| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: Why lobbying? |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| As Craig Holman of the Nader-founded Public Citizen told Marketplace Radio the last time such a report was issued, �the amount spent on lobbying . . . is related entirely to how much the federal government intervenes in the private economy.� |
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/04/lobbying-a-booming-business-in-a-politicized-economy/
You get what you ask for, though you might not know what you are asking for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't mean a government shouldn't be involved in an economy, it's just a negative side-effect.
Lobbying means money is power and is fundamentally undemocratic. Outlaw it, finance parties and campaigns via the state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Doesn't mean a government shouldn't be involved in an economy, it's just a negative side-effect.
|
Quite right. The state must have a strong and blunt regulatory role in the economy. The problem of lobbying is a result of:
| Quote: |
| ..the White House injecting billions of dollars into the economy, lobbyists say interest groups are paying a lot more attention to Washington than they have in a very long time. |
Which demands a more narrow question re: cost/benefit of governments dumping money into the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Outlaw it, finance parties and campaigns via the state. |
Though question. If you move to a 100% public finance situation then the more dominant political organizations will manipulate the rules so as to create extremely high barriers to entry for new parties. But cash does corrupt politics. I'd reckon a better situation is to completely outlaw non-individual donations. No NGO's, corporations, privately held businesses, foundations etc. Cap individual donations at a low level that even the lower classes can afford (50$?).. Maybe even allocate 50$ (or so) from every citizen and allow them complete discretion as to whom it is given. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Outlaw it, finance parties and campaigns via the state. |
I really dislike this whole "Take money from the citizenry and give it to political entities for use in convincing said citizenry to vote for said political entities," idea.
Limiting donation amounts -- and entirely banning non-individual donations -- is a good idea. Funding campaigns with state money, less so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
