4 ms·
I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket I can think of a way to get money out of congress: remove elections. Think of it: serving in Cong
by Osiris 15y ago
I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket
I can think of a way to get money out of congress: remove elections.
Think of it: serving in Congress could be like Jury Duty. Everyone's in the pool and every election cycle random people are selected from the pool and asked to serve.
With no elections, there are no campaigns to donate to. It would be illegal for any Congressperson to accept any gifts or money from anyone other than their paycheck from the government and a ban on working for, directly or indirectly, with any person or corporation that was affected by any bills in which the Congressperson participated or voted.
Would there still be corruption and political favors? Absolutely. People would still have a tendency to push for laws that would benefit either themselves, family, or friends or the industry in which they worked.
The lack of up-front monetary gain would likely have a significant impact but corruption is a problem of honesty and integrity which human nature tends to lack and tacks personal disciple to evolve.
Until mankind becomes entirely focused on building social welfare (what's good for all) instead of personal welfare (what's good for me), these problems will always be here.
- TeMPOraL 15y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but without elections, you also don't have democracy, right? I of course do not mean to say that democracy is The Answer to All Problems, but this idea seems to touch the very core of the political system in place.
- philwelch 15y agoRandom selection (qua jury duty) is still "statistically democratic" and without bribery may very well be more democratic than what we have now.
- mjwalshe 15y agoWell Athens had that system and made some bad kneejerk descisons - for example The Mytilenian Debate. And you would be handing much more power to unelected civil servants. I think both parties going to OMOV and doing away with primary's go back to state delegates deciding who the presidential candidates are - Oh and I would ban mandating of delegations.
- Osiris 15y agoThat's part of the point I'm trying to get across. Every political system has it's pros and cons. I studied Comparative Politics in University and we studied various forms of government and election law, each trying to solve a specific problem but introducing their own different problems.
- philwelch 15y ago> Until mankind becomes entirely focused on building social welfare (what's good for all) instead of personal welfare (what's good for me), these problems will always be here. Until we start building social and political systems for humanity as it is rather than humanity as we might idealistically want it to be, we're going to have these problems -- not that I'm convinced that self-interest is really something we want to eradicate from human psychology. Markets already have features which effectively translate self-interest into the greater good, and so does democracy in the sense that if everyone voted selfishly, majority rule would benefit the majority. So let's focus on where markets and democracy aren't working the way we'd want them to and stop wringing our hands about how evil and selfish the human nature is.
- yequalsx 15y agoIf everyone voted selfishly then majority rule would benefit the majority? I don't think so. This definitely doesn't scale in the way you seem to think it does. An extreme example. Suppose a country consists of three tribes. Each tribe hates the other. Tribe A hates tribe B less than C. A & B vote to combine their interests in liquidating C. After C is gone the majority tribe then votes to kill off the smaller remaining tribe. Given the grand scale of environmental destruction going on in the world I don't think its fair to say that markets (nominally free ones) have done such a good job of translating self-interest into the greater good. What's good for each of us does not necessarily translate into what is good.
- philwelch 15y agoThose are exactly the kind of problems I meant when I said "let's focus on where markets and democracy aren't working the way we'd want them to". You're grossly misrepresenting what I said: I didn't say markets and democracy (especially the way they're currently implemented!) perfectly translate individual self-interest into the greater good; I said they have features which do.
- yequalsx 15y agoI did read that last sentence of yours and tried to think about your overall message. The part where you wrote about markets effectively translating selfish behavior into the greater good seemed to indicate that you thought the parts where markets aren't working are a side issue. I don't think everyone pursuing their own self interest is at all a good thing when done on a global scale. I think the features of markets lead people like myself into knowingly buying products made by oppressed labor. It leads me to buy gas from companies that pollute on a grand scale in Nigeria and Ecuador. I think the self-interest aspect of markets is far more destructive than the positives are positive. I gathered from what you wrote that you think the opposite. Hence I tried to briefly explain why all of pursuing our self-interest is a bad thing, overall.
- mahyarm 15y agoNaive randomly selected lawmakers are just going to be pounced on by significantly more experienced and predatory lobbyists. They'll think of a way to bribe these regular people.
- dugmartin 15y agoI have a slight twist on this idea: make it more like a lottery where each citizen automatically gets one ticket. If you win you sit for one term in the office and are paid $10 million per year. Once you leave office you are paid $1 million per year for life. Money is always going to find its way into government - why not just do it upfront?
- a_a_r_o_n 15y agoThat's a great idea. Just like the draft. There could even be a Constitutional boot camp, so you can learn how to be a member of Congress.