> That's probably not the best thing to model your position off of, considering that was replaced with the Miller test in 1973, and he regrets saying it. OK th

> That's probably not the best thing to model your position off of, considering that was replaced with the Miller test in 1973, and he regrets saying it. OK then, _you_ define exploitation. And if you bust out the dictionary, "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work," then I request that you define unfair. That's the problem – this is all highly subjective, and it's unlikely that we're going to agree. > That's a subset of "lobbying" though. Recall my claim isn't that lobbying involves no collusion, it's that lobbying could involve no collusion. Sure, and ISPs could treat customers better, but they're not going to. Lobbying as the U.S. has it is essentially all a form of collusion and/or bribery. Donate $10K to my campaign fund, and maybe your desired verbiage winds up in the bill. Treat my industry how we'd like, and there's a sweet post-government job waiting for you on K Street. I don't deny that the ability for a person to go lobby their representatives is a critical part of a functional democratic republic. And, it makes sense to have a centralized voice – for example, it wouldn't be efficient for every single farmer to go speak to their reps independently. But at some point along the line, it stops being actual people discussing their issues with their elected officials, and becomes corporations showering government in money to buy the future they want.