Everyone likes to rant about lobbyists and lobbying, which are strange names for something Thomas Jefferson chose instead to call "petitioning government for redress of grievances".
Is it that you just dislike it when other people exercise their rights? Is it that you don't bother to exercise those same rights yourself, and so they shouldn't be allowed to do so either? Or maybe it's just that they're better at it and that seems unfair to you?
These people -- the blogger, his friend, etc -- could easily 'exercise' their rights, as you say, in a good way, or a bad one. They choose a bad one, for greed. There's nothing better to dislike than "somebody did a bad thing on purpose."
People should be electing their representatives based on what they will do for them. Instead they choose who gets bought. As a result, I have one vote but Charlie McBucks Inc. has 10 million.
> Is it that you don't bother to exercise those same rights yourself,
It's a game only the extremely wealthy can play, and you can't lobby to abolish lobbying anyway.
Here are some entire books written by people who studied this issue in great depth:
"The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate" by Lee Drutman: In this book, Drutman explains how and why corporations became so invested in influencing politics, and what that means for the future of American democracy.
"Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It" by Lawrence Lessig: This book by a prominent legal scholar and activist provides a comprehensive analysis of the influence of money on politics and proposes innovative solutions for reform.
"So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government" by Robert G. Kaiser: A detailed look at the rise of the lobbying industry in Washington and its impact on American democracy.
I agree, in a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with the concept of lobbying. I would go out on a limb (well not quite a limb, I have family members that were lobbyists) and say the majority of lobbying that occurs in the US is actually good.
But where it's bad, it's really bad. The loudest and most influential voices are the ones with the most money, and sometimes that's good, but a lot of times thats bad. They promise golden parachutes and shower politicians with money so much so that even if the politician gets burned, they are promised a career at the lobbying firm or with one of the "hookups". Again this is bad, because now instead of being accountable to the constituency, our politicians are accountable to their benefactors.
There's a lot more reasons this is wrong, but this is the primary gist. I hope we can all agree this is an issue.
Do you think this works as well when you replace "exercise one's rights" with "bribe politicians"? Let's see:
"Is it that you just dislike it when other people bribe politicians? Is it that you don't bother to bribe politicians yourself?" Hmm, not as punchy.
Another way to put it is: "what's wrong with rich people having orders of magnitude more power than you? Is it that you don't bother to already be rich?"
Gambling prohibition only prevents gambling regulation. You don't get to regulate illegal things.
God save us from busybodies trying to protect us from ourselves.
You think there is no more gambling occurring in a world where you walk into a convenience store and there is a slot machine or whatever, or you watch a sporting event and 50% of the advertisements are for gambling, as opposed to a world where those things are not the case?
> You don't get to regulate illegal things.
Illegal things are regulated, these things are not allowed, do them and you will punished. The regulation is very clear.
> God save us from busybodies trying to protect us from ourselves.
I was once having a conversation with someone on this topic of gambling, and the problems it incurs to members of society, and by extension society as a whole. She had personal experience with a former spouse having a gambling problem.
She said something to the effect of “Well yeah, it’s not good, but you can’t legislate morality.“
I kind of nodded in agreement like, yeah, fair point.
But upon later reflection it occurred to me that what are laws if not the legislation of morality? That’s literally what laws are.
Should we not bother being busybodies having laws preventing theft and murder?
After all people still commit these acts should we not bother with regulations against them, attempting to protect people from themselves, and society from the negative downstream effects?
Ah but you say, it’s a victimless act. Let people have their big gulps, let people gamble. It is a victimless act until it isn’t, like speeding or drunk driving.
If a father downloads an app and blows through his families monthly resources with a few button presses that creates problems not just for him but the rest of his family and other people are going to have to pick up the slack.
These ventures being allowed into the system of capital creates incentives for as much of these problems in society as possible from the perspective of the proprietors of these ventures in order for them to extract the most capital profits that they can. (“Capital profits” meaning profit in the most narrowly defined sense in terms of numbers in a database. Is someone involved in this stuff profiting in anyway spiritually or emotionally in the way that comes from providing something of value to society?)
That is why it is de-generate. Nothing good is being created / generated.
It’s an extractive, predatory venture.
What is good for society?
It used to be a chicken in every pot.
Now a casino in every pocket?
Come on….
No. They're not regulated. Everyone knows where to get them anyway, or knows someone who knows where to get them. And they do.
But those things are more dangerous for everyone. You don't get to make them safe by demanding inspections. You don't get to make sure no one's cheating. It acts as a huge drain on revenue, instead of the taxable economic activity it should be.
Your "regulation" is some delusional DEA Czar talking about protecting kids from drugs and winning a war against an abstract concept. Meanwhile those kids buy dirty street shit mixed with rat poison and elephant tranquilizer.
I'm not a big fan of regulation, mind you, but I think I speak even for the pro-regulation folks when I say "that's not the kind of regulation anyone wants or that anyone means when they use the word".
> But upon later reflection it occurred to me that what are laws if not the legislation of morality? That’s literally what laws are.
That's not what laws are for. It seems like it to naive people. But then they try to prohibit things people are going to do anyway, even when those things won't harm others if done.
And, if any of this just rubs you the wrong way, you can go read up on the extensive real world experimentation where we discover just how awful those attempts go.
Laws are for "making things better". It may be that people who rape toddlers deserve to be executed, but if you make that a law you don't make the world better... you just end up with more dead toddlers. Laws drafted badly create perverse incentives.
> Ah but you say, it’s a victimless act. Let people have their big gulps, let people gamble. It is a victimless act until it isn’t, like speeding or drunk driving.
No one said you can't prohibit drunk driving. Though, even for that, there are limits to how intense this prohibition can be. The thing you can't do without it being lunacy, is outlawing the drinking itself.
> If a father downloads an app and blows through his families monthly resources with a few button presses that creates problems not just for him but the rest of his family and other people are going to have to pick up the slack.
The teatotalers would've loved you. But then we prohibit something, and we get mobsters having machine gun fights on Main Street about black markets. No thanks.
This isn't a gambling problem. It's a "why wasn't she a good enough judge of character to not have his kids". I'd like to solve that one too, but I don't know how. Not my problem. Not yours, feel free to not pick up their slack.
> These ventures being allowed into the system of capital creates incentives for as much of these problems in society as possible from the perspective of the proprietors of these ventures in order for them to extract the most capital profits that they can.
The initial prohibition (and the naivete of the legislators) caused that. Rather than digging deep and becoming subject matter experts on the regulation of gambling (and we have quite alot of history and learning materials for this), they passed the buck until it managed to be legalized in a half-assed manner.
You elect bad legislators (so do I, there are no good candidates).
> What is good for society?
We're no longer in a "what is good for society" phase of civilization. Even if I agreed with you, I wouldn't waste political capital trying to be anti-gambling. It's just bad strategy.
That ship sailed by 1980 or so. I was a kid then, and largely unaware of it at the time. If you invent time travel though, don't show up in 1978 or whatever, it'd need to be the 1950s or 1960s to have any chance at all of fighting that battle. The seeds of universal gambling in the United States were sown way back when.
Long story short: undermining fundamental human rights to fight a war you lost before you started sounds like a fool's solution to a problem that doesn't even cause him any trouble.
The lottery proceeds fund public schools.
Because a corresponding amount of general budget funds were diverted away from schools, the inference is untrue.
See, we can all play this shit game.
Yes, without doubt.
> who is disabled
Even worse.
> It taught them gambling pays, and makes them more likely to lose money in the future.
By definition gambling is losing money in long terms (otherwise it's investing, not gambling). A disabled is less likely to recover after a financial disaster.
Seems to me your definition is a bit lacking.
Frankly you come off as purposefully obtuse for the sake of arguing.
For the next time you cherry pick anecdotes to try and support some outlandish position, I suggest you at least be specific while doing so. Unless of course that lack of specificity was intentional and this was meant to be a “gotcha”.
How much has your cousin spent on lottery tickets, in her life?
Is that what paying others to do something makes me? Better at it?
So then it follows Stan Kroenke is the best multi-sport athlete the world has ever seen.