Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 112

Thread: Did I miss a memo? Why are we returning to feudalism, again?

  1. #1

    Default Did I miss a memo? Why are we returning to feudalism, again?

    Lobbyists, Guns and Money
    By PAUL KRUGMAN


    Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.


    Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

    What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

    Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

    What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

    And in case you were wondering, no, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, what we’re getting is a series of scandals. Private charter schools, for example, appear to deliver a lot of profits but little in the way of educational achievement.

    But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

    And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

    Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

    Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

    Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

    Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.
    To continue my long-term rant and rave: Democracy, the power of the people over their own destinies, is facing its worst crisis since the 1930's. The last time it took a world war to course-correct, with its known side effects. And even then half the globe remained totalitarian. The next world war might destroy the only known biosphere in the cosmos. That's the kind of bet I'm really not comfortable making. Ironically, the crisis of democracy also means no one will ask me. Or you.

    Obviously no one has shown mathematically that democracy is the best way of organizing a society. We can't even agree on which things to take as axioms when discussing societal formation. It certainly is possible we will be able to transition back into some strange ur-feudal societal order without destroying the species. I'm also fairly certain that the increased technological level will make it easier to subjugate the majority under the will of the minority. It is even possible that the majority will not object to this transition, which in my opinion is the most depressing part about the whole mess.

    I suppose an argument could be made that a totalitarian system is necessary for the species to survive the transition to an energy-scarce world. It certainly would make it easier. My largest concern with these lines of thought is the seemingly inherent linking of nationalism/tribalism with totalitarian systems. This would suggest that the transition to an energy-scarce world, even under totalitarian regimes, would lead to warfare.

    Speaking as a European, it seems at least likely that a resurgence of chauvinistic totalitarianism would entail genocide of Mohammedans. This is an obvious humanitarian concern, although I admit we do need to solve the problem of excess population somehow.

    But the most frightening thing about this ur-feudalist ambition the US at least seems to have is the so-called "crypto-fascist" aspects about it. I'm not really a fan of that term as it has conspiracy nut connotations, but it'll have to do. The point is that people are fundamentally unable to realize that the crisis of democracy is even occurring, never mind that the will of the people is already largely lost in the decision-making processes.

    Is anyone else concerned about moving to a far more minority-ruled world? Does it necessarily have to be a bad thing? How do we even define what is "bad" and "good" on these levels? Do the fates of individuals, even millions of them, truly have meaning when discussing the future of the species? (And to a lesser extent the biosphere)

    Your thoughts are welcome. Please at least try not being dicks, huh?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  2. #2
    A) This is far from the only organized interest groups that drafts legislation that passes almost word for word at times.
    B) This corporation wants privatized government but not limited government? Is Krugman on drugs again? There is no different between the two. How else do you have a limited government if not by reducing the government control over the economy?
    C) I see that Krugman isn't whining about similar actions by Soros-backed organizations and trade unions. Telling.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    To B I would like to say that his point is that corporations are now after an invasive government that makes money for them. If you can make money by out-lawing faggotry, as an example, why wouldn't you?

    But anyway, I know you're supremely allergic to Paul, do you have anything to comment on what I wrote? Or did I move to tin-foil territory?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  4. #4
    Not quite, but getting there. Krugman neglects to mention just how many such interest groups there are, and how they are generally at each other's necks. What exactly do you find undemocratic about groups that care more about a given topic than the general population banding together and attempting to influence government directly? Chances are most individuals are a part of at least one such group.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #5
    I know you're good at this, but I'm going to go against my own interests and argue this straight-up. I do not expect you to return the courtesy, because I know you.

    We know that wealth, money, has been accumulating into the hands of an ever diminishing group of people. If it also becomes possible to simply purchase legislation, it immediately follows that this tiny sub-group of the population has an over-abundance of influence. It seems to me insincere to simply call these special interest groups, as you and I both know the special interests here are very special when viewed by the majority. And if most of the money is pooling into an ever smaller amount of people, you will need larger and larger portions of the less affluent population to generate the same amount of influence. The cultural atomization of our society has made that a very unlikely proposition.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    To continue my long-term rant and rave: Democracy, the power of the people over their own destinies, is facing its worst crisis since the 1930's. The last time it took a world war to course-correct, with its known side effects. And even then half the globe remained totalitarian. The next world war might destroy the only known biosphere in the cosmos. That's the kind of bet I'm really not comfortable making. Ironically, the crisis of democracy also means no one will ask me. Or you.

    Obviously no one has shown mathematically that democracy is the best way of organizing a society. We can't even agree on which things to take as axioms when discussing societal formation. It certainly is possible we will be able to transition back into some strange ur-feudal societal order without destroying the species. I'm also fairly certain that the increased technological level will make it easier to subjugate the majority under the will of the minority. It is even possible that the majority will not object to this transition, which in my opinion is the most depressing part about the whole mess.

    I suppose an argument could be made that a totalitarian system is necessary for the species to survive the transition to an energy-scarce world. It certainly would make it easier. My largest concern with these lines of thought is the seemingly inherent linking of nationalism/tribalism with totalitarian systems. This would suggest that the transition to an energy-scarce world, even under totalitarian regimes, would lead to warfare.

    Speaking as a European, it seems at least likely that a resurgence of chauvinistic totalitarianism would entail genocide of Mohammedans. This is an obvious humanitarian concern, although I admit we do need to solve the problem of excess population somehow.

    But the most frightening thing about this ur-feudalist ambition the US at least seems to have is the so-called "crypto-fascist" aspects about it. I'm not really a fan of that term as it has conspiracy nut connotations, but it'll have to do. The point is that people are fundamentally unable to realize that the crisis of democracy is even occurring, never mind that the will of the people is already largely lost in the decision-making processes.

    Is anyone else concerned about moving to a far more minority-ruled world? Does it necessarily have to be a bad thing? How do we even define what is "bad" and "good" on these levels? Do the fates of individuals, even millions of them, truly have meaning when discussing the future of the species? (And to a lesser extent the biosphere)

    Your thoughts are welcome. Please at least try not being dicks, huh?
    Your ideas here are not unfamiliar Ness, but I'm most used to seeing them through a mirror, which rather echoes your line "We can't even agree on which things to take as axioms when discussing societal formation." I'm mostly familiar with this thesis with the Big Bad presented as unelected/unaccountable technocratic bureaucracy: the ministries, commissions, and offices which make up government in the far more social-progressively inclined European sub-continent, particularly expressed through concern that the EU will not transition to meaningful republic/democratic models as it more fully integrates.

    It's the same thing really, *at least to the degree that this is actually occurring and is not paranoid hyperbole* legislative power moving away from popularly elected, accountable, transparent legislators. And insomuch as its actually occurring it probably has more to do with the inability of our populist republic/democratic models to cope with the increasing complexity and specialization of governance than with organizations trying to take power, at least for now. I'm not as concerned about the movement as I am by that motivation. The movement is just the outward expression of that internal cause and it's poor practice to focus on the symptom rather than the disease. The real question I pose "is this really happening? If so, is it unavoidable/necessary, or can we make social/cultural/technological changes which will allow our societies to remain within current political models?" And then I get really worried because despite the fact that I am personally quite uncomfortable with change, one of my axioms when I engage in analysis and criticism of systems is "change happens." Change always happens and the harder you try to avoid it the sharper the shocks will be when it does come. I am dead certain that the better approach is to be flexible and adaptive and the concern you raised I and echoed looks a lot more like stubborn resistance to me, not flexibility.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 03-26-2012 at 04:26 PM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Your ideas here are not unfamiliar Ness, but I'm most used to seeing them through a mirror, which rather echoes your line "We can't even agree on which things to take as axioms when discussing societal formation." I'm mostly familiar with this thesis with the Big Bad presented as unelected/unaccountable technocratic bureaucracy: the ministries, commissions, and offices which make up government in the far more social-progressively inclined European sub-continent, particularly expressed through concern that the EU will not transition to meaningful republic/democratic models as it more fully integrates.
    Your language is still very advanced, but for once I think I followed. And I think I agree with what the girl in the mirror is saying. I see a lot of it around me, that vast numbers of the population are simply apathetic to what actually transpires in their governance. The pact of democracy implicitly demands participation from its members; for parliamentarism and the will of the people to work, the people must have a positive and active interest in that power. I am not sure they do, at this point in time. Whether we've become complacent as the materiel situation has progressed, or that the lack of "big bads" has made docility more acceptable, I cannot say.

    And like I stated earlier, I don't know whether this is bad. It could be progress instead of regress. I read Kekkonen, I've come to understand what he worked for, what he represented, I think he was right. But it's just a feeling. I can't prove it mathematically.

    Now that Hazir has bowed out at least momentarily, I can say that I think the EU is a fundamentally failed experiment. It cannot be what it needs to be. Europe could have been unified under the swastika, but it will never be unified under the starry circle. We are seeing it now, as the structures fail and leaders are making noises about taking steps backwards. This simply adds to my fears of a looming world war. I hope that I am wrong.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    And like I stated earlier, I don't know whether this is bad. It could be progress instead of regress. I read Kekkonen, I've come to understand what he worked for, what he represented, I think he was right. But it's just a feeling. I can't prove it mathematically.
    I added a large edit completing my post with some semi-assertive statements rather than leaving it as just a counterpoint, but again it's mostly another echo of what you just said "I don't know whether this is bad."
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I added a large edit completing my post with some semi-assertive statements rather than leaving it as just a counterpoint, but again it's mostly another echo of what you just said "I don't know whether this is bad."
    I think I agree with your addition as well. At least to a degree. I cling to democracy because it created the best society that I've seen, but I also know that at points the various players in the system didn't play straight. It is entirely possible that dynamism demands we move "forward" from democracy. But at the same time, I think fascism was a very dynamic and organic societal change, with its known effects. And given that we are unable to objectively gauge different societal orders against one another? It's a swamp of unknowns completely lacking in hope of comprehension.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    groups that care more about a given topic than the general population
    [...]
    Chances are most individuals are a part of at least one such group.

    at least stay consistent when you feel like making shit up without putting the effort into verfiying its integrity.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  11. #11
    Are you a member of a public sector union?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12
    nope, not that I and Dread haven't gone over that again and again.

    and you're going have to reach a little higher anyway, union membership was what? 11% last year?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  13. #13
    Why don't you go add up the membership (allowing for some overlap) of all the unions, all the major law firms, all the lobby firms, AARP, Sierra Club, NAACP, NRA, active Catholics, politically-active Protestant groups, politically-active members of major corporations, AIPAC and other ethnic-oriented interest groups, and all internationally-oriented NGOs, and then tell me that most Americans aren't a member of at least one.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #14
    Loki, I don't think the mere existence of these groups is a problem for democracy, rather I think the problem is the lack of transparency about whatever role they play in the legislative process.

    Also, I do enjoy you're trying to pass off being tangentially connected to an organization which may partake in some level of political advocacy as being basically no different to be able to employ a major, professional lobbying firm to advocate for policies in London/Washington which are in your direct personal interest. Classic Lokism there, well done.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post

    It certainly is possible we will be able to transition back into some strange ur-feudal societal order without destroying the species. I'm also fairly certain that the increased technological level will make it easier to subjugate the majority under the will of the minority. It is even possible that the majority will not object to this transition, which in my opinion is the most depressing part about the whole mess.

    I suppose an argument could be made that a totalitarian system is necessary for the species to survive the transition to an energy-scarce world. It certainly would make it easier. My largest concern with these lines of thought is the seemingly inherent linking of nationalism/tribalism with totalitarian systems. This would suggest that the transition to an energy-scarce world, even under totalitarian regimes, would lead to warfare.

    But the most frightening thing about this ur-feudalist ambition the US at least seems to have is the so-called "crypto-fascist" aspects about it. I'm not really a fan of that term as it has conspiracy nut connotations, but it'll have to do. The point is that people are fundamentally unable to realize that the crisis of democracy is even occurring, never mind that the will of the people is already largely lost in the decision-making processes.

    Is anyone else concerned about moving to a far more minority-ruled world? Does it necessarily have to be a bad thing? How do we even define what is "bad" and "good" on these levels? Do the fates of individuals, even millions of them, truly have meaning when discussing the future of the species? (And to a lesser extent the biosphere)

    Your thoughts are welcome. Please at least try not being dicks, huh?
    I chose certain exerpts for ease of reply, to agree and disagree.

    We are in the midst of huge Transitions on a global scale. Change can be painful and confusing during any transition, but especially when it's rapid and massive, and ends with words like "Age" as descriptors of eras. (Stone Age, Iron Age, Information Age, Technology Age). In that sense, I think (I hope) that even a minority of wealth-and-power brokers won't be able to subjugate the majority.

    Even though money can buy elections, lobbyists are ghost-writing legislation, politicians resort to fear-mongering, and most complex things are being chopped into media sound-bytes. The idea that people have a gnat's attention span is being challenged by the archives of youtube and social media. That's why I applaud the Occupy and 99% movements, and even the controversial wikileaks.

    The key will come in the form of controlling vs disseminating information, because information will be the great equalizer. Propaganda can fly around the world as fast as factual information, but if a majority of people are connected (to the web) the information has a better chance of being vetted. Information IS education and economic power, and that translates into political power. It was seen as a revolutionary and progressive idea (Finland and Canada to name two) that equated broadband and internet access to a fundamental right, and fostering individual freedom.

    The US is slow to make these transitions and fully embrace our entrance into a new Age/Era. IMO, it's because we're so focused on economic freeedoms, in favor of freeee enterprise and private corporations that we can't see the forest for the trees. We're still giving private enterprise special status, even when that means monopolies control our access to information (or energy), to the detriment of the public good.

    We're so busy de-funding information----public education, public libraries, public radio, in the name of Small Government and Low Taxation, that we're setting ourselves up for failure in the global game. We're so busy thinking of energy as something best controlled by oil/gas companies, and financial traders on Wall Street, that we miss the connection between energy and education. Then we end up with legislators wanting to fund an out-sized global-capacity military instead. We're funding brawn instead of brain, the past instead of the future.

    The new places of "warfare" are already being fought in our Information and Tech Age. Whether it's censorship, un-manned military drones, airport scans, cameras on public streets, tracking cell phones/internet traffic/GPS...or employers demanding Facebook passwords...that's the new sphere of power. We could do much better by dropping millions of cell phones with web connection into Afghanistan, or any nation we're trying to "build" toward democracy, than anything we're doing now.



    Sorry if I rambled or went tangential answering your post, Nessie.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Loki, I don't think the mere existence of these groups is a problem for democracy, rather I think the problem is the lack of transparency about whatever role they play in the legislative process.

    Also, I do enjoy you're trying to pass off being tangentially connected to an organization which may partake in some level of political advocacy as being basically no different to be able to employ a major, professional lobbying firm to advocate for policies in London/Washington which are in your direct personal interest. Classic Lokism there, well done.
    Which of the groups that I mentioned do you think doesn't have a lobbying presence in Washington?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Which of the groups that I mentioned do you think doesn't have a lobbying presence in Washington?
    Loki. Try and remember that there are intelligent people reading this. A man with a sandwich board is 'a' lobbying presence in Washington. A man writing rambling, yet discursive, missives to his congressperson about the matter of al Qaeda infiltration his local 7-11 is 'a' lobbying presence in Washington. Firms able to employ someone like Patton Boggs LLP also have 'a' lobbying presense in Washington. Guess which one gets listened to more? You can't just lump them all under one general heading and try and pretend it's all basically the same thing.
    Last edited by Steely Glint; 03-26-2012 at 07:44 PM.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  18. #18
    More to the point, which group of lobbyists represents the unemployed, underemployed, uneducated, marginally educated, poor, or working poor? And which privately funded group lobbies on behalf of youth groups?

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Loki, I don't think the mere existence of these groups is a problem for democracy, rather I think the problem is the lack of transparency about whatever role they play in the legislative process.

    Also, I do enjoy you're trying to pass off being tangentially connected to an organization which may partake in some level of political advocacy as being basically no different to be able to employ a major, professional lobbying firm to advocate for policies in London/Washington which are in your direct personal interest. Classic Lokism there, well done.
    Steely, all those groups DO engage in large-scale employment of lobbyists.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Steely, all those groups DO engage in large-scale employment of lobbyists.
    The China and Ethopia both have a military. Therefore, they are both able to use their military power to influence events on the global stage. Therefore, there is no difference in influence between the PRC and Ethopia.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  21. #21
    Seriously, is there no way to determine which lobbying groups have the most influence?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Steely, all those groups DO engage in large-scale employment of lobbyists.

    And why is that, other than the massive amounts of money behind their endeavors that "pays" for itself? Paid lobbying ends up being quite profitable, because they can influence legislation, whether by ghost-writing laws, or contributing to political campaigns. How does that re-inforce the principle of democracy, let alone representational democracy?

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    And why is that, other than the massive amounts of money behind their endeavors that "pays" for itself? Paid lobbying ends up being quite profitable, because they can influence legislation, whether by ghost-writing laws, or contributing to political campaigns. How does that re-inforce the principle of democracy, let alone representational democracy?
    You realize they influence government because the government has the power to make crony-legislation possible, right? This is the same government you seem to advocate giving more control and authority to, which only means a greater and more perverse incentives for special interest groups to lobby. I know this has been pointed out time and time again, but I haven't seen any recognition of this fact.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-26-2012 at 08:40 PM.

  24. #24
    Oh, I've recognized that fact, Enoch. I just don't subscribe to the notion that all government is bad, that government can't be expected to work better, or that a "smaller" government is the best measure of quality and efficacy.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Seriously, is there no way to determine which lobbying groups have the most influence?
    The AARP and NRA, in that order. Any gains a given corporation can make pale in comparison to the hundreds of billions that are being spent on the elderly due to the AARP.

    I'm also willing to bet that most groups that I mentioned have a stronger influence than the newest bogeyman of the left mentioned by Krugman.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Oh, I've recognized that fact, Enoch. I just don't subscribe to the notion that all government is bad, that government can't be expected to work better, or that a "smaller" government is the best measure of quality and efficacy.
    I.E. The ability of your policy proposals to have the desired effect presuppose the kind of political landscape that you admit does not exist and is unlikely to exist for the foreseeable future.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    The China and Ethopia both have a military. Therefore, they are both able to use their military power to influence events on the global stage. Therefore, there is no difference in influence between the PRC and Ethopia.
    Potentially fair as a rebuttal but may I ask if you have any facts speaking to qualitative or quantitative differences between groups employing lobbyists? In the effort they're putting forth or the effectiveness of their efforts? On which basis do you think one group is a China and another group is an Ethiopia? I sure hope you're not making a declaration based on biases and "gut" common sense.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Seriously, is there no way to determine which lobbying groups have the most influence?
    There are a number of metrics one could use, and I'm sure there are groups and academics collecting and publishing *and distorting* that data. I'm not familiar with the research myself, but I'm absolutely positive that Steely is even more ignorant of it than I am and I'm also fairly certain that Loki has read at least some of that research at one time or other.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #28
    MPAA/RIAA seems to favor handing out cushy jobs to whoever their guys can sway. Not something I'm overly familiar with ethnic, religious, or even unions being able to do.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Potentially fair as a rebuttal but may I ask if you have any facts speaking to qualitative or quantitative differences between groups employing lobbyists? In the effort they're putting forth or the effectiveness of their efforts? On which basis do you think one group is a China and another group is an Ethiopia? I sure hope you're not making a declaration based on biases and "gut" common sense.
    I did look around at some figures for who spends what on lobbying. From what I found, vast majority of the money spent on lobbying is spent by corporations, or trade associations which represent them. But it was pretty cursory. I will likely post details when I have more time and as the thread develops. Or you can just google it yourselves.

    Anyway, that wasn't the point Loki or indeed you were trying to make. Loki's original point was that everyone lobbies, so it's ok if corporations buy legislation. Which is obviously silly. If the counter argument to the OP is actually that non-for-profit organizations, non-commercial special interest groups, unions and the like spend as much or more, or that they are just as effective or more effective as corporate lobbying then that's the argument he and you should be making, not this silly lobbying is lobbying is lobbying, please don't look behind the curtain business.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  30. #30
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    First, I'd just like to say how cute I find it that you (Nessie) imply we ever got away from feudalism in the first place. We're not returning, in that we never really left it.

    And secondly, a quote.

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Is Krugman on drugs again?
    You gotta stop doing that. Comparing them to Krugman is an insult to millions of drug users everywhere.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •