this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
784 points (98.0% liked)
Flippanarchy
2626 readers
457 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alright. It's difficult to speak with your representative face to face. I'll readily accept that.
That's what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn't people talking to their representative, but that it's too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?
Again: what's your ideal state, and how is it different?
I'm glad we've made it this far.
It's what makes me equate lobbying with corruption. When even basic constituent services are pay walled by professional insiders, the only people who can lobby are the folks that paid the bribes.
Any amount of Congressional gatekeeping (which is what constituent services ultimately amount to) should be handled by public agencies. But more than that, public services would be fully opt-out automatic such that things like Medicare sign-ups and admittance to officer's college wouldn't be predicted on access to a legislator's office.
But I'd settle for expanding the number of Congressional reps such that they averaged closer to 30k constituents rather than 600k. Then, at least, there is not the practical consideration of a single congressman attempting to service half a million people or more.
Cool. No problems with the majority of that. (I'd question the difference between a public agency and a Congress persons office staff, but it's kinda irrelevant)
So we make all these changes and also block people from having meetings with their representitives?
If that's not what you're saying, then I'm not entirely certain why you disagreed with my statement that the problem is "effectively unregulated lobbying", and not "people generally talking to their reps".
You know that I never actually said it was easy or didn't need improvement, right?
I don't think I suggested that at all. On the contrary, the 30k Reps rule would make meetings with constituents far easier.
I might move in the other direction and require meetings with constituents on a periodic basis. That, along with a host of other strictures on how a sitting or retired legislator can make money, host/attend events, or otherwise avail themselves of corporate/foreign patrons.
But that means a lot of policing of the legislature and prosecuting of offenders, which affords the executive enormous leverage over individual seats reps. So maybe not.
I think expanding the legislature solves an immediate problem of access to reps and dilutes the power of individual reps relative to their voters. I'll spot you it isn't foolproof.
You came in dismissing the reality of lobbying relative to the idealized view.
You seen much more grounded in the facts as they exist today, now.
I didn't think you were saying that, as I said in the next sentence. I'm confused because everything you've said is just a way of addressing what I was saying, so being so adamantly opposed is just bizarre.
I never dismissed any realities. I think the notion that "lobbying is corruption and should be illegal" is silly because it's advocating to remove the ideal that should be increased instead of focusing on the corruption.
I disagree that "uncommon" or "difficult" is the same as "not legal", "pay walled" or "impossible". I disagree that protesting is the same as lobbying, and that arresting a protester is the same as evidence that lobbying is illegal.
Not the same as dismissing the problems with any of them.