this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43392 readers
1673 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

ITT: people so used to lobbying that they got convinced it's a necessary evil so that minorities and common folks can lobby as well.

It's clearly absurd. Many places call lobbying with its real name: corruption. And there are laws in place to fight it. Are they perfect? No. Is it then more effective to legalyze corruption? OF COURSE NOT ARE YOU INSANE?!?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lobbying isn't the same as corruption.

Lobbying is informing politicians about an issue while pushing your agenda.

Corruption is giving a politician an incentive to vote as you want.

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In what universe a politician does not have, nevermind intrinsecally in its raise to popularity, but explicitly active tools and relationships that keeps him up to date with the issues and needs of his community?

I guess in a monarchy.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Very few politicians have the time get down and understand the issues enough to make an informed decision, which they have aids and use lobbyists to learn about the subject.

A decision about deciding about subsidiaries for specific crops for instance, lets say that a farmer used to farm wheat, but then realized that he could get more money by farming tobacco, ok, so he switches to tobacco, but the nation still needs a stable supply of wheat, so wheat needs to be subsidized by the government to make it worth it for farmer to farm wheat, most politicians won't know if there is a need for this or how large it needs to be.

This is where lobbyists come in, they inform politicians about what they believe is needed, show reports and other data, to influence the politician about how to vote and what to argue for. Wheat farmers and baker advocacy groups will argue for high subsidies, tobacco farmers and cigarette companies will argue against it.

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is that a government for ants?!?

No dude there's experts, specialists, entire departments within any (?) human government that knows shit, talks with experts, calculate and runs stuff.

They don't just wait for farmers to walk up and explain what vegetables are.

And why would you think it's normal that cigarette companies are at this whymsical table? Why put cancer inducing products in a debate with food with baby politicians that knows nothing and wait for the "debate" to play out?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is that a government for ants?!?

No this is normal.

No dude there’s experts, specialists, entire departments within any (?) human government that knows shit, talks with experts, calculate and runs stuff.

Yes there are departments for healthcare, having reports full of stats, that no politician will ever read, lobbying can bring attention to demetia and bring some context to the data.

They don’t just wait for farmers to walk up and explain what vegetables are.

Correct, but they want farmers to come up and talk to them about problems that they see that might be missed, for example, how young people can be encouraged to go into farming, or if there is something killing the crops that they can see faster than the governments experts can write a report about.

And why would you think it’s normal that cigarette companies are at this whymsical table?

Because they are a huge industry.

Why put cancer inducing products in a debate with food with baby politicians that knows nothing and wait for the “debate” to play out

Because farmers need money, and if tobacco pays more than wheat, then the farmer will farm tobacco.

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are blind to so many options...

They ignore the reports? So why would they not ignore the "people"? Because money? Then it's just corruption and the policy won't reflect any genuine need.

Why being a "huge industry" has any political weight? Drugs cartel move tons of money, do they get a say in the matter too?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

You are blind to reality.