(ETA: was a reply to SamIam)

I recently watched (much of) a fascinating documentary series called Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace. It was mostly about how machine technology has affected our thinking.

At one point it discussed the counter-culture movement of the sixties and the communes they formed. These were deliberately designed to be de-political. There was to be no leader, no council, no alliances; just individuals interacting as individuals.

They all failed. Some lasted up to three years, most less than six months.

Turns out some people are stronger, smarter, more ruthless, more confrontational, less sensitive, etc than others. With nothing to restrain this, these "stronger" ones became dominant bullies. Constant intimidation and fear killed the communities.

Modern communes and "intentional communities" have recognisable power structures - usually some kind of group meeting or seniors committee - which has the power to uphold group standards. The weak band together to restrain the strong.

Turns out, to make a community anything more than a tyranny, some kind of government is necessary. That does lead to politicians (and is why extreme libertarianism is untenable).

Politicians are a necessary evil.

This is not to say the situation cannot be better than it is now. Politicians could be a lot better behaved than they are. IMHO, lobbyists and massive "campaign contributions" are a much better target for massive restraint.

In the course of my career, I was employed by the state of Colorado for 7 years and the city of Colorado Springs for 4. I agree that government workers do not deserve the public's dim opinion of them. In my experience we did the very best we could with very little to begin with. I have also met members of the Colorado State Legislature who were decent, honorable people doing the best they could for their constituents. I honor them for their hard work and their integrity.

Congress, however, is an entirely different ball game. Election campaigns are incredibly expensive on the national level. Not always, but most of the time, the candidate who spends the most money is the one who wins. Therefore:

1) Anyone who aspires to national office must be wealthy, have wealthy friends and great corporate connections. Most members of the current corporate congress were millionaires before they ever ran for office, and they're even wealthier now. But I don't believe millionaires are inherently evil. Its the second requirement for national office that separates the sheep from the goats.

2) Because of requirement #1, anyone who aspires to national office must be willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder while at the same time making a convincing show of being concerned for the voter. Once in office, the successful candidate shows his gratitude by voting for laws that favor whatever special interests paid into his campaign chest. The people be damned. If you don't believe me, try sending an e-mail to the republican co-chair of the Super Committee.

I won't spoil the game by providing any helpful links. Anyone who wants to play gets to run through the Internet maze like any other American who will be impacted by the Super Committee's decisions - ie everybody. OK, go! (and I'm not staying up for anyone's hypothetical return). Oh, anyone from the co-chair's home state gets a "get out of jail free" card. The rest of you are on your own.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'll wrap this up. Due to requirement no. 2, those now in national office are in it for their own self interest and they are practiced liars and deceivers. They probably were from childhood on. I have no respect for them.

PS I did finally manage to send an e-mail to the co-chair and I bookmarked it for future reference. :eyebrow:

And surprise! I never got so much as an impersonal computerized reply in return. Write "your" congressman? You bet. :right:

I've written my congressman and two others. Every time I got a canned response - weeks later, I might add.

I once wrote a paper-letter to my Senator, about the
US Dept of Interior's plan to discontinue their free-passes
to National Parks that were available for Disabled and Senior Citizens.

Weeks later, I received a copy of a letter the Senator had written
to the Head of the Dept of the Interior, objecting to their plan.
And, he included a copy of the Notice that the Dept had canceled those plans.

You know he's getting my vote for his re-election.

Their desire for political office shows a need for power over others which they can either manage or not. Many, once elected, can't manage. Government employees can be under similar pressures but most are simply pursuing a career and are not corrupt people.

I got an FU from my freshmen Republican House Rep... at least someone reads his mail.

What if we could replace human politicians with robot politicians?

They could weigh the pros and cons of an argument and make decisions based on the greatest good, they'd be impervious to bribes and creature comforts, they'd have no loyalty except to the people! Well, we'd have to make sure the programmers programmed them that way...but, still. I think it's a good idea. If one turned evil we could just deactivate it!

I really like the idea, Bri, but the flaw is obvious. Someone has to program them, and the world is full of Dr. Smiths. We'll have robotoid politicians running around drinking cognac, smoking cigars, and stomping on the little people.

Danger Will Robinson, indeed!

;)

The problem with a third party, as I see it, is that it would be an farther to the right or left. My feeling about the majority of Americans is that they would be happier with a third party that is moderate. Of course there's no newsworthiness in that.

Wow!

Or maybe we could clone Lamplighter's Senator?

Try Plato's "Republic" (a horrible translation of "Res Publica", "On the Constitution".

Philosopher Kings. That's what you want.

Asimov was a fan of that idea.

Hmmm... the problem right now is that human politicians are representing recently humanized mega-corporations so to solve this robot legislators will represent human interests? I think we're looking at this the wrong way. We may need our own parallel government... anarchy is looking better every day.

Since corporations are now people with their rights protected under the 14th Amendment (passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of slaves), they should have to obey the laws just like every other person in the US and be held accountable.

If they don't pay their income tax, the Federal Revenue should seize their property and assets just as they do to a person who refuses to pay taxes. If they have unsafe working conditions and one or more of their employees dies, they should be charged with murder and sentenced to life without parole just like a person would be. In fact, let's hold the trial in Texas where the corporation could be executed just like a person. If a corporation uses illegal business and financial practices - far from being bailed out - they should be tried for embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy to commit a crime and everything else a good prosecutor would charge a criminal person with who did what these corporations do.

Once upon a time, we all stood equal before the law. Now this person called a corporation has become more equal than the rest of us.

Shades of an animal farm