Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority, specifically the minority with the most power/voice/money. I think what you're arguing for isn't against tyranny of the majority, but a limit to the power of the federal government/more local government. For instance, the majority of the country wants universal healthcare and legalized cannabis, yet the tyranny of the minority keeps blocking these efforts f…
> The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority That's one alternative, but not the only one. Another alternative is for the government to not have the power to tyrannize in the first place. As the saying goes, the problem is not that politicians can be bought but that they have something valuable to sell. > the majority of the country wants universal healthcare and legalized cannabis I don't think this…
Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
61–70 of 176 posts
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The pieces I talk about having nothing to do with the constitution, and they aren’t really a part of any explicitly planned design. Huh? Congress derives its authority from the constitution, at least in the U.S.
Nothing about what I wrote had anything to do with what congress is authorized to do. It was about the internal rules of the house and senate, and the process by which they are made. None of that is prescribed by the constitution.
> Nothing about what I wrote had anything to do with what congress is authorized to do. It was about the internal rules of the house and senate, and the process by which they are made.
If you genuinely don't understand how congress came about and why their actions are accepted by the other branches of government, I would recommend doing some reading of history.
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was my impression lobbyists usually write the bills themselves. I don't know if this is how it's always done, but my company recently worked with lobbyists and a senators assistant and the lobbyists wrote a paragraph that, once approved by this assistant, went straight into the appropriations bill. Perfect example of pay to play.
> It was my impression lobbyists usually write the bills themselves Here's a fairly recent example: > When the legislation that became known as "Obamacare" was first drafted, the key legislator was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the legislation. As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer,…
Even more recently, Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, West Virginia all passed laws within the last year or two that deny state contracts to any company who divests from oil/gas. Just insanely unconstitutional and vague, and a good reminder of why there's so much astroturfing around ESG, but those laws were adopted largely verbatim from "sample" text written by oil & gas lobbyists and energy companies;
https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/how-the-american-legis...
Center for Public Integrity did a whole series on the phenomenon they called "Copy, Paste, Legislate": https://publicintegrity.org/topics/federal-politics/state-po...
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#64That’s pretty normal. My ex worked at congress and she said that most bills are reviewed and changed by lobbyists before they are submitted. And a lot of their changes get adopted almost verbatim. Same happens with regulations.
Lawmakers have started saying it pretty plainly:
https://gizmodo.com/1850096865
> “We had every environmental group walking supporting this bill,” Fahy told Grist. “What hurt this bill is Big Tech was opposed to it.”
> A broad coalition of manufacturers opposed the bill in the spring, and its sponsors had to make significant compromises in order to pass it. “We made a lot of changes to get it over the finish line in the first day or two of June,” Fahy said.
Corporations don't vote on legislation! But the legislators are speaking as though they do!
This is where all the that money in politics has led us: the lobbyists are a proxy or litmus test for what is going to happen to legislator's campaign funding. Therefore, the lobbyists have to be pleased for legislation to go through. Effectively - corporations get to write legislation.
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…
The structure of the U.S. government was explicitly designed to be anti majoritarian. For many people, in fact probably the majority of the population this is a feature.
It sounds like you are trying to justify an anti-majoritarian stance with majoritarian consensus. If you are against majoritarianism, you should probably find another way to make your case. Here, let me help you out:
It's better for a small minority of people to make the rules. A small minority of people agree with this, thus it is correct.
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#66I’ll remind everyone of the Princeton study that proved our democracy is a sham. Policy outcomes are almost exclusively the product of the preferences of economic elites, not of the People. If you do get a legislative outcome you wanted it’s a coincidence that some big power’s agenda accidentally aligned with your own.
[dead]
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#67so i see a lot of posts about the nomenclature of democracy and its machinations of change in favour of elites but i think theres something people are missing here. the amended text is blind and harmful not to the end user in the near term, but to the corporate entity itself in the longterm. as technologies like 3d printing and machining advance, and as the end users equipment becomes evermore cumbersome to engage an…
> You cannot stop hackers by doubling down on the very policies they seek to amend,
You're assuming their goal is to "stop" every hacker, it's not. It's to secure this revenue stream for ag tech farm manufacturers, which they've done. They don't care if a handful of hackers fix a few tractors; if any get too big the boot comes down hard and they're ruined by fines and jail time. These changes are meant to block serious competition, by ensuring the vast majority of farmers will need to get their stuff repaired in official shops, which they still will.
>Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo could give a doctoral lecture on this
On what? How to make tons of money all over the world for decades? Those are some of the most powerful and successful companies in history.
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing about what I wrote had anything to do with what congress is authorized to do. It was about the internal rules of the house and senate, and the process by which they are made. None of that is prescribed by the constitution.
> Nothing about what I wrote had anything to do with what congress is authorized to do. It was about the internal rules of the house and senate, and the process by which they are made. If you genuinely don't understand how congress came about and why their actions are accepted by the other branches of government, I would recommend doing some reading of history.
Ah yes, the classic condescending response.
It must be the case that I simply haven’t read enough, simply because my understanding differs from yours. It can’t be possible that my points are a result of careful study over several years.
Speaking of careful study. I suggest that you go back and actually read what I wrote and address what I said. Please inform me where in the constitution there is a prescription for what the house and senate rules must be.
You keep talking about congressional authority. I will reiterate, that is completely tangential to my points.
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#69[deleted]
Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The pieces I talk about having nothing to do with the constitution, and they aren’t really a part of any explicitly planned design. Huh? Congress derives its authority from the constitution, at least in the U.S.
Nothing about what I wrote had anything to do with what congress is authorized to do. It was about the internal rules of the house and senate, and the process by which they are made. None of that is prescribed by the constitution.
> None of that is prescribed by the constitution.
It would help to be a bit clearer.
The Constitution specifies that the House and Senate make their own rules via a simple majority vote.
The Senate set a rule that they would require a vote to end (previously unlimited) debate and hold a vote on an issue. Originally, this required a two thirds majority, which was lowered to 60 votes later.
More recently, the Senate changed the rules again to only require a simple majority vote on some matters.
Nothing about the Filibuster rule was ever specified in the Constitution.