Lobbyist Solutions

[Fife]

I agree.

My main point I'm trying to make is that if we didn't have so much invested in base rent-seeking in D.C., and the externalities and waste of American human capital that entails (that is, if the federal government were not so far out over its skis), then lobbyists would be irrelevant.

Much like my contention that if we actually addressed immigration to our country as a matter of property rights, we'd see quickly that the "wall" is just a totem to keep the masses slobbering for state violence.

[Speaker to Animals]

What would stop the people who own a business from spending the same money in lobbying?

[Martin Hash]

I agree.

My main point I'm trying to make is that if we didn't have so much invested in base rent-seeking in D.C., and the externalities and waste of American human capital that entails (that is, if the federal government were not so far out over its skis), then lobbyists would be irrelevant.

Much like my contention that if we actually addressed immigration to our country as a matter of property rights, we'd see quickly that the "wall" is just a totem to keep the masses slobbering for state violence.

I have a different read on both of those cases. I've always considered politics a game, as is life, and certainly an economy. Games have rules otherwise we'd just kill the other players and take their stuff, and that's the way it will end. Unfortunately, rules have the major weakness that no one can foresee all the possibilities nor predict the future, and certainly any rule that can be written can be exploited.

The best way to handle the compromise of a rule is not proactively, trying to predict all the ways it will fail; but reactively, just plug the hole the pirates came through.

[Martin Hash]

What would stop the people who own a business from spending the same money in lobbying?

That was my solution.

[Speaker to Animals]

What would stop the people who own a business from spending the same money in lobbying?

That was my solution.

So only individuals can lobby?

I am not taking a side here, but it seems to me you can reframe the argument against Fife by making this about limiting lobbying to individuals. Then there can be no argument about anybody being denied any rights, since all individuals have the right to lobby.

[Martin Hash]

What would stop the people who own a business from spending the same money in lobbying?

That was my solution.

So only individuals can lobby?

I am not taking a side here, but it seems to me you can reframe the argument against Fife by making this about limiting lobbying to individuals. Then there can be no argument about anybody being denied any rights, since all individuals have the right to lobby.

Yes. (My first rule in the list is that only individuals can lobby.)

[Speaker to Animals]

That was my solution.

So only individuals can lobby?

I am not taking a side here, but it seems to me you can reframe the argument against Fife by making this about limiting lobbying to individuals. Then there can be no argument about anybody being denied any rights, since all individuals have the right to lobby.

Yes. (My first rule in the list is that only individuals can lobby.)

Then reframe the entire debate when they come at you with the first amendment quip, since you are not technically denying any one person the freedom of speech.

The first amendment didn't initially apply to corporations of any kind. The people who wrote it would have thought that assertion laughable. At least, it would seem to me, unless somebody can dig up quotes from Madison saying corporations and trusts were people just like John Adams.

They can argue that it *should* be that way. But that's a completely different argument they try to avoid.

[Martin Hash]

Watch the flow of the debate: I immediately went the "business is NOT people" route, with an example, and Fife dismissed that argument by dissing Mitt.

[Speaker to Animals]

The simple truth of the matter is that corporations are legal persons, not people. It does not necessarily follow that, from being a legal person for the sake of a functioning civil court system, we must derive full human rights to corporations.

They can certainly argue that should be the case, and they should have to argue it. They are operating as if that's self-evident when it is not. Not historically and not even philosophically.

Corporations need to be legal persons so we can take them to court or even form contracts with them. That's all it means. The derivation of human rights from that seems vacuous to me, but I am open to argument.

[Speaker to Animals]

Another angle of attack here is to ask them if they think a labor union is a person. Because they sure as shit don't want labor unions to possess human rights, so it's puzzling how they think corporations are somehow more human.