04 April 2011

Why Things Don't Change--or Your "Vote" is Meaningless

Okay, here's something that makes sense to me...what about you?

All forms of government beyond the city level--beyond the very local--are corrupt. (Likely they are also corrupt locally, but there is a real face-to-face opportunity to call this out and make changes.) They are corrupt in any number of ways...the systems themselves have been "re-engineered" to serve a different purpose than what was likely the original intention.

Okay, no need to blame things--people seem to want to game everything they can and I don't have the ability to call chicken or egg on any of this. I tend to simply believe that the folks that find their way to the the "top" of systems are folks who want to/know how to use that system to their own best advantage. That does not make all of us intrinsically corrupt(able). We are weak though. And I think it's why we give so many fraudulent persons a pass--we know that we are weak and who knows what we might do should we be given the keys to the kingdom.

Okay, in that case, there should be "fail-safe" systems in place to help balance the drive for power and money in those who are at the top. Now, this is the idea of "checks and balances" in the system of government we have. However, those "top-feeders" have infiltrated all of these branches of government and no longer seem fit to form these "checks"--definitely there is no longer any ideological nor practical balance. Ideologues abound but their ideology tends to be centered on off-shore accounts in the caymans. So, in this very surface account, your vote is meaningless--and in our current system, you also don't care about how your government operates as long as you can find a way to keep living the way you want to and believe you might get a little more some day. It's very "self" centered in every way. We only care about other people, on the whole, as means to our own ends. I do not believe this is healthy or necessary--in other words, I believe this is learned behavior, not intrinsic to our being.

Okay, here's the idea, old as the hills, or at least the Greeks in Athens...government by lottery...like jury selection I suppose.

This creates very clear requirements for the polis as a whole. We must groom every single one of our citizens to be capable of managing whatever role might come their way by lottery.

This means REAL education for everyone...the type of education that fosters thinking and not testing ability. We need elastic, ethical minds. We will all be each others' keepers in this way.

Rules and policies MUST be simple. Why should they be complex? No good reason. Complexity serves the cabal of insiders only. Simplicity can serve us all well.

I'm out...what are your thoughts?


  1. Very interesting idea, Doug! The idea of government by lottery certainly levels the playing field in most ways, but even in this system you'd need checks and balances to ensure that the lottery system couldn't/wouldn't be tipped or influenced. Or is this just my very American way of thinking that someone would try?

    We currently create a class system based on education, though this is really socioeconomic, though our wealthiest are not necessarily our most educated. So, it's an odd form of control.

    I agree about rules and policies needing to be simple, but in making them complex the idea of government is further perpetuated as elite. If you can't understand the laws that govern you you have now power to fight against them.

    Currently we give our children the illusion that anyone can be the President of the United States. While this may be true, we don't tell them that they have to be willing to f* everyone over to get to the "top."

  2. I thought the american way was not to trust everyone to govern? Representation and all that good stuff.

    Good point about simplicity. Complexity happens naturally with many things - the alternative takes a lot of hard hard work. Question is how that would be maintained by proposed mass of people constantly in rotation?

  3. States become complex with size, I think Hannah Arendt comments on this somewhere--bureaucracies are issues of scale.

    I guess it's hard to conceive of something like this outside of the city...but it seems to me that you could make things even simpler as a larger entity becomes necessary...in other words the larger entity will only manage relations among cities and shared access ways perhaps.

    But, that's a second tier difficulty for my first thoughts. Perhaps there is a blend that has to occur first...one or two "mentor" positions intended to simply guard the process.

    Looking for the best way to encourage equal consideration of all of the citizens. All have a voice. You can't buy your way on or off (maybe hardships to get excused, ala juries). All meetings to be public...what you say and do is ON RECORD at all times. No "closed meetings" exceptions.