Lobbyists

[Whomp]

Lobbying should be illegal. I realy dont understand why its legal.

I think certain things should be illegal, like influencing foreign affairs, however bear in mind that certain people need representation that don't get it from their state's government. In my state I have a democrat representative, mayor, city council, alderman, governor and two senators. They may not represent my interests very well if I own a business whereas the Chamber of Commerce lobby does.

 

[REDY]

I think certain things should be illegal, like influencing foreign affairs, however bear in mind that certain people need representation that don't get it from their state's government. In my state I have a democrat representative, mayor, city council, alderman, governor and two senators. They may not represent my interests very well if I own a business whereas the Chamber of Commerce lobby does.

People are voting in election politicians who are sharing their interests. Its ok show some problems, but media are much more transparent. Politicians should be influenced only by their education, experiences and colleagues, not by some small number of people. Lobbying bears more evil things than good ones. Politicians are not for me or for my family, they are for all people in country/state/town.

 

[Whomp]

The problem is none of those people represent me and very few believe what I believe. They may represent my poor neighbors at Cabrini Green but they hardly represent my interests.

 

[Ecofarm]

People banding together = socialism!? A laughable euphenism. "You can't spell team without socialist!"

Pa-lease.

I suppose a bunch of people banded together one day and decided: "That's it! We're not gonna work anymore AND we're going to force taxpayers to give us money!"

Because that = socialism.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

People banding together = socialism!? A laughable euphenism. "You can't spell team without socialist!"

Pa-lease.

I suppose a bunch of people banded together one day and decided: "That's it! We're not gonna work anymore AND we're going to force taxpayers to give us money!"

Because that = socialism.

And socalism =/= bad, right?

You don't understand the concept of socialism. As a liberal (essentially European sense), I don't happen to think that socialism is a good idea the way socialists tend to present it, but I understand their point of view. Remember most socialists are [wiki]social democrat[/wiki]s, and only rarely will you find a democratic socialist; they're really not that radical anymore. They haven't been for seventy years.

More to the point, socialists have never asked for something for nothing, just better treatment. Every economic, social, and political group requires an effective voice in government for democracy to work properly, and trade unions-with their socialist or quasi-socialist ideology- serve that well. While their associated labor parties (or labor wings of other parties, like the folks John Edwards is reaching out to among US Democrats) serve that purpose, too, the working class needs lobbyists--yes, (quasi-)socialist lobbyists--to serve its needs. Just like every other sector.

Seriously, read Marx or some other socialist literature, or at least talk to a socialist (someone who actually considers him/herself a socialist; someone who is a socialist but doesn't realize it probably won't be able to tell you anything about it--just find any area with a decent number of college students and you'll find a socialist or two) before you start criticizing it. I don't find socialism to be my cup of tea, but it's still a legitimate political viewpoint. If you want to debate socialism on the merits with a socialist, I'm on your side. But setting up straw men makes you look like an idiot.

 

[Yoda Power]

Lobbying should be illegal. I realy dont understand why its legal.

People are voting in election politicians who are sharing their interests. Its ok show some problems, but media are much more transparent. Politicians should be influenced only by their education, experiences and colleagues, not by some small number of people. Lobbying bears more evil things than good ones. Politicians are not for me or for my family, they are for all people in country/state/town.

Did you read the thread? First of all there were many reasons given that lobbying has good effects too. Secondly it's also quite obvious that lobbyists doesn't represent a small group of people. There are lobbyists for almost everything, you are 99% sure to have some of your views represented by lobbyists too.

By the way; media and public oppinion have a much greater impact on politicians than lobbyism, so don't fear that the politicians won't listen to the people, because they do. (Even a bit too much in some populist matters)

 

[REDY]

Its a claim which should show some advantages, but I dont believe in it. I see lobbyists as useless to time when they will send some money to politician´s account. I have read thread the advantages of lobbyists are not evidential but about disadvantages I should read about 1-2 per year.

 

[Yoda Power]

Its a claim which should show some advantages, but I dont believe in it. I see lobbyists as useless to time when they will send some money to politician´s account. I have read thread the advantages of lobbyists are not evidential but about disadvantages I should read about 1-2 per year.

The problem is that you equals lobbyism with corruption, which is wrong. Corruption should be fought with all possible power, but lobbyism simply isn't that.

 

[GoodGame]

Lobbying is good to the extent that it reminds the lawmakers how significant their constituents are, and what pigeon-holes their constituents fit in.

I'd ban lobbyists from donating more than ceremonial and figurative gifts. No blank checks.

 

[Ecofarm]

And socalism =/= bad, right?

You don't understand the concept of socialism.

<snip>

Seriously, read Marx or some other socialist literature, or at least talk to a socialist (someone who actually considers him/herself a socialist; someone who is a socialist but doesn't realize it probably won't be able to tell you anything about it--just find any area with a decent number of college students and you'll find a socialist or two) before you start criticizing it. I don't find socialism to be my cup of tea, but it's still a legitimate political viewpoint. If you want to debate socialism on the merits with a socialist, I'm on your side. But setting up straw men makes you look like an idiot.

I've read Marx. I lived in Sweden (the most socialist country); I talked with plenty of them. I'm a PhD student, so I also talk with plenty of socialist college students. Don't assume people are ignorant, it's unbecomming.

I was not setting up a strawman, I was making a point; socialism does not = teamwork. If you think those are synonomous, then you are the one who does not understand socialism. Spare us the rhetoric about how "you don't really like socialism" while you attempt to give it credit, list subcatagories, and complain about someone taking a jab at it.

See sig.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I've read Marx. I lived in Sweden (the most socialist country); I talked with plenty of them. I'm a PhD student, so I also talk with plenty of socialist college students. Don't assume people are ignorant, it's unbecomming.

I was not setting up a strawman, I was making a point; socialism does not = teamwork. If you think those are synonomous, then you are the one who does not understand socialism. Spare us the rhetoric about how "you don't really like socialism" while you attempt to give it credit, list subcatagories, and complain about someone taking a jab at it.

See sig.

Sorry about that...often, when I hear the tone you gave in your original post, it's not a very educated person behind the keyboard...I apologize. Upon the review of the post, I saw that I misinterpreted what you were saying; I thought you were saying that socialism is riot and rebellion.

But I have to say this: you don't have to like something to accept its legitimacy. As I see it, the acceptance of the existence of other correct or potentially correct points of view is a fundamental tenet of liberalism. I simply think that as long as the theory is based in reality and is not obviously and inherently evil (don't want to get into specifics), it's a legitimate viewpoint and its followers have a right to have it.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I thought you were profascism???

Yes, I like democracy to a large extent, I am not totally pro dictatorship. But anyways we are not in a fascist system so either we take democracy all the way or we scratch it. I hate those in between solutions.

 

[Yoda Power]

I hate those in between solutions.

Does that only concern democracy, or your view on life in general?