I’m going to play devil’s advocate and be pedantic. Lobbying doesn’t purely mean bribery. By its strict definition, lobbying means influencing. Was the civil rights movement corrupt for lobbying to allow equal rights for black Americans? They did donate and promise to elect the Democratic Party in exchange for passing the Civil Rights Act. Unions has and always lobbied as well. Environmental groups lobbied to pass stricter environmental regulations.
Lobbying has understandably gained a bad connotation, but not all lobbying have evil intentions and consequences. It ultimately depends on the context. If lobbying disproportionately empowers only a select few at the expense of others’ rights, like billionaires lobbying to dilute worker’s rights and environmental protection because it affects all of us, then it is unquestionably bad.
I think we can compare it to advertisements. Not all advertisements are bad. Some advertisements are about public service announcements which could be good. However the vast majority of advertisements are about how to increase demands for products we dont need and manipulate us into thinking better about bad corporations.
The nuanced picture is therefore that advertisements isnt all bad, but the big picture is that it is mostly bad.
We can also compare corporations. Not all corporations are bad, but in the big picture they are mostly bad.
Don’t compare it to advertisement, compare it to the medium that contains the advertisement.
Some TV is advertising. Some TV is the shows you wanted and got the thing for to begin with.
The goal isn’t to eradicate the medium, it’s to get rid of the ads, or at least limit them to a reasonable and regulated set of public service announcements.
The problem isn’t your right to petition the government. It’s that it’s easy for a business to likewise petition them, and they can make it clear that people who support their policies often get seats on boards with nice perks later, when they’re out of office.
You want to keep your right to petition. That’s called lobbying. Outlawing lobbying is saying it should be illegal for you to try to get your representative to vote in a particular way.
And that’s why Im an horizontalist. I dont believe we should channel our force into a beatling that enforce their will upon vast lands. Corruption is inevitable. We should rather strive for democratic confederations where we rule democratically in participation with our neighboring communities.
I see your point. But if it’s advocating for a good cause to influence politics, what should it be called to avoid the negative connotations associated with lobbying? I might sound like I am splitting hairs, but if lobbying is to be banned because of bad faith actors, then it leads to the slippery slope of also banning advocacy for a good cause. This is ultimately an ontological debate and maybe even coin a new word to describe “good lobbying” to separate it from bad lobbying".
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and be pedantic. Lobbying doesn’t purely mean bribery. By its strict definition, lobbying means influencing. Was the civil rights movement corrupt for lobbying to allow equal rights for black Americans? They did donate and promise to elect the Democratic Party in exchange for passing the Civil Rights Act. Unions has and always lobbied as well. Environmental groups lobbied to pass stricter environmental regulations.
Lobbying has understandably gained a bad connotation, but not all lobbying have evil intentions and consequences. It ultimately depends on the context. If lobbying disproportionately empowers only a select few at the expense of others’ rights, like billionaires lobbying to dilute worker’s rights and environmental protection because it affects all of us, then it is unquestionably bad.
I think we can compare it to advertisements. Not all advertisements are bad. Some advertisements are about public service announcements which could be good. However the vast majority of advertisements are about how to increase demands for products we dont need and manipulate us into thinking better about bad corporations.
The nuanced picture is therefore that advertisements isnt all bad, but the big picture is that it is mostly bad.
We can also compare corporations. Not all corporations are bad, but in the big picture they are mostly bad.
Don’t compare it to advertisement, compare it to the medium that contains the advertisement.
Some TV is advertising. Some TV is the shows you wanted and got the thing for to begin with.
The goal isn’t to eradicate the medium, it’s to get rid of the ads, or at least limit them to a reasonable and regulated set of public service announcements.
The problem isn’t your right to petition the government. It’s that it’s easy for a business to likewise petition them, and they can make it clear that people who support their policies often get seats on boards with nice perks later, when they’re out of office.
You want to keep your right to petition. That’s called lobbying. Outlawing lobbying is saying it should be illegal for you to try to get your representative to vote in a particular way.
And that’s why Im an horizontalist. I dont believe we should channel our force into a beatling that enforce their will upon vast lands. Corruption is inevitable. We should rather strive for democratic confederations where we rule democratically in participation with our neighboring communities.
I see your point. But if it’s advocating for a good cause to influence politics, what should it be called to avoid the negative connotations associated with lobbying? I might sound like I am splitting hairs, but if lobbying is to be banned because of bad faith actors, then it leads to the slippery slope of also banning advocacy for a good cause. This is ultimately an ontological debate and maybe even coin a new word to describe “good lobbying” to separate it from bad lobbying".
deleted by creator
There is a whole load of Wikipedia entry for you to actually read what lobbying means.
deleted by creator
OP literally says A→B means B→A.
deleted by creator