Regulation: Used by The Powerful Against the Weak

[PanzerJaeger]

Usually that's handled by political specialisation (committees? I'm not sure about the US word for this). Senator A knows the healthcare, while senator B knows the military systems.

Yes, they are called congressional subcommittees here. The politicians on them are still hopelessly ignorant of the minutia that is involved in their broader topics.

I'm not sure exactly how that's a solution. The free market is already the powerful against the weak (technically all vs all), is cheerished to be going for money and power and the control is the consumer. Aka the random guy on the street that needs to get the same information as that overloaded senator to make informed decisions, while working at the same time (unlike the politician, where this kind of information gathering is part of his job). It's not like the politicians makes the industrial lobby corrupt.

It's the work of media and population to ensure that the politicians doesn't coddle up to the powers in the industry. Dropping the politician is a far cry from a solution.

I was not suggesting that we drop politicians. My point was that their reach should be high level and limited. In the article posted for example, should politicians really be involved in how much limousine companies can charge? They cannot possibly be expected to be experts on the premium transportation industry, so they have to rely on someone to tell them how to write the law. When politicians attempt to regulate at such a low level, distortion and corruption follow.

A. It isn't unfeasible.

It it entirely unfeasible to ban a specific group of citizens from the capitol, unless you would actually like to transition to that Stalinist autocracy that you've been talking about so much recently.

B. We are not a pluralistic democracy.

America is a pluralistic democracy.

C. The glue that binds the people's will is the vote. 99% of the public actually don't involve themselves in lobbying because they are too busy putting food on the table.

So you feel that, say, the myriad of provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 should have been put to the vote? What about the new health care law? Should the people have been expected to vote on the structure of the state exchanges? Should they have been expected to know the economic complexities surrounding the the Medicare payment system?

Or are you saying that politicians should be writing these laws themselves without any guidance from the parties they will effect?

Your average citizen views politics on broad terms, as, like you mentioned, they are too busy putting food on the table to devote any more attention to the issues. Your average politician runs on those terms. There has to be some bridge between the voter's will and the translation of that will into actual legislation. That is where lobbying groups come into play in a pluralistic democracy, like the United States, whether they be from industry or other interest groups. It is easy to say 'I'm a low-tax Republican' or 'I'm a pro-labor Democrat', but actually constructing legislation to accompany those broad positions is a bit more complex.

You are just wrapping yourself in Americana language that has no basis in reality. The majority of lobbyists are from companies. The rest are from very specific interest groups. Those that own guns and those that are old get more recognition than everyone else. That is pretty much it.

I have no idea what you are talking about in regard my language.

Look, if you support a heavily regulated society, you also support lobbying by default. The deeper politicians reach into complex issues, the more assistance they will seek. Look at the financial crisis, for example. The people demanded action and the pols couldn't possibly wrap their heads around the complexities of the global financial system so we got the mess of competing, lobbyist-written provisions in Dodd-Frank.

The politicians know just as little about health care and military programs as they would without lobbyists. What do you think the lobbyists are there for? To give an accurate picture of their industry? Watch "Thank Your for Smoking" for heaven sake.

Exactly. You seem to think I am defending lobbyists. I am just stating reality. We live in a society where the government is expected to be involved in every aspect of our lives. That is not the world I want to live in, but it is the one I do live in. In such a world, lobbying is a necessity to keep us from Mugabe style mismanagement. You want to see a system worse than our current lobbyist driven one? Just get rid of the lobbyists and let the pols try and figure this stuff out.