[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Kristofer

[The following relates to the corruption of elected officials after they 
take office.]

re: "... make the system so competitive that the pressure to be
      honest is greater than that to become corrupt. I don't think
      it can be done by the latter, at least not alone ..."

I agree.  Our ultimate goal must be a system that harnesses our 
predilection for pursuing our own interest.  In doing so, we must 
recognize and respect the power of that inclination.

It is an asset during selection when the value of being (perceived as) 
honest exceeds the value of being corrupt, but the pressure to maintain 
a mantle of probity diminishes when the competition ends.  After that 
point, the pursuit of self-interest can become a threat.  Indeed, there 
is a self-justifying argument that, having exercised restraint before 
achieving office, one is entitled to the rewards the office makes possible.

Stated more simply, Practical Democracy harnesses our natural tendency 
to pursue own interest, but that vital characteristic of the method 
disappears when the selection process ends. Thereafter, we must find 
other means to restrain the adverse effects of the excessive pursuit of 
self-interest.


re: "Perhaps representatives should have strict limits as to what
      they can accept, so that overt bribery is weakened ..."

This approach is not usually successful.  As I mentioned last week in 
relation to the attempt to curtail 'Pay to Play' in New Jersey, the laws 
intended to impose 'strict limits' are enacted with loopholes that limit 
their effectiveness.  Protecting a valuable resource by surrounding it 
with thieves is not the best way to ensure a satisfactory result. 
Instead, we need a structural change that limits incipient corruption.


re: "This [limiting what representatives can accept] might be
      difficult in the United States, though, because of court
      decisions setting spending as free speech (more or less;
      I'm not familiar with the details)."

This issue is loaded!  It is worthy of careful examination in its own 
right, but I shall only make a few comments about it.

* The notion that the rights of humans extend to non-human
   entities is fundamentally flawed.  It sets the stage for a
   plethora of anti-human abuses.

* By definition, the idea that one may use their 'money as free
   speech' gives the loudest voice to those with the most money.
   That is no less perverse than restricting the right to vote to
   land-owners.

* Laws implementing the 'money as free speech' concept make a
   distinction between 'hard money' (money given directly to
   individuals, which carries limits) and 'soft money' (money
   given to political parties, which is virtually unlimited ...
   and makes parties the conduits of corruption that plague us.)


re: "If lobbyists are used (ideally) as a shortcut to the
      opinions of those that have different positions in the
      community, maybe this could be formalized."

It is formalized (in the U. S.) in the sense that legislatures schedule 
hearings during which lobbyists present the positions of the community. 
  The flaw in the formal system is that there are no restraints on the 
access lobbyists have to legislators outside the hearing rooms.  As a 
result, the lobbyists suborn legislators, sub rosa, out of the public 
eye.  The only way to stop this is to implement a structural change that 
denies those with an interest in legislation access to those who 
deliberate on and enact legislation, except in public hearings held for 
the purpose of informing the legislators.  All other contact between 
lobbyists and legislators must be prevented.


re: "(Of course, one should beware not to let "the people
      wouldn't understand" run rampant and turn the entire affair
      into something autocratic.)"

Bravo!!!

Wish I'd said that.

Fred