Systems and Humans

Lobbyist:
Hello Senator (or similar)
I work with Dog-Food Corporations of America
and we want to support your campaign for the next election.

Government official:
Terriffic.

Lobbyist:
But we find it troubelling that you intend
to vote no to a ban on fireworks,
as this makes the dogs nervous and hence,
eat less dog-food.

Government offical:
I didn't know that

Lobbyist:
We would, of course, never ask you to vote different
than your consciouse, but you can understand
how difficult it would be for us to write you a check
without first explaining our point of view.
Less dog-food means less jobs, after all...

Government official:
I appreciate your genuine concern for the working public.

Lobbyist:
We are really on the same page about this would you not say?

Government official:
I have a dog myself

Lobbyist:
The check is in the mail.

How is this different from bribery?

The Flipside conversation:

Many of all those seeking office do so by attempting to bribe the voters:
I'll take money from the rich and give them to you.
I'll make laws to make your life safer or easier.
I'll create jobs, build schools, give you free healthcare or better roads.
Is this not an attempt to bribe?.

The trouble with having a government is that it is a system and systems can be exploited. Smart people will find a way to get around rules, and make the system for are also selfish, they find a way to get things done

Nononono that is campaign promises, good intentions, that are usually not kept - you say.
The idea is that for politicians to find out what we the people want, and then get that done.
Ok. So what if we all want different things?
Then it's up to the majority
Ok. I suspect the majority want big houses, lots of cars, free money and healthcare.

Second, what system could we possibly put in place where some would not be able to influence those who govern? Communism? Marxism? Anarchy? Some would say let no one have money and power, get rid of all material posessions, live like the lillies of the field. The trouble is we are not lillies, and if we were able to spread all material possessions evenly between all people - a week later some would have little or nothing while some would again own most or everything.

Democracy is a system based on the idea that it is safer to trust many than one, yet it is widely known that for every invention, steam engines, the karosine lamp, electricity, the automobile - there has been widespread opposition. If it was up to democracy we would still be living in caves, so why are we not? Probably because a few with less fear would take a chance, have success and lead the way for others.

So how does this mesh with the idea of democracy?

Well. What happens when someone owns something? What happens when people like Trumph and Gates own so much? Do they pile their money in a backroom and never share it? Hardly. Property has to be maintained, jobs have to be filled, the money circulates. Life goes on.

				12/05/05 Article by Bent Myggen. www.bentmyggen.com
	The Problem with Democracy. (Or a representive republic).

	Oh my goodness, someone took a bribe.- and the world is astonished. How could they betray our trust, taint the noble office - what is the world coming to? Within any system (see "Humans Versus Systems"), democracy being one, there is a basic weakness: How do we make sure our leaders do what is the common good? A sub-question would be: Who decides what the common good is? The American system was uniquely crafted by a group of people who truly wanted government to be in service of the public and be as small and transparent as possible. Now, 250 years later we have two political parties in fierce competition with each other to be the one in power. No politician wishes to disclose what is really going on, and the public don't seem to care that much as long as it doesn't impact them directly. If the public does not pay attention, democracy has no chance to work as intended - that seems rather obvious. Roughly 30% of Americans vote, this should tell us something. Meanwhile what is going on in government? Well, bribing, for one thing. And that's just how things are done. We have something called "lobbying". Travelling up and down the halls of congress, the house, and every major government building are professional men and women who seek meetings and conversations with elected officials to persuade them to vote one way or another. The meeting (I can only imagine) goes something like this: Lobbyist: Hello Senator (or similar) I work with Dog-Food Corporations of America and we want to support your campaign for the next election. Government official: Terriffic. Lobbyist: But we find it troubelling that you intend to vote no to a ban on fireworks, as this makes the dogs nervous and hence, eat less dog-food. Government offical: I didn't know that Lobbyist: We would, of course, never ask you to vote different than your consciouse, but you can understand how difficult it would be for us to write you a check without first explaining our point of view. Less dog-food means less jobs, after all... Government official: I appreciate your genuine concern for the working public. Lobbyist: We are really on the same page about this would you not say? Government official: I have a dog myself Lobbyist: The check is in the mail. How is this different from bribery? The Flipside conversation: Many of all those seeking office do so by attempting to bribe the voters: I'll take money from the rich and give them to you. I'll make laws to make your life safer or easier. I'll create jobs, build schools, give you free healthcare or better roads. Is this not an attempt to bribe?. The trouble with having a government is that it is a system and systems can be exploited. Smart people will find a way to get around rules, and make the system for are also selfish, they find a way to get things done Nononono that is campaign promises, good intentions, that are usually not kept - you say. The idea is that for politicians to find out what we the people want, and then get that done. Ok. So what if we all want different things? Then it's up to the majority Ok. I suspect the majority want big houses, lots of cars, free money and healthcare. Second, what system could we possibly put in place where some would not be able to influence those who govern? Communism? Marxism? Anarchy? Some would say let no one have money and power, get rid of all material posessions, live like the lillies of the field. The trouble is we are not lillies, and if we were able to spread all material possessions evenly between all people - a week later some would have little or nothing while some would again own most or everything. Democracy is a system based on the idea that it is safer to trust many than one, yet it is widely known that for every invention, steam engines, the karosine lamp, electricity, the automobile - there has been widespread opposition. If it was up to democracy we would still be living in caves, so why are we not? Probably because a few with less fear would take a chance, have success and lead the way for others. So how does this mesh with the idea of democracy? Well. What happens when someone owns something? What happens when people like Trumph and Gates own so much? Do they pile their money in a backroom and never share it? Hardly. Property has to be maintained, jobs have to be filled, the money circulates. Life goes on.