I haven’t really seen it mentioned here yet but policy makers and judge rulings should either have additional schooling in the area they are making the policy/ruling on OR have a mandatory specialist/professional input throughout the process. So many of these brain dead policies come from not even know what TF they are talking about.
I want proper understanding from these people before they agree or pass something because “it sounds good” from lobbying
While this is true, I probably should have added additional context as it may be lobbying but differ in the way lobbying is currently done.
It would preferably be someone currently working in acedemia as well as holding an office (state or federally) subject to a code of ethics etc. With prerequisites within the field of question.
Now each judge or policy maker having their own expertise would be ideal, it’s not really practical/feasible at this time. It’s not necessarily lobbying in it’s entirety that’s an issue more so how it’s done currently.
One could argue any person with any statement to a judge or policy maker (I’m context) classifies as lobbying since they are trying to sway the decision in their way. So by definition there’s not really a way around “lobbying” but we can mitigate the (effectively) statement bribes we have screwing our system
I haven’t really seen it mentioned here yet but policy makers and judge rulings should either have additional schooling in the area they are making the policy/ruling on OR have a mandatory specialist/professional input throughout the process. So many of these brain dead policies come from not even know what TF they are talking about.
I want proper understanding from these people before they agree or pass something because “it sounds good” from lobbying
People on the internet don’t like to hear this, but that’s called Lobbying.
While this is true, I probably should have added additional context as it may be lobbying but differ in the way lobbying is currently done.
It would preferably be someone currently working in acedemia as well as holding an office (state or federally) subject to a code of ethics etc. With prerequisites within the field of question.
Now each judge or policy maker having their own expertise would be ideal, it’s not really practical/feasible at this time. It’s not necessarily lobbying in it’s entirety that’s an issue more so how it’s done currently.
One could argue any person with any statement to a judge or policy maker (I’m context) classifies as lobbying since they are trying to sway the decision in their way. So by definition there’s not really a way around “lobbying” but we can mitigate the (effectively) statement bribes we have screwing our system