3 ms·

The American people don't have the greatest record on deciding what the "common good" is. Think of something like gun control. As someone who lives in a city,

by JimmyL 17y ago

The American people don't have the greatest record on deciding what the "common good" is. Think of something like gun control. As someone who lives in a city, if I could participate in the US political system I would be in strong favour of aggressive nationwide gun control legislation, as would most of the people who live around me - and I wouldn't be interested in giving money to a politician who was strongly against that, full-stop. Likewise, being pro-equal marriage and abortion rights are deal-breakers for me and many of my friends. I recognize, however, that there are many people who feel the exact opposite of me, with equal ferocity. For issues as divisive as these, how do you plan on deciding what the "common good" is to support?

espeed 17y ago
The organization would not lobby for any position directly. Instead, lobbying firms that specialize in the given policy areas would lobby on behalf of the users that support those policies, and the users could have a say in which lobbying firms are used for particular issues. Regarding how to handle majority vs minority positions, that's a good question that I have been debating myself. One way would be to use money allocated for each position to hire separate firms to lobby for the given position. The pro is that if the competing positions are truly what the people want and have not been manipulated by corporate lobbyists, then at least the people's voice is being heard. The downside is that you are creating an arms race so the people are spending more money than they need to because money from either side is canceling out the effects of the other. Another way you could approach it is make it so that money from the minority nullifies the money from the majority before it's paid to lobbyists so users in the majority and minority end up paying less (the minority pays nothing and the majority only pays the difference). This keeps lobbyists from being the major benefactor and saves the people's money so they can use it to support other issues. The downside is that the minority might want its money spent anyway and then you get into a type of Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma). Allowing the money to be spent may be the best way since it is the voice of the electorate -- even if the electorate has opposing views because at least it's the voice of the electorate, not corporations.

by JimmyL 17y ago

espeed 17y ago

The organization would not lobby for any position directly. Instead, lobbying firms that specialize in the given policy areas would lobby on behalf of the users that support those policies, and the users could have a say in which lobbying firms are used for particular issues. Regarding how to handle majority vs minority positions, that's a good question that I have been debating myself. One way would be to use money allocated for each position to hire separate firms to lobby for the given position. The pro is that if the competing positions are truly what the people want and have not been manipulated by corporate lobbyists, then at least the people's voice is being heard. The downside is that you are creating an arms race so the people are spending more money than they need to because money from either side is canceling out the effects of the other. Another way you could approach it is make it so that money from the minority nullifies the money from the majority before it's paid to lobbyists so users in the majority and minority end up paying less (the minority pays nothing and the majority only pays the difference). This keeps lobbyists from being the major benefactor and saves the people's money so they can use it to support other issues. The downside is that the minority might want its money spent anyway and then you get into a type of Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma). Allowing the money to be spent may be the best way since it is the voice of the electorate -- even if the electorate has opposing views because at least it's the voice of the electorate, not corporations.