3 ms·

Lawmakers being generalists does not preclude them commissioning their own research. Just being briefed on an issue from both sides isn’t sufficient, they coul

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.

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.