Political Memes

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

But there are lobbyists for non-profits, unions, and advocacy groups, too.

Correct, but those interest groups should be allowed some kind of formal consultative role in the political process, rather than being forced to throw money around

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The lobbyist is the consultative role. Their job is to consult. The only money that needs thrown around to lobby is the salary of the lobbyist. Now because we have a corrupt system that does not suffiently enforce the law, plenty of lobbyists throw around money to gain favors and deals with government officials, and that obviously should neither be the expectation or even allowable. But that doesn't made a paid role as a person who job is to advocate for some cause inherently a problem, so long as they do so ethically and, ideally, for a worthy cause.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

So, I think the people doing that job should be making standard working class wages, and they should, for example, be elected by their respective interest group organisations to a formal legislative body that consults on and can propose legislation, but not pass it.

Like the house of Lords, but instead of being full of rich people named Baroness Killthepoor, it's an actually useful body.

Lobbyists are an informal adhoc means of essentially legalizing bribery, that has been codified over time. While legitimate good might come from that system, as you've pointed out, some kind of formal democratic system by which formalise and democratize that consultative role should be enacted.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's not a the worst idea in premise, but the logistics of that is a concern for me.

Who decides who is allowed to be a formal interest group with a vote in the body? Is anyone allowed to form any group that has equal voting power? That is a terrible idea for so many reasons I can think of. Is it chosen by the legislature or executive? That gives it a ton of room for corruption, favoritism, etc. Are they restricted to one group per area of interest? If not then you could have proposals passed by the sheet number of co-interested individual interest groups alone. If not, then who decides what is a distinct enough interest to allow a new group?

That being said, the entire system being an above board process, publically accessible and answerable, would already be a dramatic improvement over the current lobbying practices, so... no matter how bad a mess, it likely would never be worse.

parent

[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

You're thinking within the confines of the suboptimal system we currently have. What if lobbying wasn't useful because there was no central authority figure to plead with? What if nobody's voice gets lost in the noise because the people who can help are near enough to hear them?
You may have missed it, but this is an anarchist take, so your argument doesn't really apply, whether it's true or not.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not an anarchist. And we don't live in an anarchy. And we will never see a true long term anarchist society of any real scale in our lifetime. That is fine if you are talking about some idealistic utopian goal. But I'm talking about the world we live in now.

And they didnt say that they shouldn't be necessary or viable because there is no central goverment authority to advocate to. They said they shouldn't be allowed. Those are two different stances (and not very anarchist to talk of disallowing advocacy roles).