patrick.net

freak80 says

How do we make this happen? Facebook?

Referendum. ;)

I heard the idea of electing a president for one 6-year term. The winner gets one shot at making the history books, and we get new ideas every time.

I like the idea, not sure what the down side would be...

While I generally agree that politicians resemble sociopaths at times, government is the only thing that can stand in the way of the even more potent concentration of sociopaths on Wall Street and in the boardrooms of multinational corporations. Politicians for their numerous faults, are at least elected by popular vote (even the electoral college takes its cue from the popular vote in its winner-take-all, state-by-state system). Bad behavior can be punished by a loss of one's job or even career in politics. Bad behavior is incentivized if it brings short term profits to shareholders in big business circles. Without government, there is no check on the abuses the wealthy and powerful can inflict on the average and the poor. Government is a necesary evil and its size should be dictated by the amount of evil in the greater society, that it must contain. It's the people's job to keep shifting the players until a good outcome is reached. When we abducate that duty, we encourage crony entrenchment.

I think the way to get rid of sociopaths in politics is to: (1) pay them minimum wage, (2) have a 'one term' limit for any elected position, (3) eliminate all retirement plans and benefits.

The sociopaths would then be attracted to other types of work...like union boss, drug trade, community agitator, slimy lawyer, bank robber and the like.

futuresmc says

While I generally agree that politicians resemble sociopaths at times, government is the only thing that can stand in the way of the even more potent concentration of sociopaths on Wall Street and in the boardrooms of multinational corporations.

True. I wasn't trying to argue that government should be abolished. I think the best we can hope for is some kind of competition between the sociopaths in government and the sociopaths in Big Business. When they collude (like they are now), all hell breaks loose.

Honest Abe says

I think the way to get rid of sociopaths in politics is to: (1) pay them minimum wage

That would only accelerate the dominance of multimillionaires in Congress. They are the only ones who can afford to be paid minimum wage for years and still be rich!

CL - OK, lets solve that problem right now by adding a 4th restriction. No one earning more than a combined family income of $250,000 is eligible. Problem solved.

Good government is possible, but not with humans running the show. Fully automated government ran by software is the way to go.

Dan8267 says

Good government is possible, but not with humans running the show. Fully automated government ran by software is the way to go.

I thought that was a movie- The Matrix?

What about a meritocracy also? Elect only those from the 1% who have some objective accomplishments (e.g. academic achievements)

All back to Plato !

lostand confused says

I thought that was a movie- The Matrix?

The quality of the software is determine by the quality of the developer. As long as managers keep saying, "Any monkey can code.", the future will continue down the path towards the Matrix or Skynet. Of course, there are alternatives.

jhall says

I heard the idea of electing a president for one 6-year term. The winner gets one shot at making the history books, and we get new ideas every time.

I like the idea, not sure what the down side would be...

The concept that one 6-year term will somehow make the presidency "better" seems to be severely lacking in logic and substance.

Then there is the added fallacy that what presidents are lacking is "ideas". Look, every president has lots of "ideas". The problem is that only the BAD-for-the-99% ideas get implemented because our legislature being completely corrupted by the 1%.

The problem is not a lack ideas, it is that all the BAD ideas get implemented instead of the good ones. In fact, all the good ideas are already out there in some form, but many people have no idea (there is that word again) what they are.

thunderlips11 says

That's why the legislature should be like Jury Duty.

The voters get to pick from 4 randomly selected citizens to be their representative. Or they can vote None of the Above, and a new slate of citizens is randomly picked. The incumbent, if any, runs against 3 randomly chosen citizens.

Refusing "nomination" would be onerous, to make sure that people who don't want it get the job.

We'd be better off taking our chances with the bell curve than allowing sociopaths to self-select. That way we'd get the normal 1% sociopathic legislature instead of 80% (with the remainder being megalomaniacs).

I cannot agree with this. Do you not understand that if we replace the legislature with random sheep then all the sociopath wolves (think lobbyists and donors) will simply surround the sheep and threaten to tear them to pieces unless they do as they are told?

I've said it a hundred times: What makes a political system work is fair competition and fair elections, coupled with well-informed voters.

In the US we have none of the above:

Fair competition and fair elections are prevented by our electoral system. Well-informed voters are prevented by the corporate propaganda complex.

freak80 says

The only thing good about Democracy is that we can have a "bloodless revolution" every two years if necessary. As the old saying goes, "politicians are like diapers...they should be changed often, and for the same reason." We can at least replace the current sociopaths with different sociopaths every election cycle.

LOL. Loved it.
Maybe we should potty train politicians.
Worked with my dog.

Listen, many of our national politicians, at least on the Democratic side, are thoughtful and intelligent people who are trying unsuccessfully to do the right thing.

It is the structure of our system that prevents them from doing what is right. And voters are not helping by believing that the solution is to throw them out every two years.

Come on, being a good lawmaker requires brains, skill and experience.

Throwing polticians out every two years is EXACTLY what the 1% would want you to do. Don't be stupid.

By the way, how about replacing corporate boards and management/CEOs with randomly selected employees, every two years? [sarcasm alert]

Does that seem like a good idea to anyone? Why or why not? Discuss!

Another idiotic thread killed, with just a little bit of logic. It's all in day's work.

But could I not at least get a few "likes" for doing the job? Huh?

justme says

It is the structure of our system that prevents them from doing what is right. And voters are not helping by believing that the solution is to throw them out every two years.

If you read my earlier post I said you shift the players UNTIL a good outcome is reached, not just for the sake of shifting the players. You throw out the ones that sell out and you keep the rare few that stand on principle.

justme says

By the way, how about replacing corporate boards and management/CEOs with randomly selected employees, every two years? [sarcasm alert]

Does that seem like a good idea to anyone? Why or why not? Discuss!

Replacing the boards and top management of any corporation is entirely up to the shareholders. It's not the business of anyone else.
If they are doing a bad job, it is only a matter of time before they get replaced.

futuresmc,

"shift the players UNTIL a good outcome is reached"

has some moral merit (and I did not read your post before), but does it work in practice?

The whole country can be ruined by the crooks that rule in the interim, and then the damage is already done. Refer to to 1980-2008 as an example, and how Obama, who is at least somewhat trying to fix the problems, just cannot do it in 4 years.

You cannot have a clean reset every two years. What the elected reps did in the meanwhile will matter. And you could easily get a totalitarian state along the way.

The only way to fix politics is to fix the structure of the election system (glad you brought that up as well) and forbid corporate money and associated propaganda..

Raw says

justme says

By the way, how about replacing corporate boards and management/CEOs with randomly selected employees, every two years? [sarcasm alert]

Does that seem like a good idea to anyone? Why or why not? Discuss!

Replacing the boards and top management of any corporation is entirely up to the shareholders. It's not the business of anyone else.

If they are doing a bad job, it is only a matter of time before they get replaced.

Yeah, right. The shareholder do not stand a chance as long as the board and management in practice has all the power to nominate for the board. Corporate governance just isn't democratic with respect to the shareholders. It is as if Washington candidates would be chosen by congress instead of in a primary election. Imagine how bad that would be.

Good government is impossible when people who make it up are crooks and thieves. And most people are easily tempted when they can steal millions and get away with the crime.

The only good government is small government that can't spend a penny without direct approval from those paying the bill.

[...]

curious2 says

"I know a dozen people who have more experience with this company and could run it better for half the salary that Ricky Wagoner / Raymond Gilmartin etc. is getting."

Managers run the company day to day. BOD do strategic planning! Not many have any idea what strategic planning involves.

justme says

The whole country can be ruined by the crooks that rule in the interim, and then the damage is already done. Refer to to 1980-2008 as an example, and how Obama, who is at least somewhat trying to fix the problems, just cannot do it in 4 years.

Thats how dictators are made! change for the good of all citizens !

[...]

curious2 says

You mean "not many directors," right? Employees whose careers, pensions, prospects, and salaries all depend on the company might have a clearer understanding of strategic planning than, for example, the directors of financial companies that failed and needed TARP rescue

I suggest you look up strategic planning.. what is it ? ..tools, methods used? etc etc..
your way off the mark! no i mean not many employees! clueless!

[...]

curious2 says

Here's a possibility: Ingratiate ourselves to politicians by means of "donations," favorable loan terms, and revolving door jobs to staff, so that when our "business" front blows up they'll bail us out and we can all retire. They excelled brilliantly at that!

Politics! that is all you can offer as a director of an enterprise...
you would lose employees and your business would fail talking like this.

curious2 says

Actually, that idea has potential too. Suppose 1/3 of the board were replaced with randomly selected employees.

In some countries in Europe it is the law that employees must have representation on the BOD. It appears to work pretty well. However, the representatives are not randomly chosen, they are elected by the other employees.

[...]

justme says

In some countries in Europe it is the law that employees must have representation on the BOD. It appears to work pretty well. However, the representatives are not randomly chose, they are elected by the other employees.

And how can a BOD claim to be independent from the company? which today is mandatory ! The same is true in Europe... especially those who trade on the NYSE.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/sec-approves-nyse-and-nasdaq-proposals-relating-to-director.html

BOARD COMPOSITION

NYSE

Majority of independent board members. The NYSE requires that a majority of the board of directors of a listed company be "independent," unless the company is a "controlled company," a limited partnership, is in bankruptcy proceedings or lists only preferred or debt securities. A controlled company is a company in which more than 50 percent of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company. Although controlled companies, limited partnerships, companies in bankruptcy proceedings and companies listing only preferred or debt securities are not required to have a majority of independent directors, such companies remain subject to the independent audit committee requirements discussed below. Under the NYSE listing standards, foreign private issuers are not required to have a majority of independent directors on their boards of directors. Foreign private issuers are required, however, to disclose any significant ways in which their home-country practices differ from those followed by a domestic company.

curious2 says

The TARP companies did fail,

what does TARP have anything to do with this, corporate governance!

[...]

eventually, perhaps soon, the whole thing will fall apart.

It's simply a matter of time before the financial viability of a nation is completely eroded by it's population. When a nation is financially viable, all sorts of parasites that don't have long term intentions arrive, become citizens, don't participate in the military, and simply collect. We have people like that in the millions today in America. The Left protects them as if they were victims. Eventually, the system falls apart- descends into civil war, foreign campaigns for profit, etc.

this is where America is today. You liberals who think you're about freedom aren't the solution, you're the problem.

From the local level to the federal level all politicians are immoral crooks! They only care about increasing the size of their own bank accounts and will do anything necessary to make it happen. The trillions in bail outs was all about self preservation and throwing working class Americans to the wolves! It's really sick when all my friends that make over 6 figures say our economy is doing great. They text me every time there is over an hour wait at a fine dining restaurant to prove it. Meanwhile people on Main Street are giving the option of bologna or 99 cent hot dogs to feed their families! We need a REVOLUTION against the crooks that bailed out the rich at our expense. Not letting the Crooks fail was Satan announcing that he's now completely taken over our country!

Able bodied scum on welfare, section 8 and food stamps have a better standard of living then people working 80 hrs per week! I say let's burn all the leeches until they are dead or have been ripped out of their blood sucking roles!

Dan8267 says

Good government is possible, but not with humans running the show. Fully automated government ran by software is the way to go.

We've already got that. It's called "Excel". The corporations use it to decide how to proceed in their profit-making psychopathy, and government uses it to decide how to respond to the corporations' interests. Churches use it to decide whether to save souls or to save the Building Fund. Consumers use it to decide whether to rent or to buy.

moonmac says

From the local level to the federal level all politicians are immoral crooks!

This is why the problem is elections, not government. An election is just a popularity contest. In the case of our media-based entertainment, we have very few people to choose from.
Open up the whole thing to a lottery. Choose ALL government appointees at random. Replace all income taxes with one sales tax and a prebate (see FairTax.org but double the rate and the prebate until the water and air are clean).
The problem isn't that we HAVE government, or the government itself, per se, but that we CONSUME government, like we can buy a good one from Monsanto or Goldman Sachs. We can no more buy good government than we can buy a good marriage or a good farm. These things have to be built by hand with a lot of hard work and no immediate reward.
Government is also like any complex machine: it requires feedback mechanisms to keep it in line and to put energy into it. Most of the time, such a machine goes wrong not because the machinery is bad, but because a key part is overlooked or neglected. In the case of our Constitution, it is trying to do something that it was not equipped to handle: manage a consumerist society. They should have seen it coming (re: Spain and it's free gold), but ignored it, thinking that popular vote or an intelligent Senate would prevent such mass stupidity. The consumer society happened because of the Industrial Revolution, and the devaluing of manual labor (everyone wanted an easier life, so it was no big deal to replace their hard tasks with machines...except the Luddites tried to get the point across that doing so destroyed lives as surely as weapons do) was a "no-brainer" of "efficiency" and "standards of living". The problem with consumerism is that it makes the assumption of people being useless except when they are purchasing something, rather than useful when they are making or doing something. Buying things stimulates those things to be made merely because people have money, and through inflationary practices, money was free; just as though we were taking it from 'ignorant savages' in a New World: except the savages are ourselves and our resources in the future when the free money comes through debts.
The proper feedback against consumerism is a consumption tax: a sales tax. It must be applied at the point of decision (the checkout) or it merely gets buried (like corporate taxes are buried in the price of products or the lack of wages).
Humans are smart: not intelligently intentional. By this, I mean they solve problems, but don't personally make the best choices for their own interest. That's why we invented religion and government (yes, they ARE the same thing, regardless of the delusion of separateness): to 'trick' ourselves to not do things we know we wouldn't otherwise be able to control ("If you get me through this night, I promise I will never take another drink."). God and government were both invented by drunks in a moment of semiconscious wisdom. They are exploited by tea-totalers and whiskey runners. Somewhere in between are the people who want to just go about a useful life without causing harm or being harmed. It's time to wake them up to the harm of the polarizing fanatics or it will kill us all in a Civil War the likes of which Joss Whedon can't imagine.

curious2 says

thomaswong.1986 says

you would lose employees and your business would fail talking like this.

The TARP companies did fail, which is how they got more money and power than ever before, via TARP. It was, from their POV, a huge success. Strange that one of the biggest news stories of the last fifty years seems to have escaped your attention. Your theory seems to be that boards, as currently constructed, are perfect. But theories must yield to facts.

Terry Pratchett makes a good humorous example of this in "Going Postal": where the board members all serve on each other's companies and pretend they are separate companies.
Perhaps what we need is a good Tyrant (who may or may not also be a vampire), immune to the desires of any particular interest in comparison to his or her desire to improve the domain. It is the petty leaders who try to gain power over little slices that screw up the whole Domain relationship (being the focus of power makes you the locus of responsibility...nobless oblige).