David B. Shemano wrote: > ... How do I distinguish these bad lobbyists from the good non-lobbyists? > Is it based upon what they are advocating? How they are paid? Their > motivations? Is lobbying in a capitalist society bad lobbying by definition, > while lobbying in a socialist society good non-lobbying by definition?<
I didn't distinguish between bad lobbyists and good non-lobbyists. (For lack of a better definition, a "lobbyist" is someone who specializes in communicating non-legislator interests to legislators.) Rather, I was referring to the _institution_ of lobbying (a human-made organization). If we must attach "good" and "bad" labels, it would be to institutions, not individuals. The lobbying institution might be seen as "bad" under capitalism because it is one tool that those with power now use to expand their power (hiring paid spokespeople). That institution might be seen as "good" in a socialist system -- but only if it doesn't start responding disproportionately to a small privileged and powerful minority like our current class of capitalists (or becoming a small and privileged minority itself). The "good" lobbying industry would be as responsible to the democratic interest as the legislators would be. How would they be paid? In a socialist system, if it's working correctly, the same principle would be applied to all jobs: "From each according to ability, to each according to deeds." Instead of being rewarded just for owning property, people would be rewarded to the extent that they contribute to the well-being of society. If lobbying is not seen as an important activity, it would not be paid much. Most likely, there would be lobbying (petitioning the legislators) without lobbyists (a clear division of labor between lobbyists and non-lobbyists). > Is your issue that in a capitalist society, lobbying results in the success > of the worse over the better because of the confusion created by the presence > of money, while in a socialist society, lobbying can only result in the > success of the better over the worse because the confusion created by money > is absent?< it's not the "confusion" created by money. It's the power. > And how do we level the playing field? The First Amendment prohibits the > government from making a law abridging the right of the people "to petition > the government for a redress of grievances." Do you advocate the government > prohibiting the people from paying other people to petition the goverment on > their behalf?< in a word, no. I had written: >>> In my utopia, people would read what I write. ;-) > I ready everything you write, so we must be in your utopia. The fact I > ignore a lot of what you write doesn't mean I don't read it.< you didn't seem to understand what I had written. That's likely because of the completely different world-views we have. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
