3 ms·

But it should at least be a toss up between 1. What does the politician think is best for the people he represents 2. What the people he represents think is b

But it should at least be a toss up between 1. What does the politician think is best for the people he represents 2. What the people he represents think is best for themselves 3. What is actually best for the people he represents Whereas it appears to be 1. What will get the politician re-elect (party line + avoiding even addressing any topics that will upset their base) 2. What will make the politician the most money (lobbying/bribes) It doesn't seem like "what's best for the people the politician represents" even comes into the discussion a lot of the time. ^ Bear in mind, I know there are good politicians. However, just like in the rest of life, it's the bad ones that _tend_ to succeed, the ones that don't care who they hurt.

SllX 6y ago
You’re getting into inventing better people territory, politicians and constituents both. And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics, which involves a lot of talking, a lot of positioning, a lot of negotiating, and a lot of communication with their constituents (whether you’re paying attention or not, a disturbing trend recently has seen Congressmen downsizing or not investing in their policy shops in favor of investing more in their constituent services). The people they’re going to be negotiating with are the ones that show up, not the ones making wishes on a falling star on the other side of the country while scrolling their phone till death do they part.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  > And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. > Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work.
  - SllX 6y ago
    > I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. If that’s all legislatures did, that would be nice. Unfortunately people can always invent a need where they perceive one. > And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work. Problem or not, you don’t have the “should” in charge, you have the “is”, so now you can only try to shape its scope: expand or contract governmental powers within a jurisdiction. That’s what it means to be a self-governing society, you don’t have to participate in the process, but if you don’t, you are intentionally limiting your own political power. If more people participate, they are also reducing your political power. It’s not just large companies that participate either. Small businesses and constituents of all stripes do. If your participation begins and ends at the ballot box, that’s only a step up from a bystander because someone else is choosing who and what goes on those ballots you fill out. Whether you choose to treat your ballots as the tail end of your civic engagement or the face of it, that’s a personal choice, and I won’t tell you any choice you make is illegitimate, it just is whatever you choose to do.
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      It sounds like you're saying that we cannot change the way things work and that it's not even worth discussing how we think it could be better. I would say that is patently false (the statement that we cannot change things) and downright horrifying (the statement that we should not even discuss how it could be better). We should always be looking for ways to make our government (and civil employees) perform their roles (both by limiting the bad actions and facilitating the good).
      - SllX 6y ago
        I’m saying: 1. Recognize human nature. 2. Plan for human nature; both mitigate it and incorporate it where possible. 3. Expect people to eventually break whatever you come up with because they’re people. 4. Take part in that system; don’t expect others to think of you on your behalf. Legislatures and governments are made up of people, and any system which doesn’t recognize this is doomed to failure. You go through life doing what is best for yourself, your family, your community, why should you expect any different from people with more (or less) power than you? Why should they care about you if you’re not even there asking them to care about the things you care about?

SllX 6y ago

You’re getting into inventing better people territory, politicians and constituents both. And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics, which involves a lot of talking, a lot of positioning, a lot of negotiating, and a lot of communication with their constituents (whether you’re paying attention or not, a disturbing trend recently has seen Congressmen downsizing or not investing in their policy shops in favor of investing more in their constituent services). The people they’re going to be negotiating with are the ones that show up, not the ones making wishes on a falling star on the other side of the country while scrolling their phone till death do they part.

RHSeeger 6y ago
> And your 3-point list scares the crap out of me because while it might look fairly reasonable to you, it looks to me like you’re looking at the government for a source of paternalistic love, something it can never provide. I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. > Congress isn’t in the business of doing what’s “best”, they’re in the business of politics And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work.
- SllX 6y ago
  > I was more talking about things like deciding what the right tax rate is. The people might want low taxes, but if those taxes can't support all the things those people need (roads, etc), then low taxes are not what those people need. If that’s all legislatures did, that would be nice. Unfortunately people can always invent a need where they perceive one. > And I see that as a problem. The point of government is to make life better for everyone being governed. Making life better just for the large companies that can pay for it is not the way government should work. Problem or not, you don’t have the “should” in charge, you have the “is”, so now you can only try to shape its scope: expand or contract governmental powers within a jurisdiction. That’s what it means to be a self-governing society, you don’t have to participate in the process, but if you don’t, you are intentionally limiting your own political power. If more people participate, they are also reducing your political power. It’s not just large companies that participate either. Small businesses and constituents of all stripes do. If your participation begins and ends at the ballot box, that’s only a step up from a bystander because someone else is choosing who and what goes on those ballots you fill out. Whether you choose to treat your ballots as the tail end of your civic engagement or the face of it, that’s a personal choice, and I won’t tell you any choice you make is illegitimate, it just is whatever you choose to do.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    It sounds like you're saying that we cannot change the way things work and that it's not even worth discussing how we think it could be better. I would say that is patently false (the statement that we cannot change things) and downright horrifying (the statement that we should not even discuss how it could be better). We should always be looking for ways to make our government (and civil employees) perform their roles (both by limiting the bad actions and facilitating the good).
    - SllX 6y ago
      I’m saying: 1. Recognize human nature. 2. Plan for human nature; both mitigate it and incorporate it where possible. 3. Expect people to eventually break whatever you come up with because they’re people. 4. Take part in that system; don’t expect others to think of you on your behalf. Legislatures and governments are made up of people, and any system which doesn’t recognize this is doomed to failure. You go through life doing what is best for yourself, your family, your community, why should you expect any different from people with more (or less) power than you? Why should they care about you if you’re not even there asking them to care about the things you care about?