tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post9125065282141146754..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: A Conservative Argument for Limited GovernmentAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8367570997703905672011-10-16T18:02:34.875-06:002011-10-16T18:02:34.875-06:00even with a government that as of yet had no redis...even with a government that as of yet had no redistribution that the rich could take advantage of, it would still be in a buisnesses best interest to lobby and get some made.<br /><br />and when we cut things it will be the things the big campaign contributors don't care about cutting which means it wont be that 5$ their taking.<br /><br />you have already written a post about how useless campaign finance laws are. <br /><br />special interests could add riders to a health care law and they could add riders to law that introduces a new stamp, or the passage of a balistic missle treaty, or katrina disaster relief.<br /><br />not passing a certain peice legislation becuase you fear lobbyists <b>might</b> add riders is futile. if they have the power to add riders they will just add the riders to some other mundane or needed law.<br /><br />lobbyists will find a way to use their money and influence to get what they want (redistribution) i don't see how having more or less actually functioning programs is going to affect that much one way or another.<br /><br />if we keep the government small when it comes to real programs the lobbyists will continue to make it grow with self redistribution programs until the government is spending it's maximum allowable budget on special interests alone. <br /><br />i dont know if your argument above works against growing government (since big money lobbyists will get their way either way.) but i think it is good against letting things in under the radar.<br />maybe a rule against lawmakers casting a vote on anything that they have conflicting interests on (like judges in court cases) that would mean anyone who gave them money for their election would ensure that candidate couldn't vote on anything involving that company, or any company of which they own stock, financed pro them ad-campaigns, etc. <br /><br />or we could just have a more informed electorate (fat chance, right?)<br /><br />not passing laws to keep lobbyists out of government, wouldn't work as a strategy becuase then the lobbyists would just lobby to create more laws so they could hijack them. it adresses a symptom but not the problem.Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.com