Remember the railing against lobbyists? Remember that? Remember promises of transparency in the new administration? 2008 was so long ago.
I'd like to put a question to those who comment here: If you believe that lobbyists corrupt the system, are an institution whose bad facets outweigh their good ones, then what do? Because lobbyists are simply people who are paid to exercise their right to petition the government. They are professionals who make their living off of exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Either you regulate the marketplace with restrictions on their pay or hours worked or something of that nature, or you prune back Constitutional rights in the name of "fairness" or "access", and we already know how that goes.
As for me, I favor fighting against corruption the same way Walter Reed defeated yellow fever in Panama: drain the swamp. If you take away government's power to pick winners and losers, then you take away the incentive to cajole, schmooze, bribe, and corrupt politicians. Remove the bloated stinking corpse, and the maggots will go away.
>>If you take away government's power to pick winners and losers, then you take away the incentive to cajole, schmooze, bribe, and corrupt politicians. Remove the bloated stinking corpse, and the maggots will go away.
Amen.
At the end of the day a lobbyist is doing what is our fundamental right to do: to Speak, To Assemble, and to Petition our .gov.
Anyone whose seeking to restrict those rights or qualify them in some way is really seeking to form a permanent advantage for some favored group.
It's bad enough that there are rents to be had from the government's hands. It's heinous to try to lay out a framework where A is allowed to seek rent, and B is not, that A is allowed to inform government policy, and that B is not.
Lobbyists are not the problem. A government for benefit of some at the expense of others is.
"Lobbyists are not the problem. A government for benefit of some at the expense of others is."
"Mark, on the other hand, will be along shortly to tell us we simply need to breed the right sort of mosquitos."
Actually, I'm not sure I can even get to that point. Wow...nice lunch break here.
Geek, do you honestly believe that lobbyists are not the problem? Or a problem? And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?
Lobbyists are the reason why the government is benefiting some--those some are the elite of this country who want to maintain their share of the pie...all 9/10ths of it.
But, by all means, please let's eliminate the government. I'm certain you will find a way to explain away your misery as you see much of the infrastructure that all of you take for granted right now turn to dust.
Blaming lobbyists for corruption is somewhat like blaming lawyers for miscarriage of law.
While some lobbyists and some lawyers are indeed at fault, in most cases they are simply professionals trying desperately to defend their clients against a nightmarishly bad system. Blame the judges, blame the juries, and blame the Congress.
"Geek, do you honestly believe that lobbyists are not the problem? Or a problem? And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?"
Teacher boy, the problem isn't that lobbyists try to buy influence, rather the problem is that influence can be bought at all. More gubmint, regulating more aspects of our lives, creates more opportunities for gubmint to sell influence, and thus more opportunity for lobbyists to buy influence. You don't get one without the other. Thus comes the notion that the love of gubmint is the root of the problem.
But, by all means, please let's eliminate the government. I'm certain you will find a way to explain away your misery as you see much of the infrastructure that all of you take for granted right now turn to dust.
Sure. Because only government can build a road, deliver water, remove sewage, educate children.
But, by all means, please let's eliminate the government.
Ah, yes, Tinkerball's standard straw-man! That's Standard Response #6, right on schedule!
No, Markadelphia, we don't want to "eliminate the government." The Anarchists want that. We want government to do those things that we need government for - but only those things we need government for. We want people to understand that government is a necessary evil, but it is an evil and must be treated as such - not as a savior, mentor, or parent.
And you CONTINUE to deny this, insisting that if only the right people were in charge . . !
I'll say it again. Marky is truly a Commisar at heart, simply awaiting his wet dream of a socialist utopia.
Every word he types, every argument he fosters is pure, unadulterated collectivism, and leads straight to the gulags.
There's an uberliberal college professor (who I shall not name) in my area. His guest op-ed pieces in the local paper sound as if Marky himself typed them. I mean, they are absolutely indistinguishable.
Party appratchicks, the both of 'em, nothing more. Still, that's plenty bad enough.
And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?
M, I'm going to shock you and agree that the govt is benefiting the powerful.
Now I'm really going to shock you and tell you that it will ALWAYS be thus, and that the only way to diminish that is to diminish the power of govt to bestow favors.
Last, I'll truly astound you in that my logic is the shame as Chomsky (& Moore) except I actually follow it to the end, and not an aborted fantasy.
Juris: Yow, Freud was right, and that's brilliant. :)
Kevin: All that said, I also recognize that the culture of today won't support anarchism. (Humanity may never be ready to live under anarchy, in any large amounts.) But I like to think about the fact that the culture has been shifting for the last hundred years to become ever more controlling, un-self-reliant, and generally statist; and to daydream of a time when we have a libertarian republic again, and the culture is gradually removing more and more things from under the aegis of government.
So, while it gets me rather flamed by other anarchists, while I do advocate the abolition of all government, I don't advocate it today.
Geek, do you honestly believe that lobbyists are not the problem? Or a problem? And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?
I stand by what I said on this subject over at your blog, Mark:
While I have a problem with the wealthy and powerful essentially offering bribes, I don't see a way to make it stop and would be horrified at the thought of outlawing such a practice, because too many other freedoms would go by the wayside in the process.
What really stumps me though is why you are so hot to put those offering bribes to the torch, but ready with forgiveness, praise, defense, elective office and cabinet appointments for those who take them. The person offering the bribe may be an ass, but that's all he is, at least he's spending his own money. The legislator who accepts it is a racketeer spending my money and yours, but you're okay with that as long as they aren't Republicans.
-those some are the elite of this country who want to maintain their share of the pie...all 9/10ths of it.
Amazingly, Mark still misses the point he's making.
Mark: according to you (and you're wrong as to the numbers, but we'll just let that pass for now, since if we mark you down for everything you get wrong you fail even more miserably), they control 9/10s...
HOW? Explain that. How can they possibly control that much?
"...I know it’s been said before, but exactly how does Moore think he’d manage to keep his pudgy fingers on all those $$$ if the country were indeed a socialist nation?"
The answer may be inferred from the article: Same way Leni Riefenstahl did.
Which is why Moore has the nickname "Tubbi Riefenstahl".
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/quote-of-day-meet-new-boss-edition.html (24 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
When thieves and their apologists fall out....
Podesta also ran the transition team for Obama.
Remember the railing against lobbyists? Remember that? Remember promises of transparency in the new administration? 2008 was so long ago.
I'd like to put a question to those who comment here: If you believe that lobbyists corrupt the system, are an institution whose bad facets outweigh their good ones, then what do? Because lobbyists are simply people who are paid to exercise their right to petition the government. They are professionals who make their living off of exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Either you regulate the marketplace with restrictions on their pay or hours worked or something of that nature, or you prune back Constitutional rights in the name of "fairness" or "access", and we already know how that goes.
As for me, I favor fighting against corruption the same way Walter Reed defeated yellow fever in Panama: drain the swamp. If you take away government's power to pick winners and losers, then you take away the incentive to cajole, schmooze, bribe, and corrupt politicians. Remove the bloated stinking corpse, and the maggots will go away.
>>If you take away government's power to pick winners and losers, then you take away the incentive to cajole, schmooze, bribe, and corrupt politicians. Remove the bloated stinking corpse, and the maggots will go away.
Amen.
At the end of the day a lobbyist is doing what is our fundamental right to do: to Speak, To Assemble, and to Petition our .gov.
Anyone whose seeking to restrict those rights or qualify them in some way is really seeking to form a permanent advantage for some favored group.
It's bad enough that there are rents to be had from the government's hands. It's heinous to try to lay out a framework where A is allowed to seek rent, and B is not, that A is allowed to inform government policy, and that B is not.
Lobbyists are not the problem. A government for benefit of some at the expense of others is.
As for me, I favor fighting against corruption the same way Walter Reed defeated yellow fever in Panama: drain the swamp.
Britt++
Mark, on the other hand, will be along shortly to tell us we simply need to breed the right sort of mosquitos.
----
To put in in hacker terminology, "fix the underlying bug, don't patch around it."
"Lobbyists are not the problem. A government for benefit of some at the expense of others is."
"Mark, on the other hand, will be along shortly to tell us we simply need to breed the right sort of mosquitos."
Actually, I'm not sure I can even get to that point. Wow...nice lunch break here.
Geek, do you honestly believe that lobbyists are not the problem? Or a problem? And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?
Lobbyists are the reason why the government is benefiting some--those some are the elite of this country who want to maintain their share of the pie...all 9/10ths of it.
But, by all means, please let's eliminate the government. I'm certain you will find a way to explain away your misery as you see much of the infrastructure that all of you take for granted right now turn to dust.
Blaming lobbyists for corruption is somewhat like blaming lawyers for miscarriage of law.
While some lobbyists and some lawyers are indeed at fault, in most cases they are simply professionals trying desperately to defend their clients against a nightmarishly bad system. Blame the judges, blame the juries, and blame the Congress.
"Geek, do you honestly believe that lobbyists are not the problem? Or a problem? And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?"
Teacher boy, the problem isn't that lobbyists try to buy influence, rather the problem is that influence can be bought at all. More gubmint, regulating more aspects of our lives, creates more opportunities for gubmint to sell influence, and thus more opportunity for lobbyists to buy influence. You don't get one without the other. Thus comes the notion that the love of gubmint is the root of the problem.
But, by all means, please let's eliminate the government. I'm certain you will find a way to explain away your misery as you see much of the infrastructure that all of you take for granted right now turn to dust.
Sure. Because only government can build a road, deliver water, remove sewage, educate children.
Please don't breed, Wormtongue.
Upon reflection, I hereby withdraw the last sentence (only) of the preceding and apologize. It was over the line. I am sorry.
But, by all means, please let's eliminate the government.
Ah, yes, Tinkerball's standard straw-man! That's Standard Response #6, right on schedule!
No, Markadelphia, we don't want to "eliminate the government." The Anarchists want that. We want government to do those things that we need government for - but only those things we need government for. We want people to understand that government is a necessary evil, but it is an evil and must be treated as such - not as a savior, mentor, or parent.
And you CONTINUE to deny this, insisting that if only the right people were in charge . . !
To be fair to Mark, There's at least one anarchist who regularly comments here. ;)
But Government is so awesomely loving wonderful and shiny bright with amazing balloons and sparkley dust - it can do EVERYTHING!!
Perl:
So noted!
I'll say it again. Marky is truly a Commisar at heart, simply awaiting his wet dream of a socialist utopia.
Every word he types, every argument he fosters is pure, unadulterated collectivism, and leads straight to the gulags.
There's an uberliberal college professor (who I shall not name) in my area. His guest op-ed pieces in the local paper sound as if Marky himself typed them. I mean, they are absolutely indistinguishable.
Party appratchicks, the both of 'em, nothing more. Still, that's plenty bad enough.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?
M, I'm going to shock you and agree that the govt is benefiting the powerful.
Now I'm really going to shock you and tell you that it will ALWAYS be thus, and that the only way to diminish that is to diminish the power of govt to bestow favors.
Last, I'll truly astound you in that my logic is the shame as Chomsky (& Moore) except I actually follow it to the end, and not an aborted fantasy.
. . . my logic is the shame as Chomsky (& Moore) . . .
Freudian slip much? ;)
Oh my gawd.
Don't change it.
[simultaneously embarrassed, amused and proud]
Juris: Yow, Freud was right, and that's brilliant. :)
Kevin: All that said, I also recognize that the culture of today won't support anarchism. (Humanity may never be ready to live under anarchy, in any large amounts.) But I like to think about the fact that the culture has been shifting for the last hundred years to become ever more controlling, un-self-reliant, and generally statist; and to daydream of a time when we have a libertarian republic again, and the culture is gradually removing more and more things from under the aegis of government.
So, while it gets me rather flamed by other anarchists, while I do advocate the abolition of all government, I don't advocate it today.
Geek, do you honestly believe that lobbyists are not the problem? Or a problem? And who exactly do you think the government is benefiting right now?
I stand by what I said on this subject over at your blog, Mark:
While I have a problem with the wealthy and powerful essentially offering bribes, I don't see a way to make it stop and would be horrified at the thought of outlawing such a practice, because too many other freedoms would go by the wayside in the process.
What really stumps me though is why you are so hot to put those offering bribes to the torch, but ready with forgiveness, praise, defense, elective office and cabinet appointments for those who take them. The person offering the bribe may be an ass, but that's all he is, at least he's spending his own money. The legislator who accepts it is a racketeer spending my money and yours, but you're okay with that as long as they aren't Republicans.
Why is that?
-those some are the elite of this country who want to maintain their share of the pie...all 9/10ths of it.
Amazingly, Mark still misses the point he's making.
Mark: according to you (and you're wrong as to the numbers, but we'll just let that pass for now, since if we mark you down for everything you get wrong you fail even more miserably), they control 9/10s...
HOW? Explain that. How can they possibly control that much?
On the subject...
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/10/06/socialism-a-hate-story/
I imagine Kevin can pull a QotD from there easily. The difficulty will be in choosing.
GOT, you ain't kidding! Great piece! Thank you for pointing to that.
From the comments at the linked Hotair post:
"...I know it’s been said before, but exactly how does Moore think he’d manage to keep his pudgy fingers on all those $$$ if the country were indeed a socialist nation?"
The answer may be inferred from the article: Same way Leni Riefenstahl did.
Which is why Moore has the nickname "Tubbi Riefenstahl".
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>