Because the chances of that happening are greater than an oil platform falling over?Until one becomes unstable, collapses, chops the power lines and electrocutes all of the fish!
You really think hundreds of years of stagnation will happen?
LOL! I like how they are trying to sweep it under the rug rather than cleaning it up. On top of it they are pouring chemicals into the ocean that are super toxic and we don't even know the long term effects of. Oh, why are they using this chemical you ask? Because they own the company that makes it. Capitalism in full force. This is what's best for the world!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7vkPPClc0lhglDZGwYrrcVS185QD9FS6VC03
You really think hundreds of years of stagnation will happen?
they have no incentive to care about any secondary effects to the ecosystem or private property
How's that "incentive" working out for you.We're all stuck on the same tiny rock in the middle of incomprehensibly massive space. I'm pretty sure that's incentive enough.
Lobbying should be outlawed
Ah, freedom of speech, I get it! Silly me, how could I forget about that undeniable right that allows the most powerful to scream and shout, while others only have money or strength to whisper?Let's burn books while we're at it.
That's one way to look at it.Ah, freedom of speech, I get it! Silly me, how could I forget about that undeniable right that allows the most powerful to scream and shout, while others only have money or strength to whisper?
Of course, that's exactly what is illustrated there. Freedom of speech AND special attention to the ones equally important but don't or can't stand out so much.That's one way to look at it.
Another is that anyone is free to form their own group to make their voices heard. Yes, freedom of speech. The moment you start having someone say who and who can't "lobby" is the moment you
A) Lose true freedom of speech
B) Force people to find more ways "around the system"
What's wrong with it? Which ones of those you consider that, as you mentioned, "can or can't lobby" ?As for your list of lobbying groups...
Of course, that's exactly what is illustrated there. Freedom of speech AND special attention to the ones equally important but don't or can't stand out so much.
What I had in mind though, was a documentary about Philip Conney(?) that censored and adultered the global warming scientific reports and his lobbyist friend
What's wrong with it? Which ones of those you consider that, as you mentioned, "can or can't lobby" ?
I didn't make it clear, sorry. What I mean is that imho the activity is no more than bribery and corruption when the politician gets something in return and lobbying has funds allocated to it, when there's money involved.Alright then well maybe you didn't make your point clearly or I'm just not getting it, but in your first post you said lobbyists should be outlawed. So which are you advocating? They should be outlawed? Or just certain lobbyists should be outlawed?
That list has the categories of lobbyists as organized by the European Comission, it seems.All that was wrong with it was that it appeared to be a random list, disconnected to your point. All of them could ethically lobby couldn't they?
Yes, but beside freedom of speech and transparency, I say that additionally there must be equality of access to lobbying and no money involved. If that's what you mean by "freedom of speech-that-is-in-favour", fineAgain, my point is freedom of speech + transparency vs. freedom of speech-that-is-in-favour.