Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors • Hacker News Board

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#81

Post by metaphorm » Fri, May 15, 2015, 8:41 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #16

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

its not different. however, if you legalize "corruption" then it isn't exactly corruption anymore. a lobbyist is just a professional advocate at the end of the day. its not intrinsically bad.

a much more serious concern is the issue of nearly limitless campaign spending through PACs. I feel like this is the real face of corruption in the American system right now, to a far greater extent that the existence of professional lobbyists.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#82

Post by rmxt » Fri, May 15, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

mineshaftgap wrote: post #79

rmxt wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet again, you've missed the point. Lobbying and its disproportional impacts are the antitheses of majoritarian rule. They are examples of failed (or more accurately, untested) minority opinions crafted into law and policy without passing under public scrutiny. Your argument boils down to "things are currently the way they are because they are right," which belies the complexities of the situations at hand. That is t…

You are attempting to handwave away the fact that virtually all policies have majority support. You can argue they were tricked, you can argue they are wrong, but you cannot argue that long standing policies are not supported by the majority. That may not jive with your world view but too bad, it is on the minority to convince the majority.

To say that the positions lobbyists are lobbying for "virtually all have majority support" is a much bolder claim than the one that I making, which is merely that they are untested opinions that run counter to the spirit of democracy. Lobbyists are in the business of keeping them untested. Why try to engender grassroots support or genuinely benefit constituents when you can spend the money more effectively (i.e., a better ROI) on a handful of representatives? For example, can you say with a straight face that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was genuinely supported and understood by a majority of the population?

If achieving policy based on majority opinions was actually the end game of lobbyists, why would they need to exist in the first place? Majority opinions would elect majority abiding politicians who would enact majority policies. Where's the step that necessitates lobbyists?

[1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gramm-Leach-Blile...

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#83

Post by fineman » Fri, May 15, 2015, 9:19 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #21

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobby…

The only good lobbyist is one that doesn't profit from his lobbying. This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out. We're morally bankrupt in every sense. Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are…

"No boss, trust me on this. Sometimes - for the process to work - I have to let these guys pay me subvert the process."

It's unacceptable that there are any levers on our politicians other than our votes - they're our employees after all.

For what it's worth, if you're going to lobby I'd rather you lobby all of "us" (commercials, etc) to sway the popular vote than being able to concentrate on only our elected representatives.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#84

Post by fineman » Fri, May 15, 2015, 9:33 PM UTC

MadManE wrote: post #38

us0r wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAIC, CSC, CACI, Booz, Leidos? These are multi-billion dollar government welfare recipients.

Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone is easy to confuse.

Entirely. It's a capitalistic no-no to support a failing corporation. Their IP and people will be subsumed under a new umbrella which will hopefully avoid the mistakes of the past (which might just include buying disaster insurance).

And, the people who do fall through the cracks of a rough transition can be taken care of by the humanitarian personal welfare service.

Corporations are much more to become total crooks - spending the last bailout money to hire lobbyists to bribe you to give them more. Imagine the outcry if welfare recipients were encouraged to tip...

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#85

Post by jessaustin » Fri, May 15, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

PopsiclePete wrote: post #73

sillygoose wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all candidates will be happy to take bribes once in office - which is pretty much guaranteed - how do you think voting could possibly prevent bribery at all?

Voting is the only way to end a politician's career. "Fool me once", yes, but you're not holding office again. Not only that, but people will know why you didn't get elected, which drastically reduces your chances of finding good, honest employment again. If voters actually voted, you'd see a lot less corruption - politicians want to stay politicians, after all.

If voters actually voted, you'd see a lot less corruption...

Do you think that the small portion of people who vote today care about corruption less than all those who don't vote? Or maybe they're just not as well informed as those who don't vote? Maybe it's something else?

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#86

Post by fineman » Fri, May 15, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

MadManE wrote: post #78

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individual welfare at least supports the more vulnerable and less well-off elements of our society. Large defense contractors have revenues in the billions of dollars, high level managers are likely millionaires, and they employ an entire army of upper-middle class workers. The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and privileged.

Ok, but let's take it to a different industry. Are corporate farmers more or less deserving of government money than individuals? Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.

The "corporate" or the "farmer" part. One is a corporation, the other is a person working for and/or owning the corporation. Once you realize that corporate farmer isn't some magical combination the question is uninteresting. But, for the record - the farmer is an individual and is just as deserving (however much that is) as anyone else regardless of his profession. But we don't owe him that livelihood and aren't under and obligation to support his enterprises in that area.

As to "advance in society", it's pretty easy for (most of) us to take a two-day course in some flavor of the week and have a piece of paper that helps to do so. For someone working a subsistence job it's not so trivial. Many people may waste it but it only has to help create a few productive taxpayers to be a net win to all of us.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#87

Post by PopeOfNope » Fri, May 15, 2015, 10:04 PM UTC

crazy1van wrote: post #80

cies wrote: post #16

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

The definition of lobbyist seems to have become people persuading congress in favor of an opinion I don't share. Not to be confused with "activists", who are people persuading congress for an opinion I agree with.

The biggest difference is lobbyists tend to let their money do their talking for them. They also almost always work for large companies with the means to pay. Activists tend to be larger groups of individuals with little money. Lobbyists win more than the activists do.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#88

Post by spacemanmatt » Sat, May 16, 2015, 5:03 AM UTC

MadManE wrote: post #40

spacemanmatt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases, that's just fine. In others it is a perverse incentive we should reconsider. Prisons, domestic spying, etc.

Whether it's a good or bad thing is irrelevant. I agree that we should be aware and try to deter some instances, but saying that having skin in the game causes incentives seems like a weird conclusion to me. It should be obvious.

I don't think that's a weird conclusion at all. The companies have fiduciary obligations to keep, after all.

Re: Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

#89

Post by sillygoose » Sat, May 16, 2015, 5:49 AM UTC

PopsiclePete wrote: post #73

sillygoose wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all candidates will be happy to take bribes once in office - which is pretty much guaranteed - how do you think voting could possibly prevent bribery at all?

Voting is the only way to end a politician's career. "Fool me once", yes, but you're not holding office again. Not only that, but people will know why you didn't get elected, which drastically reduces your chances of finding good, honest employment again. If voters actually voted, you'd see a lot less corruption - politicians want to stay politicians, after all.

They've already been pre-bribed with "campaign-contributions" at the time of getting into office. Then they'll take further bribes behind the scenes.

How about applying "Fool me once" to politicians in general?

Let's say you vote for the first time in your life, and whoever you voted for breaks all his campaign promises and calmly shafts the general populace to his own benefit.

Now you won't be fooled by politicians again?