[From Dick Robertson (2011.07.05.1535CDT)]
Gosh, reading this something struck me that I’ve been looking at forever, without it registering previously: If all our laws (or least all the important ones) result from a bidding war between lobbyists it would seem to mean that the only democracy that exists in our country now (i.e. of the “one man, one vote” kind) consists of legislators, lobbyists, and the people who employ lobbyists.
While ordinary citizens are averred to participate in the system – if you don’t like how the legislator votes, elect his opponent in the next election – the flaw in that is that no matter whom you elect he/she will almost certainly be forced to join the “democracy of the influential,” unless he/she campaigns on the slogan, “I’ll vote against lobbyist-supported laws, and I will only be serving one term.”
Am I missing something?
Best,
Dick R.
···
[From Bill Powers (2011.07.05.0752At 07:22 AM 7/5/2011 -0600,
The case of a lobbyist bribing a legislator is not as simple to
evaluate as this. One can easily argue that both the lobbyist
and the legislator consent to letting the other control his behavior: if
you > will give me money, I will give you a vote for a Fair Trade law.
There is nothing objectionable about that on PCT grounds. But
the legislator has to be bribed, one would guess, because his vote
is > essential for passing a law that is not wanted by others, and he
might be quite willing to vote against it if someone would give
him a > better deal. This implies that there are probably lobbyists on
the other side, or other agents at least, who want the legislator to
vote against the law.
One resolution of this conflict would be to pass laws forbidding
legislators to accept money or anything else of value from
anyone but the government treasury. But there the anarchists run into
problems, because they don’t like laws, and especially not law
enforcement.
[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 5 15:24 MDT]
[From Dick Robertson (2011.07.05.1535CDT)]
Gosh, reading this something struck me that I've been looking at forever, without it registering previously: If all our laws (or least all the important ones) result from a bidding war between lobbyists it would seem to mean that the only democracy that exists in our country now (i.e. of the "one man, one vote" kind) consists of legislators, lobbyists, and the people who employ lobbyists.
That is pretty cynical, but perhaps too often true. I have found the solution to be to elect principled persons of integrity who share some or most of your principles. They aren't influenced by lobbyists, and only lobbyists whose goals are consistent with those principles should bother contributing to them.
Even if you don't share all your principles with the politician, at least a politician with principles will be more predictable. You can generally tell where they will come down on issues.
For this strategy to work for you, you have to engage in principled thinking yourself, and live in a district that is at least up for grabs.
While ordinary citizens are averred to participate in the system -- if you don't like how the legislator votes, elect his opponent in the next election -- the flaw in that is that no matter whom you elect he/she will almost certainly be forced to join the "democracy of the influential," unless he/she campaigns on the slogan, "I'll vote against lobbyist-supported laws, and I will only be serving one term."
Am I missing something?
Yes, character can make a difference. It was something the founders knew from the beginning.
-- Martin L
···
On 7/5/2011 2:45 PM, Robertson Richard wrote:
Best,
Dick R.
> [From Bill Powers (2011.07.05.0752At 07:22 AM 7/5/2011 -0600,
> The case of a lobbyist bribing a legislator is not as simple to
> evaluate as this. One can easily argue that both the lobbyist
> and the legislator consent to letting the other control his behavior: if
> you > will give me money, I will give you a vote for a Fair Trade law.
> There is nothing objectionable about that on PCT grounds. But
> the legislator has to be bribed, one would guess, because his vote
> is > essential for passing a law that is not wanted by others, and he
> might be quite willing to vote against it if someone would give
> him a > better deal. This implies that there are probably lobbyists on
> the other side, or other agents at least, who want the legislator to
> vote against the law.
>
> One resolution of this conflict would be to pass laws forbidding
> legislators to accept money or anything else of value from
> anyone but the government treasury. But there the anarchists run into
> problems, because they don't like laws, and especially not law
> enforcement.