A way to Handle Professional Politicians: tie them to the boat that they try to sink

No Comments

First of all, as of May 2013 I think that the root of all problems in politics is in the conflict of interests that arises from the fact that a profession like "professional politician" exists. If every person could be in the government and Parliament only for 4 years during its whole life time, then the politicians would try to think, how their life would be as an ordinary citizen, not how to get re-elected and prolong the fame and politician's status related monetary benefits. The idea is not original: the time limit for being in the role of the President of the United States has existed since the inception of the U.S.A.

Secondary thought is that if greater amount of ordinary people were forming the government and the "class of professional politicians" did not exist, then there would be no separation between "us" and "them", "us, the plain people" and "them, the elite". According to the Michael N. Nagler, PACS 164A, the key for initiating conflicts and for removing conflicts is to introduce/abolish a difference in a group, to introduce a distinction between one set of people and an other set of people within the same group, to create "us", "them".

Given the fact that one can only change oneself and only influence the processes around oneself, or, as one of the people that I know, said it, "autot ei saa juhtida, saab juhtida vaid auto liikumist" (I do not know, how to properly translate it to English, but a lossy translation is: "a car can not be driven, only its movement can be influenced"), it is not possible to change the current professional politicians to suddenly want to change the constitution and resign. (The reason, why I do not name the person, whom I'm citing, is that I want to keep my contacts somewhat private. I do not even list my friends at Facebook.) However, it is possible to influence the processes, which explains the usefulness of this article, blog post.

It seems to me that the otherwise power-hungry and "power-lying" politicians are very motivated and literally eager to create laws that server the general public when the lack of those laws directly hurts themselves. For example, the moment the leading party, the Reform party, ended up being investigated by the Estonian FBI analogue, the KAPO, they immediately started a legislation that limits the abilities of the KAPO to investigate and wiretap things,
i.e. the key seems to be that the "gun" that the leading politicians build, should be turned on themselves and then the politicians become very docile, very "caring", eager to make the "right decisions".

So, my idea is that in stead of lobbying the government for "better laws", the government members and their close family members should be held accountable by the same laws that harass the rest of the public. After that the leading politicians as really skilled people in various legislative affairs will themselves come up with solutions that benefit the general public more than the solutions that the grassroots lobbyists could ever even imagine, lobby for.

To put it in other words: may be the most effective strategy for influencing various torpedoers is to grab them and tie them to the same boat that they try to sink. Not just in state level politics but in all affairs.

As rude and cynical as it sounds, but isn't all "goodness" and love based on the feelings of unity?


May be the feeling of unity could be a less enslaving version of a set of rules that might replace the Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics?

Somewhat related contemplation resides in one of my other blog posts, titled One Thought About the Transhumanism and Nazism, where I claim that enslaving artificial intelligence entities is a form of Nazism. Even my feable attempt to write a "perfect constitution" considers artificial intelligence based entities as ordinary, "first-class", citizens.

Comments are closed for this post