A Matter of Trust

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Hey folks! It's time for our regular installment of ridiculously hyperbolized hypothetical situations taken from the [Poll #1828928]

No need to mention that the answers have been deliberately made to sound extreme. Lulz above all!

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

For the first time I find myself agreeing whole-heartedly with one of your Nation State caricatures. Double standards are corrosive to legitimate authority and the rule of law.

Afterall, if there is no expectation of fair treatment, why bother to cooperate?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Dude, if you're agreeing with a caricature, there must be something wrong with you, dude!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ya I know.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Congressional insider trading should be punished twice as rigorously as regular insider trading.
Term limits aren't such a bad idea either.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm split between 1 & 2. But I like Ms Bronte's name more.

[404.livejournal.com]

Giggity!

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Giggity for Prez!

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

None of the choices listed are particularly appealing but #1 was the least repugnant
to me.

#2 is naive in the extreme. Recycling new faces and new term limits speaks nothing
to addressing corruption, and in fact may make it harder to stop since enforcement bodies
in the executive branch are also cycling out the door quickly

#3 Quotas and mandates dont address corruption and the premise actually is a stereotype
both about men and women.

#4 TV shows and documentaries are staged and result in official propaganda for officials
rather than actually stopping crime

#5 Should be self-evident why this is bad


To me, the 1st REAL step is to remove lobbists and Super-PAC money from the political process; Also stop the nonsense of corporations being seen as people

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

None of the choices listed are particularly appealing

Well, you already know how this game works. :-)

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Dont get me wrong -- its thought provoking. I just didnt like the choices on the menu this time. 8-)

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

remove lobbists and Super-PAC money from the political process

Yes, this.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Option #6, Government Service as a civic duty, by lottery, rather like Jury Duty.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

That's not a good choice in my mind.

Then literally we're putting people "in power" by the roll of the dice.

I would want politician to be self-selected enough, to care enough so to speak,
to at least go out and run for their own office rather than have it given to them.

The process you mention also removes any real basis of control by the populace
since there would be no voting process that would be meaningful

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Maybe but politics in general seems to self-select for narcissism.

It's an arrogant SOB who wakes up in the morning and thinks "I should be in charge".

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Some of our politicians have industry experience and training in the issues they consider important.

If they run for the sake of their ego -- I agree with you. If they run because they honestly think they can fix something, then thats more of what we want

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Agreed... If I had a magic wand, I would not put such a system in place.... but I feel similarly ambivalent about all the provided options.

Ultimately I think my Option #6 has the same problem as #2 (Term limits) as it would move expertise (and thus power) from elected officials to a persistent bureaucracy (made more necessary so as to preserve the actual know-how of running government.) Such a shift in power doesn't end corruption, it just moves where the corruption happens.

If I had to get close to my d'ruthers... I'd say

Option #7, No political Advertising. All Campaign costs to be rigorously controlled and financed directly from government coffers, assuming some proof of minimum support (say, number signatures)

There will still be some corruption requiring a legal response, but not the need of enormous cash reserves for running a modern media campaign, which is a corrosive influence.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I could agree with #7 but would take it further and say no lobbyists, no gifts from lobbyists, and no Super-PACs.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I don't know, but don't you wish we had such colourful personalities as our main politicians? =)

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

I say, Sunshine Laws. Open the books on everything.

I don't really agree with any of these choices for stated reasons above, but I too love the columnist's name in #2.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I couldn't help noticing that all of the solutions offered here involve expanding the role of government: more law enforcement, more rules, more quotas, more propaganda or more government coercion. Well, the options are what they are, but it would seem that scaling back government would go a long way toward addressing the problem.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting idea. Did I mention the purpose is to ultimately drive your state to the mud? :-D

But seriously, I'd be willing to hear what you have in mind about scaling down government in this case.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I think that the root of the problem is the government that promises to take care of everything. Of course, it needs more resources to do this, so people are collectively willing to pay higher and higher taxes, and consent to more and more government borrowing. And because the government is taking care of everything, including auditing and policing itself, people become more and more separated from the decisions that are made, less able to judge the merits of particular policies, less able to exert influence on a distant, monolithic government.
I won't say that scaling back government is simple, and the approach will depend on a particular country's individual characteristics and circumstances. For some countries, eliminating duplication across different levels of government would produce results. In other cases, moving toward a stricter adherence to constitutional roles and limits to government powers might work. On a more general level, decentralization of government power, except for purely national issues, would allow different regions more control and more responsibility.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I think we'll have to sign a petition against the NS organizers, then!

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Voted for Bronte

[404.livejournal.com]

I'd have voted for Charlotte Bronte, personally.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Option 6: Nuke em from space.

[404.livejournal.com]

It's the only way to make sure.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Joking aside, I think many countries need a lesson in what state transparency really means, and that it takes money to create it. Agent Z is on the right track, although it does sound that even he doesn't quite know the procedures (blogging = transparency, hahahah!)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Hush you and your unsustainable Swedish socialism, duh! You're doomed with your transparency-shmansparency, dontchaknow?

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Hmm..could it be that I'm starting to sense a pattern in the answers to my comments in these polls? ;)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

A pattern of imminent doom!