3 ms·

>a proper lobbyists should be speaking in their own interests, not necessarily as a paid actor for a corporation. Im very confused by this. What line are you d

>a proper lobbyists should be speaking in their own interests, not necessarily as a paid actor for a corporation. Im very confused by this. What line are you drawing between the interest of the lobbyist and that of the corporation? They are one and the same. The lobbyist is the representitive the the company or interest group. who is at risk of perversions? surely not the lobbyist? Im also not sure what you mean by forums. The place where the information is collected and sorter is the office and mind of the representative. Are you thinking that representative should all have to go through a 3rd party expert placed between them and their constituents? Who would pay this expert? If the politician pays them, what is the difference between using this third party and not? Is the idea that the expert (who has their own biases) would be be better suited to balance opinions?

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>What line are you drawing between the interest of the lobbyist and that of the corporation? They are one and the same. Financial incentive, basically. It's a blurry line but there's definitely a difference between a collective group of citizens demanding X law, and a person who's full time job is to coax a politican to make such a decision. Especially with today's workforce, most of us literally don't have time to do that. It's human nature to bond with someone you spend a lot of time talking to, so it's hard to define that line. But I don't think these "gift" policies are doing much to deter such attempts at neutrality. >who is at risk of perversions? surely not the lobbyist? The spirit of the law. The pitch for democracy is 'vote for what matters', but the grease of a few people with enough time on their hands can overwrite that. That should be corrected somehow. I'm not confident it will, but there should be more checks and balances against such workarounds. >Im also not sure what you mean by forums. The place where the information is collected and sorter is the office and mind of the representative. You said above earlier that they lack the time and expertise to be that office and mind, right? I'm just proposing a way to be informed without it mostly being influenced by corporations who can afford the time to The forum is merely an ideal. Something that still happens with town halls, but nowhere near as often as before (at least, not in my region). The rep themself may not have time to do this regularly, but an envoy can help collect such information. >Are you thinking that representative should all have to go through a 3rd party expert placed between them and their constituents If they can't physically do it themselves, there should be some alternatives. Not everything needs to be thoroughly fact checked (another ideal but overkill), and some is just opinion. But I'd hope there'd be some experts for stuff like tax reform (things people are biased against) or environment (things people simply may lack technical details for). And hopefully that economist isn't also biased for corporate tax cuts, nor environmentalist biased to keep petroleum flowing. That's part of why things slowed down. >Who would pay this expert? We already do? I'm sure the government has both available, entire administrations dedicated to some (hopefully they aren't shut down). If they aren't there, it'd be far from the worst use of a contractor/consultant I've seen. >Is the idea that the expert (who has their own biases) would be be better suited to balance opinions? Ideally, yes. You can't stop all biases, incompetencies, and corruption. But we can take baby steps.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>What line are you drawing between the interest of the lobbyist and that of the corporation? They are one and the same. Financial incentive, basically. It's a blurry line but there's definitely a difference between a collective group of citizens demanding X law, and a person who's full time job is to coax a politican to make such a decision. Especially with today's workforce, most of us literally don't have time to do that. It's human nature to bond with someone you spend a lot of time talking to, so it's hard to define that line. But I don't think these "gift" policies are doing much to deter such attempts at neutrality. >who is at risk of perversions? surely not the lobbyist? The spirit of the law. The pitch for democracy is 'vote for what matters', but the grease of a few people with enough time on their hands can overwrite that. That should be corrected somehow. I'm not confident it will, but there should be more checks and balances against such workarounds. >Im also not sure what you mean by forums. The place where the information is collected and sorter is the office and mind of the representative. You said above earlier that they lack the time and expertise to be that office and mind, right? I'm just proposing a way to be informed without it mostly being influenced by corporations who can afford the time to The forum is merely an ideal. Something that still happens with town halls, but nowhere near as often as before (at least, not in my region). The rep themself may not have time to do this regularly, but an envoy can help collect such information. >Are you thinking that representative should all have to go through a 3rd party expert placed between them and their constituents If they can't physically do it themselves, there should be some alternatives. Not everything needs to be thoroughly fact checked (another ideal but overkill), and some is just opinion. But I'd hope there'd be some experts for stuff like tax reform (things people are biased against) or environment (things people simply may lack technical details for). And hopefully that economist isn't also biased for corporate tax cuts, nor environmentalist biased to keep petroleum flowing. That's part of why things slowed down. >Who would pay this expert? We already do? I'm sure the government has both available, entire administrations dedicated to some (hopefully they aren't shut down). If they aren't there, it'd be far from the worst use of a contractor/consultant I've seen. >Is the idea that the expert (who has their own biases) would be be better suited to balance opinions? Ideally, yes. You can't stop all biases, incompetencies, and corruption. But we can take baby steps.