Don't make a deal with the devil

[LibertyFirst]

I posted this in another thread but it's a bit of a mess over there, so I'm going to put it here as well.  Forgive the duplication, please. 

 

I support the movement and I think that most of your demands are valid attempts to address the correct causes of our present situation.  But....

In demanding that the current government create or change policies, you are trusting the foxes to guard the hen house.  You are not dealing with an honest broker.  Our corrupt government and its corporate puppet masters have been enacting legislation for decades that looks like it is going to be good for the people, while in actuality, it benefits only the 1%.  You may get them to reinstate Glass-Steagall, for example, but I guarantee they will create new loopholes and/or other new legislation to ensure the status quo.  There is a reason that legislation is so voluminous and complex you need a law degree and a staff to understand it--this is how they hide the loopholes and they are very good at it.  If the movement's demands end up being a list of policy changes, at some point they will agree to change policy, the movement will rejoice, disban and they will promptly fuck us over anew.

In order to get any real change, we need first to have a legislature we can trust.  This is an enormous challenge and I am not exactly sure how this can be accomplished--maybe we can figure that out together. 

So as not to get caught up in too many details now, run with me for a minute on the big picture.  Let's say we fire the entire congress--like a nationwide recall.  We ensure an honest election system for their replacements, including ensuring their is no corporate, big money or dem/rep influence.  There is an equal playing field for all candidates, etc. and it is clear to them that if they get into office and even talk to a lobbyist, we will yank them back so fast their heads will spin.  If we could make this happen, then we would have an honest legislature whom we could trust to enact the will of the people.  Then we can demand policy change and have a reasonable shot at getting actual reform.

Right now, we are just arguing about which deal to make with the devil.

[Billy]

     This is very well written, direct, to the point, concise, and in my opinion on target and getting to the heart of the matter. I have said the same basic thing but less eloquently in other places. I support this entirely.

 

     I further think that this is what this movement is or will be mostly about as things get worse. The problem that I see is that what you are discussing people have been discussing for millennia and have not worked out. That is not to say that it can't be worked out. I think it can and will and I think this is where it will happen.

 

     I'm not so sure it would make sense to form a committee around this since action will be very infrequent. I definitely think we need to make some sort of discussion group. I'll talk to the tech committee tonight and get some advice on this. I will begin the process of figuring out how to do this. Social media is not my forte. If you are anyone else is better equipped for it feel free to run with it and let me know to back off.

 

     I would love the chance to work with others on this topic. It needs lots of face time and will eventually need to be brought to an international level.

[LibertyFirst]

My husband is a web master.  I am not particularly tech savvy so I have no idea if his resources would be helpful, but if so, I'm sure he will be happy to assist.  Just let me know.

[debbie]

i'm just wondering if this means you think they should regulate an industry without consulting it?  do you think that business deserves to be consulted in a democracy?  i think the lines between consulting with, lobbying, corrupting and buying votes all exist, whereas this post suggests they are all the same.

[Billy]

     To address debbie's comment I would say that it seem to be addressing a talking point that is put forth by the MSM in a manner similar to a straw man argument that is precisely what the original post is referring to. Correct me if I'm missing the point on that. It's possible that I just did not understand.

 

     To address my previous comment I did some looking into things last night. I think this stuff needs to be discussed in committee and as far as I can tell one does not exist. I am going to propose one. I have a proposal up from before about doing this already. As of this writting no one has commented on it and I think it needs more work. If I get no more comments I'll anonounce it at the GA and hopefully get some input afterwards in an unofficial committee type environment to create the committee or discussion group.

[LibertyFirst]

In response to debbie:

It is a very, very thin line that I think regulators must walk.  I believe there is some value in consulting with a particular industry when considering the implications of proposed regulations, but such consultation must be done understanding that you are asking the fox what will keep him out of the hen house.  Asking him may yield some useful information about his perspective, but his suggestions and advice should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, never forgetting that he is the fox.

You asked if I feel business should have a voice in democracy, and my answer is "no".  Democracy is government by the people and despite what the supreme court says, I do not hold that business are not people. 

[LibertyFirst]

Correction:  That last phrase should read, "I do not hold that businesses are people".  Sorry, typo.

[Billy]

     I would like to add to what LibertyFirst just commented. Without getting into my background I would like to state that my means of employment for 20 years had me involved in almost every type of industry you can think of. I was an expert in none of them but got a good look at all of them.

 

    History had proved that with a very high success rate I could routinely predict the outcomes of actions taken within a given industry better than experts with in the industry. Is this because I am so much smarter than all of those experts that I excelled at their industry better than they could? No I don't think it is.

 

     Often people heavily involved and heavily invested; financially, emotionally, intellectually or otherwise; in a given topic tend to have their vision blurred by the large mass of emotions and prejudices that a heavily invested ego bring into the equation.

 

     Some one from outside the situation or industry or what ever often can effectively use Occam's razor and some perspective created by distance from the topic to make a more effective and less tainted by bias decision that history often proves to be more accurate. Another way to say that is someone from looking at something from a distance does not have to change their perspective to see the big picture. Someone buried in the minutia of an involved situation can have a hard time stepping back to gain the perspective needed to see the big picture.

 

     I can also speak from the other side of that and say there have been times where people unfamiliar with all the detail of a given situation that I was heavily involved in could better predict future outcomes than I could because of the prejudices already stated.

 

     Note that this is not always the case but seems to be so more often than not thus the comment that a huge grain of salt need to be taken with any predictions made by industry experts.

[dtramer]

There should be a law against a corporation employing someone for the purpose of changing public policy.  I think corporations do have a unique and well informed insight and perspective on their industry.  However: I don't care.  It isn't worth it.  Most of the time their otherwise valuable perspective is rendered worthless because it is corrupted by their single minded concern for their own bottom line.  

[LibertyFirst]

Great points, Billy.

 

I'll add that it is refreshing to be able to discuss a topic on line without the usual insults, derision and childishness.  May your civility serve as an example to all.