Why would the public want ‘nutty’ regulations? Why would corporations care either way, as long as they can maximise profits?
I am struggling to see the motivations here.
1 Like
Regulators have a default behavior to “regulate” that is their job. They are not engineers, they are not experts on supply chains, or shipping, or much of anything else… Without being educated, they can propose all kinds of things that may seem reasonable to want, but impractical and incredibly expensive to be delivered.
The public doesn’t know much about most industries unless the media informs them – and the media has a bias towards the sensational scandalous sounding stories. Thus the rational behind many moves to regulate is often driven by the need to sell newspapers, not any sound science.
1 Like
We’re lucky then, (according to you) that we have the Corporation Lobbyists to ride in on their noble steeds to Educate the Ministers that legislate and regulate then…eh?
Corruption, fraud, corporate theft, monopolisation etc are matters of public interest and will therefore be reported. If the media has a more general interest in “scandalous stories”, then it is because it is what the public/consumer wants, otherwise they wouldn’t buy.
Wow……so if the public didn’t want “scandalous stories” (or what I’d call important News), then the Newspapers wouldn’t need to publish them in order to sell papers……so we’d have less need to regulate?
So, to summarize : The public are fundamentally to blame for wanting “scandalous stories” and all we need to do is keep the public in the dark and then we’d have less need to regulate?
You can say that again. 
I didn’t say it was the perfect wonderful system. It is just how it really works, based on the stories I hear from my friends who have been on both sides of the system (As legistatlive aides, beurocrats and lobbiests) It isn’t a very good system but that is how it works, and I really don’t see how any other idea of making it work is anything more than wishful thinking. You cannot have the uneducated educate the legislature because they are unqualified, and if you have the educated educate them, they have perspectives and opinions and agendas.
Because the system is silly and broken, Many folks advocate for more regulation, but it will always wind up being of the same ilk.
I didn’t advocate keeping the public in the dark.
Sometimes, but not usually. Most industries are very lightly covered by media. The media is also dependent on sources - and those sources have agendas, may or may not be telling the whole truth etc etc etc… The media isn’t smart enough to know anything that they are not told. I have worked for many corporations in many capacities, and have never seen a reporter walk through the building unescorted doing research. Reporters report what they are told. Most of the folks engaged in business don’t believe what they are doing to be scandalous. so they aren’t going to run whistleblowing to the media.
The media being corporations ran by rich folk, right?
OK, this seems to be what you are saying:
- Sources inform the Media
- Media informs Voters and Congressmen
- Industry **Lobbyists/**Voters inform/Lobby Congressmen
- Congressmen inform Regulators
- Regulators inform/regulate Industries
Apparently, “Sources” and “Lobbyists” are the smart people with all the ultimate influence over the Media, Voters and Congressmen (all being far less smart).
Both Sources and Lobbyists have agendas.
For argument’s sake, let’s assume they are in opposition.
Both this comment:
And this one:
……lead me to believe you are referring to people with ecological concerns, Global warming etc and that you are in the opposing camp. This would mean the opposing smart Lobbyists would be Oil Industry, Big Agriculture etc…yes?.
3.Industry Lobbyists/Voters inform/Lobby Congressmen
Voters also inform the legislature, whether educated or not, they inform the legislature.
You clearly ascribe more of a dubious nature to the information given by “Sources” than “Lobbyists”. You further state that one reason we have too much regulation is ultimately because of these “Sources” informing the Voter via the Media. Ascribing blame to this process, seems to infer you would rather the Voter/legislature was not informed this way.
Maybe recording all minutes of lobbyist meetings on a Blockchain type system which is immediately made public and provision made for arguments against the Lobbyists position to be heard. Having all financial info and Board inter-relationships published etc…just off top of head. 
Sometimes, although less so now than in the past. The media is being disrupted, decentralized and re-invented.
All in all the problem is that no matter who you are you are only going to know part of any story and the part you will know is going to be the part that somebody felt the need to tell you. They are telling you in order to convince you one direction or another.
Nope. I stated no such opinion. I just say Ag people are going to know more about Ag than anyone else, Oil people are going to know more about oil than anyone else, etc etc etc… The only way for Government to learn is to hear it from the experts - and the experts are going to represent the truth from the perspective that is automatically biased towards their side.
The public gets a lot of information from fear mongering media trying to sell papers – Sometimes this is valid, sometimes it is invalid… But scientists are often astounded at what people believe or don’t believe… (Dr Oz for example has a lot of followers, and little track record of being anywhere near scientific consensus)
I disagree. Sources and lobbyists are not really all that separable. Weather a corporation parades their story before the media, or the corporation parades their story before the congress, they are still the ones telling the story. The public isn’t going to “know” anything that isn’t fed to them from one camp or another that has an agenda to push.
It comes down to this. Nobody knows anything about most things. There are very few reporters wandering the american workplace unescorted gathering the unbiased truth about daily operations and the ins and outs of any particular business. By default everyone is ignorant about most everything. When that changes it changes for a reason. No matter what limitation you put on corporate money or labor unions or anything else, those who have special interests will very aggressively make their special interest known, and those without special interests will have little need to garner an opinion about something that is menusia to them. The Squeeky wheels will get the oil.
Political battles more or less will only come to fruition when special interests disagree with one another.
Of course, but that doesn’t mean each side’s agenda/argument is equally valid - this would be a logical fallacy. Both sides arguments have to be heard equally in the same forums, the way forward should be decided on the strength of the arguments.
The issue appears to be one of “Equal voice”, the system appears to be weighted in the Corporate/Banking interests favour clearly, as they have all the dosh…If policies are being enacted that don’t appear to be in the general public’s interest, but the Corporations, then surely, part of the reason for this is the louder voice the Lobbyists have with Govt.
We need Lobbyists for the Public.
Who’s Dr Oz?
Who did you have in mind then?
I don’t think so. My argument is that only those who have a vested interest are likely to state their opinion. The interest of the dis-interested minority is going to be rather quiet because they don’t care very much. If an item effects a companies bottom line by a few million dollars they are certainly going to make some noise about it. If it is going to effect the price the consumers pay at the grocery store by a few million dollars spread over the entire population, very few will bother investing in such a complaint. Economies of scale in reverse.
[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:49, topic:3278”]
Who did you have in mind then?
[/quote] Government is not the answer.
Ok, I think we understand where we’re each coming from, I’ll let others get a word in
So does the Pope… .
Some one needs to tell the public, they want much higher wages and much more time off and much better work place protections and much more in the way of restrictions on so called management. The public was much much better off with strong unions. The public needs an agenda where it begins to single out and eliminate the basis for the business special interests. There is never a reason to compromise the public interest. And whether we want government or not, selling out can’t be its basis.
As an example, some simple changes in law and some public announcements could rid the world of the RIAA/MPAA. They’d be reminded in law that the public owns it all and their profit is at the public’s pleasure and only to serve the public interest. The slightest move toward encroaching the public interest would quit all their temporary property claims with prejudice. That is balance in every sector including so called labor.
That is clearly true but before you seemed to be suggesting that they should be the authorities? To say that - “Oil people” might “know about oil” might have SOME truth, but about species diversity for example, they usually know NOTHING (or care less). To say THEY should be the ones to advise government about “oil” which affects the environment is an argument for foxes guarding the hen house . .
“Incestuous, homogeneous fiefdoms of self-proclaimed expertise are always rank-closing and mutually self-defending, above all else.” ― Glenn Greenwald
Phil.
2 Likes
By and large my argument is that the foxes always guard the hen house.
You can pick different foxes, and different Hens, but you will still wind up with the same game.
Everyone seems to be thinking I am advocating this situation… I am not. It just is what it is. And I don’t see any magic solution that would fix it.
There are possible scientific solutions though…
It only seems to be a matter of public record keeping, accountability and an equal footing/forum for relevant arguments and access to Ministers. This sounds like something crypto tech can assist with,
I am having trouble following what your argument is, tbh. Maybe it is just me, but it reads like you are arguing from contradictory positions, depending on the question.
There is a clear motivation for corporates to attempt regulatory capture to increase their profits. They do this primarily through manipulating the media and the state.
I see little reason for corporations to be concerned about anything else. Their responsibility is to serve their shareholders and the external costs of their decisions are frequently socialised via the state.
Suggesting that these actions are good as they prevent ‘nutty’ ideas being put forward by individuals seems like a stretch, to say the least.
2 Likes
I can summarize my position to this.
Any freely governed society is going to migrate to a position where the oligarchs capture the regulators because the regulators inherently need to be educated in order to intelligently regulate, and the insiders are the only ones who know the ins and outs of any given industry.
Errors in regulation come out of ignorance - out of what you do not know, not what you know – But the special interests are never going to divulge the whole story – They will only divulge the information that supports their agenda. This goes for many sides of any issue – But most of the time only one side has a huge enough interest to invest the time and energy needed to effect legislation or regulation.
My point is that you cannot legislate or regulate without knowledge and knowledge is not really separable from the knowledge givers – who nearly always have an agenda… Censoring the lobbyist is a very popular answer – but censorship rarely is enlightening.
This is the core crux problem of democracy, and unless it is addressed we will continue to get what we are getting. You need a way to ensure that all knowledge is considered, not just the loudest knowledge – But most of the knowledge is uninteresting and not useful for the masses or even the representatives of the masses to invest their time into knowing.
“… not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” - Probably not by Einstein. 
So, in summary, democracy doesn’t work because corporations get their way regardless?
1 Like
Not exactly. Unless there is a compelling public interest against freedom, people and corporations ought to be free to do as they please to serve their customers and deliver needed products… In so far as individuals, corporations, or industry groups are protecting this right by educating the public and the congress, it ought to be allowed – as there is no way to know what the ins and outs are of a particular industry are unless you get it from the horse’s mouth.
The problem is that the public interest’s voice is very difficult to hear, and is often not even known. 1 because hitting everyone’s bottom line by a few pennies doesn’t make a squeal nearly as loud as hitting one companies bottom line for a few million – and 2 because most information is unknown. An industry can tell you what it is doing, but it isn’t going to tell you what it is not doing - and why they are not doing what they are not doing – the devil is in the details and the details are well below the government’s pay grade to know. And generally to trivial of a detail for them to go out of their way to learn independently.
While lobbying groups are likely to give you facts - they are highly unlikely to give you all the facts – just the ones that promote their agenda – and it is the missing facts that are the most likely facts to matter.
Democracy’s intent was to give everyone a voice. As the population grew, this was impossible, so voices were proxied through others and so on. Even with the best intents, this system was prone to failure such as the child’s Telephone Game.
Today’s democracy, at best, claims to give everyone a vote. A vote is not a voice and a voice is not a vote. This change is a result of a flawed system, which was bound to become compromised.
I believe that ideas, not votes should decide progression. Of course, without a voice or an audience, ideas are not easy to diffuse.
The Internet facilitated expression, true democracy, but until now, gave the public no way to identify the voice with absolute certainty.
Furthermore, as those with the microphone realized that the screams from the crowd were getting louder and clearer, they developed ways to silence the cries.
I believe a better Internet can fight back and offer the people a strong voice without them having to be afraid.
The user security keys used by Maid Safe can be applied to a tool to allow for public debate about social issues. Each citizen can apply for a unique identifier key that can be applied to their own private key to allow them to anonymously access the system. Government could not tell citizens apart on the tool, but they could be certain that the person was a citizen.
This tool could be used to discus social issues, find logical solutions and obtain consensus.
Possibly, this solution can be applied even without the government’s involvement. It would simply require a method of dispersing these citizen keys that would guarantee that no citizen receives more than a single key.
Regardless of such an implementation, allowing people to speak freely and without the fear of reprise is a step in the right direction.
2 Likes