4 ms·

Money distorts the system in some ways and I agree that’s a problem that could use systemic mitigation (farther back than Citizen’s United probably, Buckley vs

Money distorts the system in some ways and I agree that’s a problem that could use systemic mitigation (farther back than Citizen’s United probably, Buckley vs Valeo is arguably the deeper roots). But ultimately, money doesn’t remove the fundamental electoral mechanisms (yet) or opportunity for volunteer direct lobbying. It primarily distorts to the degree that it can be used to buy the focus of the electorate and to the degree it can be used to buy other people’s lobbying time. People could spend their time managing their own political /public policy focus and volunteer lobbying instead of any other leisure activities. I’ve done it and I know others who do. Most Americans don’t, and that’s a revealed preference. Other leisure activities are more important.

Grombobulous 3mo ago
The process of lobbying Congress involves physically showing up to the congressional offices in Washington DC, meeting with congressional staff, and often submitting draft legislation, which essentially requires a law degree to have the technical ability to write something of that sort. Walmart is the largest private employer in America and they are have the most employees in America who receive SNAP benefits due to their lower income status. I think we can’t create the step-by-step plan and budget for someone who works at Walmart as a cashier for how they’ll engage in the lobbying system. It’s just not possible. Sure, there’s a lot of free things you can do to be an activist and make your voice heard, but it’s not at the same amplitude. We can’t blame apathy and leisure when so many people don’t even have the budget for most forms of leisure.
- wwweston 3mo ago
  You’re correct that time is the fundamental challenge. It’s also really what the money is always a proxy for at some level. Meetings in DC are probably not the right focus. Every congressional officeholder has offices in the region they represent, most have multiple. Most people don’t use them for the same reason they outsource their understanding of current events to Fox News or Rogan & guests. Some people do contact offices by phone or message, but fewer band together with others who care about a policy topic and leverage collective influence. Sure it’s hard and time consuming. I’m not speaking from a position of full ability or particular privilege (though I have enough time to post on HN). But it’s also a bit like the old saw about meditation — 10 minutes a day, and if you’re too busy, 20 minutes. The activities themselves don’t always produce immediate leverage but once they lock in the return is powerful.
  - Grombobulous 3mo ago
    I get where you’re coming from, truly. I do also wish people were more politically engaged. But I just can’t go that far toward victim blaming, especially when so many forces work against people doing exactly what you suggested they do. Just look at how Occupy Wall Street was broken up and twisted into irrelevancy by our media. It was a nonpartisan movement that corporate influence successfully split off into the two warring sides so that critical mass could never be achieved. Any issue that is perfectly partisan never gets resolved, and the oligarchs know exactly how to turn most issues in that direction. My prediction is that the data center and AI backlash could work exactly the same way if resistance grows too strong. Anyway, perhaps I’m too far off-topic now.
    - wwweston 3mo ago
      It's reasonable to acknowledge that some individuals are so overwhelmed by the demands of their circumstances that they truly have no disposable time & attention to direct to the society they live in. The statistics I've encountered suggest that this is smaller than 10%. Between there and the percentage of people who even vote is one margin of responsibility, and there are many people who have time for more but put it somewhere else. That's a choice, and people are free to make it. It also has consequences, like the elections that select officeholders. Calling this "victim blaming" seems like rhetorical lane-shifting. We're not discussing crimes where someone suffers a violent attack of some kind they had no agency in, we're discussing a society where those who govern are selected by voters in elections, which at some level means issues are representative of those who vote (and those who don't). We're all very used to locating agency in large systems somewhere we don't have control over, and at one level that's even pretty understandable as a first approximation -- most people don't have substantial influence at an individual level. And no individual contribution to your retirement account will leave you comfortable, it's the collected effort over time that might. That's true for individual influence too, and magnified by organized cooperation. You brought up OWS. That's a reasonable example to consider in a lot of ways -- it was collective cooperation, certainly better than apathy, and I respect it for that (and did not take kindly to the ways it was disparaged especially in some partisan media). It was also a movement that was probably overfocused on the the idea that social leverage is primarily about expressed demand, especially given that the goals of participants were diverse and unfocused. At times it almost seemed like the tactic (occupation) was the goal. It was successful in injecting some longstanding ideas into some parts of public consciousness (there's a 99% that's poorly served by things as they are now and 1% that are dramatically overserved) and may have created some networks that have had a longer influence. But I think it also showed that many participants don't know what effective ongoing influential cooperation looks like. We want achievements like the civil rights movement but we have Woodstock ideas about what that looks like instead of movement-momentum habits. I've had this conversation enough to know that I'm also in a sense making a similar mistake, expressing ideas and expecting that alone to change things, which is especially naive given that I know the mindset shift is a bit of a hard sell. At least I know that someone who argues back and forth over a series of comments probably cares more than average, maybe enough to create ongoing habits of influence themselves.

Grombobulous 3mo ago

The process of lobbying Congress involves physically showing up to the congressional offices in Washington DC, meeting with congressional staff, and often submitting draft legislation, which essentially requires a law degree to have the technical ability to write something of that sort. Walmart is the largest private employer in America and they are have the most employees in America who receive SNAP benefits due to their lower income status. I think we can’t create the step-by-step plan and budget for someone who works at Walmart as a cashier for how they’ll engage in the lobbying system. It’s just not possible. Sure, there’s a lot of free things you can do to be an activist and make your voice heard, but it’s not at the same amplitude. We can’t blame apathy and leisure when so many people don’t even have the budget for most forms of leisure.

wwweston 3mo ago
You’re correct that time is the fundamental challenge. It’s also really what the money is always a proxy for at some level. Meetings in DC are probably not the right focus. Every congressional officeholder has offices in the region they represent, most have multiple. Most people don’t use them for the same reason they outsource their understanding of current events to Fox News or Rogan & guests. Some people do contact offices by phone or message, but fewer band together with others who care about a policy topic and leverage collective influence. Sure it’s hard and time consuming. I’m not speaking from a position of full ability or particular privilege (though I have enough time to post on HN). But it’s also a bit like the old saw about meditation — 10 minutes a day, and if you’re too busy, 20 minutes. The activities themselves don’t always produce immediate leverage but once they lock in the return is powerful.
- Grombobulous 3mo ago
  I get where you’re coming from, truly. I do also wish people were more politically engaged. But I just can’t go that far toward victim blaming, especially when so many forces work against people doing exactly what you suggested they do. Just look at how Occupy Wall Street was broken up and twisted into irrelevancy by our media. It was a nonpartisan movement that corporate influence successfully split off into the two warring sides so that critical mass could never be achieved. Any issue that is perfectly partisan never gets resolved, and the oligarchs know exactly how to turn most issues in that direction. My prediction is that the data center and AI backlash could work exactly the same way if resistance grows too strong. Anyway, perhaps I’m too far off-topic now.
  - wwweston 3mo ago
    It's reasonable to acknowledge that some individuals are so overwhelmed by the demands of their circumstances that they truly have no disposable time & attention to direct to the society they live in. The statistics I've encountered suggest that this is smaller than 10%. Between there and the percentage of people who even vote is one margin of responsibility, and there are many people who have time for more but put it somewhere else. That's a choice, and people are free to make it. It also has consequences, like the elections that select officeholders. Calling this "victim blaming" seems like rhetorical lane-shifting. We're not discussing crimes where someone suffers a violent attack of some kind they had no agency in, we're discussing a society where those who govern are selected by voters in elections, which at some level means issues are representative of those who vote (and those who don't). We're all very used to locating agency in large systems somewhere we don't have control over, and at one level that's even pretty understandable as a first approximation -- most people don't have substantial influence at an individual level. And no individual contribution to your retirement account will leave you comfortable, it's the collected effort over time that might. That's true for individual influence too, and magnified by organized cooperation. You brought up OWS. That's a reasonable example to consider in a lot of ways -- it was collective cooperation, certainly better than apathy, and I respect it for that (and did not take kindly to the ways it was disparaged especially in some partisan media). It was also a movement that was probably overfocused on the the idea that social leverage is primarily about expressed demand, especially given that the goals of participants were diverse and unfocused. At times it almost seemed like the tactic (occupation) was the goal. It was successful in injecting some longstanding ideas into some parts of public consciousness (there's a 99% that's poorly served by things as they are now and 1% that are dramatically overserved) and may have created some networks that have had a longer influence. But I think it also showed that many participants don't know what effective ongoing influential cooperation looks like. We want achievements like the civil rights movement but we have Woodstock ideas about what that looks like instead of movement-momentum habits. I've had this conversation enough to know that I'm also in a sense making a similar mistake, expressing ideas and expecting that alone to change things, which is especially naive given that I know the mindset shift is a bit of a hard sell. At least I know that someone who argues back and forth over a series of comments probably cares more than average, maybe enough to create ongoing habits of influence themselves.