be used and believe it or not, there are actually people who can write public tenders without undue favoritism. A single lawmaker should obviously not have an unlimited budget, but the legislature as a whole should have access to sufficient funds to make laws fit for purpose.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Lawmakers have a staff and that can include domain experts in the areas they're involved in legislation, either permanent or contract or a staffer can consult with any non-commercial experts if they're stumped. This "they can't do it so they have to trust Comcast" is bullshit.
  - pasc1878 2y ago
    Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs.
  - pasc1878 2y ago
    Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs. Actually this is how most management decisions are made. Other people brief the decision maker and the decision maker then makes choices between the,m. The decision maker is only an expert in decision making and not necessarily the details. There will be exceptions for many readers of this board as the decision make acts more like a dictator as they are an expert in the necessary field.
legitster 2y ago
In the fisheries case, that would mean all the fish in North America would be dead. I'm not even joking. No senator is going to bother funding research for a fishery that is an afterthought in their district. A more pertinent example would be encryption. It is only through extensive industry lobbying that lawmakers have not mandated backdoors yet. Every single interest is moneyed. Ultimately it's still a democracy and the lawmaker's job is to get votes, not run a multi-discipline research team.
- ftth_finland 2y ago
  Perhaps politicians who do not understand a thing should not be allowed to make decisions about it?
  - legitster 2y ago
    Are you trolling or is this a serious position? Should we roll back every traffic law, consumer protection, safety standard, science funding, civic policing, or national defense law ever written?
    - ftth_finland 2y ago
      Don’t be silly, I never said anything about rolling back any laws. Please don’t try to put words into my mouth. Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters?
      - legitster 2y ago
        > Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters? Yes, all of the time. My entire life is making uninformed decisions. I am not a chef - I read reviews of restaurants. I am not a mechanic, I ask my mechanic for car advice. I am not a doctor, I pay them to tell me what's wrong and what treatments to take. Seeking out expertise is a paragon of making wise choices.

pasc1878 2y ago

No - the lawmaker is a generalist and does not understand fully the issues for a particular proposal so they need a brief preferably from both sides. For example could you suggest the correct law for dealing with the environmental impact of a new building? If not where would you get the information from? Lawmakers do not have time to become experts in everything they deal with.

ftth_finland 2y ago
Lawmakers being generalists does not preclude them commissioning their own research. Just being briefed on an issue from both sides isn’t sufficient, they could both be wrong.
- digging 2y ago
  Unclear what exactly you're asking here. The critical point is that lawmakers must not be tasked with doing their own research manually. It's not biologically possible for a person to become an expert on every topic, and even experts disagree. A real improvement would be a better framework for soliciting expert opinions to avoid bias/corruption, but I don't know exactly what that would look like.
  - ftth_finland 2y ago
    There are entire government departments dedicated to statistics, research and analysis. How about lawmakers avail themselves to these services, instead of relying on moneyed interests?
- parineum 2y ago
  > commissioning their own research. With what money?
  - ftth_finland 2y ago
    Are you suggesting that lawmakers who control the whole budget, legislative taxes and have entire government departments at their disposal are short on money?
    - parineum 2y ago
      Given the current budget deficit, yes. Moreover, should a lawmaker be able to spend as much money as they want on "research"? Oh hey, look at that, turns out this research firm that employs my son is the perfect firm for this topic!
      - ftth_finland 2y ago
        Surely you must be joking? The government entity that makes all the laws and decides how the money is spent, can’t allocate funds for their core purpose? Individual lawmakers may not want to, but they can if they wish to. There are already government departments that can be used and believe it or not, there are actually people who can write public tenders without undue favoritism. A single lawmaker should obviously not have an unlimited budget, but the legislature as a whole should have access to sufficient funds to make laws fit for purpose.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
asadotzler 2y ago
Lawmakers have a staff and that can include domain experts in the areas they're involved in legislation, either permanent or contract or a staffer can consult with any non-commercial experts if they're stumped. This "they can't do it so they have to trust Comcast" is bullshit.
- pasc1878 2y ago
  Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs.
- pasc1878 2y ago
  Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs. Actually this is how most management decisions are made. Other people brief the decision maker and the decision maker then makes choices between the,m. The decision maker is only an expert in decision making and not necessarily the details. There will be exceptions for many readers of this board as the decision make acts more like a dictator as they are an expert in the necessary field.

legitster 2y ago

In the fisheries case, that would mean all the fish in North America would be dead. I'm not even joking. No senator is going to bother funding research for a fishery that is an afterthought in their district. A more pertinent example would be encryption. It is only through extensive industry lobbying that lawmakers have not mandated backdoors yet. Every single interest is moneyed. Ultimately it's still a democracy and the lawmaker's job is to get votes, not run a multi-discipline research team.

ftth_finland 2y ago
Perhaps politicians who do not understand a thing should not be allowed to make decisions about it?
- legitster 2y ago
  Are you trolling or is this a serious position? Should we roll back every traffic law, consumer protection, safety standard, science funding, civic policing, or national defense law ever written?
  - ftth_finland 2y ago
    Don’t be silly, I never said anything about rolling back any laws. Please don’t try to put words into my mouth. Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters?
    - legitster 2y ago
      > Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters? Yes, all of the time. My entire life is making uninformed decisions. I am not a chef - I read reviews of restaurants. I am not a mechanic, I ask my mechanic for car advice. I am not a doctor, I pay them to tell me what's wrong and what treatments to take. Seeking out expertise is a paragon of making wise choices.