Why Don't We Fix Faulty Political Systems?

[LaurieAG]

Big problem, bitcoin/block chain technology doesn't scale that well.

[hazelm]

Why don't we fix politics and politicians?  The topic is touched on very well by Maxwell Cameron in Aug/Sep 2019 Philosophy Now.  "Aristotle and the Good Ruler".   "Can virtue be taught?"  "Can ethical politics be taught?"  "A visit to a school for politicians."  By the time you get that far, you know the answer as stated by Professor Cameron:  Aristotle complained that politicians were doing too little to teach their fellow fellow citizens how to legislate.  (NE, 1181a)  His lament still resonates over two millennia later. 

 

Too many "leaders"; not enough followers?  And every leader is, of course, always right.

 

Is the answer in what it takes to get into the position in the first place?  Watch closely. 

[DanielBoyd]

It all boils down to the percentage of our politicians who are lawyers and 30-50% corrupts the system.

 

If I were a lawyer, I think I would object to this generalisation! I'm sure they're not all evil.

 

Actually, I think I might even prefer them to some populist with a sound-bite and no understanding of the workings of the political system.

[LaurieAG]

If I were a lawyer, I think I would object to this generalisation! I'm sure they're not all evil.

 

Actually, I think I might even prefer them to some populist with a sound-bite and no understanding of the workings of the political system.

 

We don't have a background of pro bono lawyers in Australia so the majority here are in it for the money alone. Also, many of the lawyers in our parliaments are ex union lawyers and both major political parties clearly state that they are for 'working families' so our unemployment 'benefit' has not risen in over 25 years.

 

Daniel, do you have any comments about 'code red for the Australian constitution'?

[LaurieAG]

@ Laurie is this what your referring to http://www.fnq.cc/Downloads/Code%20Red.pdf

 

Yes, as I said I wrote it in 2000. It was published in the Main Beach Trader magazine in that year.

[GAHD]

In the business world it's quite normal to reorganise if you come to the conclusion that the way things are set up is not working well. Why doesn't this happen with political systems? Why do we stay chained to constitutions and voting systems that were thought up often hundreds of years ago in very different circumstances and simply don't work well?

 

Two simple examples:

 

- As attempts at democratic representation, both the UK consituency system and the American system spectacularly fail at giving each vote cast in an election equal value in determining who is in parliament/congress. Why are these not changed to a system that can be objectively demonstrated to be fairer?

For one; the USA is a Republic, not a democracy. The idea of the system is to try to control the "stupid voters" in a manner that allows for those who are more informed to hold larger sway. Pure democracy sounds nice, but often leads to suppression of individual rights not unlike dictatorial governance.

 

To be breif: a murdering/theiving/cannibal/hobo's vote should probably not, objectively, hold as much sway as someone who employs thousands and builds infrastructure.

 

As for WHY government often isn't as efficient as a capitalist business...Milton Friedman makes a good list of points. A business (with some notable exceptions) has to maintain a profit to grow, where a government only has to find another way to add taxes and control the way resources flow. This is why older governments tend to move towards socialism and very high income tax brackets.

 

 

 

- In today's complex world, some problems (e.g. global warming) can (only) be solved using high-level expertise. Why do we place these problems in the hands of politicians who understand them no better than the man in the street? If the heating in my house doesn't work I call in someone who understands heating systems, not someone who has a very strong opinion about heating systems but no knowledge of how they work. It would seem sensiblle to do the same when our planet's heating system is on the blink. So why don't we redefine what is and what is not a political issue, and give only political problems to politicians to solve (there are enough of those to keep them busy!)

This old gem kinda applies here;

 

Your example of global warming (rebranded "climate change" and then re-re-branded "man made climate alterations") has no real expertise, and is both financially and politically motivated. EG: no model fed data from 1905-1999 can predict accurately the state of 2019, AFAIK organizations were found to have been altering raw data from meteorological stations to fit the models rather than altering models to fit data, geologists of renown point out large scale variances supported by data sets that dispute the man-made theories, etc... It is an immature "science" like Marie Curie playing with Radiation.

 

I generally agree that government should be radically restructured in a manner similar to the hatchet men of lore. The problem tends to lie more in those with vested interest in the status quo having been entrenched and protected by those same mechanisms.

[LaurieAG]

The real smoke and mirrors is not really the politics of the world, it is the money flow. Where does the increasing money supply in the world come from, which organisations have the right globally to lend money with interest to other countries? 

 

In the past the US Comptroller of Currency's website published all of the quarterly derivatives figures but they are not available at present. The link below shows search results that reveal.

 

https://apps.occ.gov/Search/?q=OCC%20bank%20derivatives%20quarterly%20report&id=OCCgov,&ds=all&st=0&sm=relevancy&sb=

 

1/ in 1996 the top 8 US banks held $18.6 trillion in derivatives.

2/ in 2002 they held just over $50 trillion in derivatives.

3/ by 2008 they held $600 trillion in derivatives.

 

https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2002/nr-occ-2002-70.html

 

https://apps.occ.gov/Search/?q=derivatives&id=OCCgov,&ds=all&st=0&sm=relevancy&sb=

 

Flummoxed, if you can find the current quarterly derivatives figures please post summaries. All of the quarterly derivatives reports were available back in 2008/9 but not anymore.

Edited August 22, 2019 by LaurieAG

[LaurieAG]

Is this what you are looking for https://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/derivatives/pub-derivatives-quarterly-qtr1-2019.pdf

 

Money is printed without being backed by assetts, how does new money get into the economy. ? World bank perhaps, what assetts do they have. Smoke and mirrors

 

Thanks, could you post the link to the index page as I kept on getting errors.

 

At least the total is down to around $200 trillion notional but it would be interesting to see if the total is currently increasing or decreasing.

[LaurieAG]

I have zero problems reading the pdf, the index/contents page is not full of hyperlinks, you have to read the  page number and scroll there, old fashioned way. I am using windows 10 on this computer, and Microsoft edge. I live in Europe, outside the Brexit zone.

 

Previously there was an index page where you could click on every quarterly report for each year. Trying to access the folder alone gives errors.

 

Also note that the index products were 3/4 of the total notional amount and over half of them were centrally cleared which passes risk to the central clearing house(s). The actual amounts that could be lost/won if the market tanks are close to $2 trillion which is around twice the US's current annual deficit. So much for "of the people, by the people and for the people" as they get to pay for the excesses of the 'elites'. Corruption eventually won the cold war and so many had to pay so much to so few greedy bastards.

[DanielBoyd]

As for WHY government often isn't as efficient as a capitalist business...Milton Friedman makes a good list of points. A business (with some notable exceptions) has to maintain a profit to grow, where a government only has to find another way to add taxes and control the way resources flow. This is why older governments tend to move towards socialism and very high income tax brackets.

 

 

This old gem kinda applies here;

 

Love these videos : both very relevant. Friedman is presenting the same problem - but not providing a solution. Other than introducing competition to government agencies. That would be great: Then you don't need to design, just introduce variation and selection to get progressive evollution to more effective forms as happens in business. The problem with this line of thinking is that governments are by definition monopolies. You can have 10 businesses making TVs and let the worst five go bankrupt, but you can't have 10 governments using different methods at the same time in the same country.

 

Would be nice if he presented a solution that was plausible.

 

The second video is sobering. These are rich man's problems, I agree. On the other hand, with the growing scale and impact of human activity on a finite planet that we are all dependent on, rumbling on as we are now, with (as other have posted) big money in control of things and vested political power mainly occupied with defending itself rather than public service, there's some pretty major risks that something could crash and then we wouldn;t be rich men anymore. 

 

That keeps me awake at night.

[DanielBoyd]

If a government maintains confidence in the currency, and the public bail the banks out and continue to pay interest on their loans. The system continues to limp along. 

 

The OP still has not indicated what he believes needs fixing in politics. ??? 

 

Sorry! Been on holiday.

 

What's wrong with the political system? Where shall I start? ;-) To name a few things:

- Most voting systems are patently (mathematically) unfair.

- Politicians make decisions about things they have no understanding of

- Periodic elections provide a disincentive for long-term vision or planning

- Periodic changes in government break developmental continuity: often what one government has built is broken down by the next

- Politicians are not held acccountable for misinformation - twisting the truth is even considered an inherent part of the political process

- Nation-based politics is ineffective in a global community, for instance losing control of multinational corporations.

 

(at a meta-level) there is the fundamental problem named by Friedman in the video: there is no mechanism to fix faults in political systems. Without such a mechanism, there is little reason why they should NOT be riddled with problems. A bit like religion, we are stuck with the ideas of people who probably did their best at designing something workable hundreds of years ago in a totally different (non-globalised) world.

[GAHD]

Love these videos : both very relevant. Friedman is presenting the same problem - but not providing a solution. Other than introducing competition to government agencies. That would be great: Then you don't need to design, just introduce variation and selection to get progressive evollution to more effective forms as happens in business. The problem with this line of thinking is that governments are by definition monopolies. You can have 10 businesses making TVs and let the worst five go bankrupt, but you can't have 10 governments using different methods at the same time in the same country.

 

Would be nice if he presented a solution that was plausible.

Competition is the plausible. The irony is that you even pointed that out. To paraphrase a rather famous Canadian-turned-Republican voter: The post office never worked well before FedEx and UPS gave them a run for their money. (around 4:50)

 

[GAHD]

There is lots wrong with that link. 

 

The definition of socialism in your link being governments providing public services such as the military is given as an example of a public service in the US. which party traditionally gives increases to the military? Democrats or Republicans. In Europe basic health care is regarded as a public service.

I think you missed something there, re:socialism and the definitions thereof. That's a digression from the point though. As for healthcare: Note taxes.

 

 

Fedex as a political model in your video does not work, they lose too many important parcels. The workers are badly paid and they contract out services to the lowest bidder, driving down wages, except for shareholders maybe.

Prob gonna have to agree to disagree here. I'll just point out that Private mail delivery would not be in business if it was worse than the government option. Logic 101.

 

 

A minor check of the rant ref crime in Sweden and rape in your video. Flags South Africa as the rape country of the world not Sweden, and that is just the reported cases. In South Africa many crimes go un reported. Sweden is high re developed world standards, but Africa blows it out of the water. https://www.statista.com/statistics/232563/forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-by-state/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden Note mainly rapes by foreigners from Africa have swayed the figures in Sweden.

Check by date. This video was during the ~500% increase in crime after several migrant waves. It's kinda funny you use this to derail away from the primary point and reason I linked it while providing timestamp, though. ;)

[GAHD]

There is no primary point in the link it wanders all over the place. 

And yet, I specifically was pointing to this part in relation to competition vs government ineptitude being a good thing that fixes problems and drives innovation...

Competition is the plausible. The irony is that you even pointed that out. To paraphrase a rather famous Canadian-turned-Republican voter: The post office never worked well before FedEx and UPS gave them a run for their money. (around 4:50)

 

MY primary point. I suppose I could have been more precise in wording though I often hope I don't need to be.

 

A blip in crime stats of any country is a weak argument in support of any idea. What was the main point of the video? Was it in support of socialism, capitalism, communism, a dictatorship, how the hell did Swedish crime stats weave its way into the rant :)

Digression from the overall paraphrase and issue at hand. Feel free to use your own time to understand the "migrant Crisis" of the 2015 era as well as ongoing implications to the countries in question. That's a debate for a different thread though, and not my intention when I very specifically put a timestamp to the quote I paraphrased on another topic. :)

[GAHD]

I'm going to ~slightly exaggerate forced taxes as "at gunpoint" in the upcoming bit. I only think it's a ~slight exaggeration since if you do screw around with your taxes you're quite possibly going to have government people with guns come, take your stuff, and possibly lock you up as an example to others.

That presupposes government ineptitude and not ineptitude from private businesses.
You will be aware that military research funded by inept governments drives a huge amount of innovation. 
Companies often can apply for research grants from governments.

It does yes. I don't think that supposition is without merit just based off of the historic data I'm aware of.

Military industrial does indeed drive innovation, but you'll note it's by private companies that bid off it based on their own products. Pratt & Whitney, Standard Aero, Boeing, Porsche, etc.. all bid to fill niche contracts. Private individuals and companies tend to take their inventions there to "tap the well" of taxpayer dollars beyond preconceived needs too. That does NOT mean that centralized control/power drives innovation though. It does mean that governments LOVE to find new ways to "create revenue streams(at gunpoint)" and then spend that stream(sometimes at gunpoint).

Weather individuals should be forced to pay for those research grants or MIC contracts or whatnot (at gunpoint) is a different topic. Maybe someone's happy living in the mountains raising their own crops and cattle. Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for the trappings of roads, electric vehicle subsidies, water purification, new battery technology, and other things they do not use and do not want? Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for healthcare they don't use? Why should they be forced (at gunpoint) to pay for anything they don't directly benefit from?
 
 

The unions are required however to fight for peoples rights when dealing with businesses and corrupt governments. There is more to life and politics than money rewards.

My experience with Unions doesn't quite line up with that, but personal experience is anecdotal rather than statistical.
 

I do think there is a massive problem in politics whereby political parties gain massive funding from companies. Governments should serve all the electorate, not specific lobby groups, against the interest of the electorate. 
 
Since you are in the America some where, the gun lobby is an example of what I am waffling about,.

Canadian. Technically that's part of America as a whole just like Mexico, Brasil, or Chile.

I WISH our gun lobby was stronger. ~Gun control is not enough~, meet knife control. I mean, you can't blame a tool for asshat people but that will not stop governments from trying to do so. I'm of the informed opinion that if every adult was required to own and maintain a gun unless proven to be criminally incompetent life would be much safer. Force multiplication is an equalizer not a cause. ;) So, if you're insinuating the "protect the second amendment" lobby is somehow against the electorate...I shall ~respectfully disagree~ with you unless you can provide real data on violent crime rates showing otherwise(not cherry picked and narrowed down to "gun deaths only").

I do take your point on dealing with "buying a vote" and whatnot. I agree with it generally even if I disagree with that specific example.

Edited August 29, 2019 by GAHD
more supporting links

[GAHD]

We are off thread.

 

 

Little OT, yes, though it's close in the sense of what is and is not a political issue:

 

 

Why do we place these problems in the hands of politicians who understand them no better than the man in the street? If the heating in my house doesn't work I call in someone who understands heating systems, not someone who has a very strong opinion about heating systems but no knowledge of how they work. It would seem sensiblle to do the same when our planet's heating system is on the blink. So why don't we redefine what is and what is not a political issue, and give only political problems to politicians to solve (there are enough of those to keep them busy!)

 

I had guessed Canadian, but did not guess you liked guns, normally that is a US American thing. I guess in Canada a grisly bear might make you feel nervous. What do you think your gun is for. Is shooting somebody for a minor criminal act allowable in Canada. In Africa I understand the police advise shoot the criminal first then put a warning shot into the wall or roof, it saves on paperwork. Is that the same in Canada.

 

Guns (assault weapons) in the ownership of people who don't value life or the law might not be a good idea, people would do mass shootings and all sorts of bad things. You will be aware that mass shootings have been going on in America for a long time the worst being in 1890 https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-worst-mass-shooting-in-us-history-was-not-in-orlando

Bears don't bother me: they will run away if you stand up and scream unless you're in between them and their cubs. What is of concern is some desperate drug user strung out and irrational (or other criminal element). Guns "even the odds" for anyone not physically capable of subduing the criminal element. EG: 45kg grandmother coming home from the bank, with the POTENTIAL of a pistol in her purse she is not as much of a target as if she is denied that potential. Same is true for a 45kg college girl walking home to the dorms after a sporting event. Note in my previous post I pointed out the London has MASSIVE murder rates with it's draconian gun control, and now even kitchen knives are under government siege. You need to examine the logic of your stance when it's shown to be silly de facto.

 

"mass shootings" have been stopped in progress by "a good guy with a gun" very often. You will note that states with Open Carry laws have very low incidents of that kinda crap. If(when) one idiot with a gun starts shooting which of the following 2 scenarios is better:

1. OMG this is Illinois where gun control is very strict. No one has a gun and it's very hard to out-run a bullet. 30+ people are there and can see the crazy person, and while they try to outrun the bullets and hide they scramble to dial 911 and wait 15-30 minutes (or possibly 2+ hours in other cases) for police(good guys with guns) to respond, identify the shooter, organise, and take action.
2. OMG this is Texas. This guy's shooting people from a church! Good guy runs from his house nearby with his rifle(the infamous AR 15 by Armalite), and Ends the terror while the police are still talking on their radios.

Criminals Do Not Follow Laws. What short-circuit of logic can possibly lead to the conclusion that removing guns from those without criminal history makes it safer? That's like saying (possibly drunk) drivers have killed pedestrians, no one should be allowed to own a vehicle or drive except government employees. Another analogy, this time regarding magasine capacity, size of barrel, and general scary looks: Cars with the ability to move faster than 15 km/h and weighing more than 400kg can cause "mass destruction" if they ever get out of control, we must govern all cars to a maximum of 15 km/h and limit the weight to no more than 400kg fully loaded!

 

It is better to have a Big Stick and never have to swing it than to desperately need a Big Stick and have one nowhere in sight.

 

"assault weapons" is an undefinable political buzz-word and it is a waste of calories to even bother to read it. A firearm is a firearm regardless of mechanisms or weather is had a wood-grain stock or a "scary looking" stamped metal or plastic one.

 

 

Back on thread

 

Who should politicians protect, big businesses, Monsanto perhaps or the electorate. Should multinationals making huge profits around the world for investors be allowed to apply lower levels of protection for their work force in perhaps India than they would in America or Europe. Are some workers more expendable than others. 

In theory none of the above; Government duty is to the nation. Republics are generally set up to safeguard individual freedoms from mob rule while at the same time promoting local interests that do not go against individual rights. Big Business or Multinationals should fall under that "mob rule" part just as much as "the electorate" does. Examples of Failures in this regard are many; weather it be in waste or water management, law enforcement and protecting the peace in an active manner, or any number of valid civic duties. When the government fails to provide what it forces tax collection for, private business often has to step in(security guards, bottled water, septic services, etc...) while the taxpayer still is forced to pay(at gunpoint) for services that are being mismanaged or failure to provide.

 

People are free to not buy a product from a company they don't like the ethics of. They are NOT free to "not buy" a government mandated service. This is a classic debate of personal choices, freedoms, and oversight. What about your local laws and bylaws? Do they actually protect your rights and freedoms as they are currently implemented?

Edited August 29, 2019 by GAHD
cars

[GAHD]

You appear to be very confused (lost in smoke and mirrors). I am not from America, and have lived a long time outside Europe, I strongly believe people with guns are asking for a good kicking. I do not believe nation states should try and police world politics. Your values are not mine, if you come near me with a gun, I am very likely to shoot you with beat you to death with it. Especially if you come near me when I have had a drink like now.

looks like you answered the part you didn't quote, and quoted the part you have no answer for. Maybe take some time to really think about your stance, and examine what part of your past education/indoctrination lead to it. :)

 

Bringing a boot to a gunfight seems like a recipe to loose a leg to me...