Raghu writes:
<<<Or if legal persons called corporations organize to influence legislation.
It is only lobbying if its ability to influence legislators derives from money
rather than from popular support. As Jim said, from "one dollar one vote" to
"one person one vote"
I think this very naive and impractical. An election can only tell us so much.
Communication between the governors and the governed cannot and should not be
limited to a periodic election. How should the members of Congress vote to
bail out GM? I doubt it was a campaign issue in any specific election held
less than 30 days ago. Shouldn't the governors hear from the governed? And
how should the governed effectively communicate their views if not through
lobbying through lobbyists?
<<<I suppose Marxists could resolve this dilemma by arguing people do not
necessarily have conflicting interests, but personally, that to me is closer to
flying people than a world of clean water.
<<<What makes you thinks Marxists believe such a preposterous thing?
To be fair to me, Marxists presumably believe in "class conflict" and that true
communism will be a post-historical stage where such conflict ceases to exist.
There is certainly the implication that "conflict" in such a world will be
qualitatively different -- as the citizenry will all be free, rational, etc.,
disputes will by definition be almost trivial -- how could free and rational
individuals disagree on something really material? I suppose you can qualify
such concepts to be practically meaningless in context, but do Marxists really
want to do that? Do you want to take the position that there will be serious
conflict in utopia? How disappointing.
David Shemano
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
