Jim Devine writes: >> To my mind, it is quite likely that there will be conflicting >> interests for the foreseeable future. But I see a significant >> difference between conflicts under capitalism and those with >> (democratic) socialism. Those under capitalism involve a heavy bias >> toward serving the interests of those with lots of money, who are able >> to hire people (including politicians) and order them around, getting >> them to do the dirty work and to make further profits for them. On the >> other hand, those in a socialist system generally involve conflict >> _among equals_ and a conflict between individual interests and the >> public (collective) interest. Part of the latter is the actual >> definition of the "public interest," which cannot spring full-grown >> from someone's cranium but must be created via democratic debate and >> decision-making. >> >> The second (socialist) kind of conflict may seem a bit utopian, but >> it's identical the dominant liberal vision of pluralistic conflict. >> That so many people think that this is a reasonable type of conflict >> suggests that instituting it is not an impossible goal. The >> difference is that liberals see this kind of conflict among equals >> (i.e., competition) as applying here and now. (To some of them, it >> seems, the definition of the "public interest" is self-evident.) In >> contrast, I think class institutions bias the whole process and need >> to be abolished. >> >> This, of course, gets me back to what I said before: the point is to >> >to level the playing field, so that lobbyists do not have any special >> advantage over the non-lobbyists.< The abolition of lobbyists would >> involve the abolition of the societal distinction between lobbyists >> and non-lobbyists.
I honestly have no idea what this means in any concrete sense. How do I distinguish these bad lobbyists from the good non-lobbyists? Is it based upon what they are advocating? How they are paid? Their motivations? Is lobbying in a capitalist society bad lobbying by definition, while lobbying in a socialist society good non-lobbying by definition? Is your issue that in a capitalist society, lobbying results in the success of the worse over the better because of the confusion created by the presence of money, while in a socialist society, lobbying can only result in the success of the better over the worse because the confusion created by money is absent? And how do we level the playing field? The First Amendment prohibits the government from making a law abridging the right of the people "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Do you advocate the government prohibiting the people from paying other people to petition the goverment on their behalf? >> In my utopia, people would read what I write. ;-) I ready everything you write, so we must be in your utopia. The fact I ignore a lot of what you write doesn't mean I don't read it. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
