Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

[Shwa]

Oh please. Cue the Twilight Zone music.

That said you can bet there probably are a couple of guys in a garage somewhere working on a new idea...

Which is TB's point in a round about way. Let's not forget the propaganda technicians ability to make Hitler dance.

So we have a premise: power corrupts...

This principle - as putative as it may be - is not confined to Westminster Parliamentary government systems.

So yeah, wire up the few thousand elected officials. But then, let's not forget the bureaucrats - make them honest too - wire them up. Then wire up their admin assistants, because you just know that the senior bureaucrats will try to use them for gain. Of course, once you wire up the admin assistants, then the entire bureaucracy gets wired up.

But who will police the police?

Seem to me that anyone with a little bit of AV know-how (all those years in the HS AV room finally paid off) will be able to manipulate all the data from those that are wired up. Imagine the power they will have. But wait, they will have to wired up too then. And let's not forget the people that are monitoring all this wired up information. They will have to be wired up too. And the people that monitor the people that monitor others? Yup, wire them up. And the people that watch them too, wire them up.

And so on...

Your 'small tyranny' appears to have an exponential component to it...

Let's just stick with what we have for now shall we? It is much less costly that what you propose. And let's continue to teach honesty in Kindergarten...

[eyeball]

Your 'small tyranny' appears to have an exponential component to it...

So you don't subscribe to the trickle down theory? If its applicable to wealth it stands to reason it should be applicable to other things like decency and honesty.

And let's continue to teach honesty in Kindergarten...

Are you suggesting that honesty wells up through society from below? Is this like an artesian spring or does it have to be sucked up from above? Hmmmm I wonder if this is how it really works with wealth?

[ToadBrother]

So you don't subscribe to the trickle down theory? If its applicable to wealth it stands to reason it should be applicable to other things like decency and honesty.

This is what can generally be termed a bad analogy. We're talking about too entirely different things. It's like comparing apples and dinosaurs.

No one would go for your solution. It's outrageous, abusive and leaves us with that most classic of political problems Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Wilber]

This is what can generally be termed a bad analogy. We're talking about too entirely different things. It's like comparing apples and dinosaurs.

Are you saying that honesty and leadership aren't compatible?

[eyeball]

This is what can generally be termed a bad analogy. We're talking about too entirely different things. It's like comparing apples and dinosaurs.

No one would go for your solution. It's outrageous, abusive and leaves us with that most classic of political problems Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

What are you talking about, people have been going for this very solution for centuries. People were led to truly believe they were being protected from the abuse of power by the all seeing eye of God and his eventual judgment. Occasionally some churchly pooh-bah still reminds us of that, like the time Chretien's soul was threatened with eternal damnation.

In today's secular society we also have cameras, microphones auditors and the court of public opinion to pass judgement. The need to protect society from the abuse of power certainly hasn't gone away, if anything it's become even more acute.

[ToadBrother]

What are you talking about, people have been going for this very solution for centuries. People were led to truly believe they were being protected from the abuse of power by the all seeing eye of God and his eventual judgment. Occasionally some churchly pooh-bah still reminds us of that, like the time Chretien's soul was threatened with eternal damnation.

In today's secular society we also have cameras, microphones auditors and the court of public opinion to pass judgement. The need to protect society from the abuse of power certainly hasn't gone away, if anything it's become even more acute.

Which says nothing to the problem that was originally been posed to Plato, and has never really been suitably answered since. Surveillance societies mean there's always someone behind the camera at some point, and in your scenario they would wield vast powers.

Thanks, I'll stick with our crippled system and leave the "spying on everyone" to the Ayatollahs of Iran and the technocrats of China.

[eyeball]

Which says nothing to the problem that was originally been posed to Plato, and has never really been suitably answered since. Surveillance societies mean there's always someone behind the camera at some point, and in your scenario they would wield vast powers.

Thanks, I'll stick with our crippled system and leave the "spying on everyone" to the Ayatollahs of Iran and the technocrats of China.

The technology of the Internet changes all that. It puts the public behind the camera, no one would wield absolute power. It gives Big Brother hundreds of millions of Little Brothers.

Again and I repeat, I said monitoring the few, not everyone. I have no doubt that where the rubber hits the road on how a hierarchy of authority should be structured and who wield's the power that the ayatollahs, the technocrats and the MP's are all singing from the same hymn book.

They'd be just as aghast as fishermen were at the thought of having observers on-board to look out for the public's interest i.e. it's common property resources. We own our government not the other way around, you of all people should know that.

[ToadBrother]

The technology of the Internet changes all that. It puts the public behind the camera, no one would wield absolute power. It gives Big Brother hundreds of millions of Little Brothers.

The public is not going to have the patience nor the time to watch their representative. Besides, you already said you'd need some sort of privacy commissioner to assure that private details are not released. Right away you've exposed the core problem that dates back to Plato's perfect society.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Besides, you rely too much on technology. It's well within the capacity of video editing and CGI to do nasty things like doctor video footage. Say I'm Evil Organization Dude and I decide the current PM needs to be gotten rid of. In the old days, it was actually fairly hard to pull a scam like that, under your system it would take a fairly small studio and a couple of days. While your system might have a high success rate (however it is you define success), it's potential for failure and for malicious use makes it all the less desirable.

Again and I repeat, I said monitoring the few, not everyone. I have no doubt that where the rubber hits the road on how a hierarchy of authority should be structured and who wield's the power that the ayatollahs, the technocrats and the MP's are all singing from the same hymn book.

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny my friend. What you propose to do would essentially create a bizarre surveillance mobocracy. Why even bother having elected officials at that point? Why not just have Ross Perot's "vote on everything" system?

They'd be just as aghast as fishermen were at the thought of having observers on-board to look out for the public's interest i.e. it's common property resources. We own our government not the other way around, you of all people should know that.

We own the government, but we do not own our representatives. There are conceivable situations in which a representative might have good justifications for not being simply a tool of constituents. I rail against MPs being tools of the parties, but neither do I want them to be slaves of the public. I want them to do the primary function of a representative democracy, which is to find the middle course between two extremes.

And the fisherman don't have to keep the cameras on when they go to bed or go to the bank to discuss a loan. Your analogy is flawed.

Here's a key philosophy of mine. Whenever someone says "Today's technology/economy/whatever makes the rules of the past obsolete..." I know that whatever follows is going to be poorly thought out crapola.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

The public is not going to have the patience nor the time to watch their representative.

The public doesn't have too. It's the representatives knowledge that they might be audited that does the trick. We'd probably only need auditors to verify a certain percentage of what is recorded through random audits. If these uncover anything a deeper probe would be triggered.

Besides, you already said you'd need some sort of privacy commissioner to assure that private details are not released. Right away you've exposed the core problem that dates back to Plato's perfect society.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I also said we'd need a secrecy commissioner to provide some balance - to assure secrets aren't being mischaracterized and hidden behind a facade of concern for privacy. I never said it would be perfect I just think it would be less imperfect, crippled is the term you used to describe what we've got now and you seem perfectly content to remain virtually immobilized by it.

Besides, you rely too much on technology. It's well within the capacity of video editing and CGI to do nasty things like doctor video footage. Say I'm Evil Organization Dude and I decide the current PM needs to be gotten rid of. In the old days, it was actually fairly hard to pull a scam like that, under your system it would take a fairly small studio and a couple of days. While your system might have a high success rate (however it is you define success), it's potential for failure and for malicious use makes it all the less desirable.

You're too frightened by the technology and in the old days it was really easy for Evil Organization Dudes to manipulate information from behind the scenes. It pains me to stoop to invoking the fear of Nazi's but you've overlooked Goebbels.

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny my friend. What you propose to do would essentially create a bizarre surveillance mobocracy. Why even bother having elected officials at that point? Why not just have Ross Perot's "vote on everything" system?

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny is a term usually used in the context of the oppression of human rights. In any case I've also postulated the possibility that politicians themselves might volunteer to effectively stream everything they say and do as they relate to the public's domain on the Internet.

We own the government, but we do not own our representatives. There are conceivable situations in which a representative might have good justifications for not being simply a tool of constituents. I rail against MPs being tools of the parties, but neither do I want them to be slaves of the public. I want them to do the primary function of a representative democracy, which is to find the middle course between two extremes.

I just don't want to feel like I'm being lied to all the time.

And the fisherman don't have to keep the cameras on when they go to bed or go to the bank to discuss a loan. Your analogy is flawed.

Fishermen rely on honest open governance more than you can imagine. Without it fish stocks rapidly go all to hell, take a look around the world. I guarantee you that as it went for us so it will go for everyone.

Here's a key philosophy of mine. Whenever someone says "Today's technology/economy/whatever makes the rules of the past obsolete..." I know that whatever follows is going to be poorly thought out crapola.

And you can say this without allowing for a single exception to the rule? I thought you were a big champion of compromise.

[ToadBrother]

The public doesn't have too. It's the representatives knowledge that they might be audited that does the trick. We'd probably only need auditors to verify a certain percentage of what is recorded through random audits. If these uncover anything a deeper probe would be triggered.

The knowledge that they may be under surveillance doesn't stop many Chinese from using external proxies to get uncensored information on the outside world, or heck, for an even more diabolical example, skilled pedophiles from sharing illegal images over networks using encryption protocols.

You may find me, as a guy who works with a considerable amount of network-based security in the IT world, including VPNs, encrypted communications and so forth, being much less impressed with technology than you are. It's very likely it's because I actually understand the technology, whereas you just sort of slavishly buy into it.

I also said we'd need a secrecy commissioner to provide some balance - to assure secrets aren't being mischaracterized and hidden behind a facade of concern for privacy. I never said it would be perfect I just think it would be less imperfect, crippled is the term you used to describe what we've got now and you seem perfectly content to remain virtually immobilized by it.

So we're still left with the problem posed to Plato. All you're doing is creating more layers, you're not solving the problem. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This privacy commissioner would essentially hold the government in his hands. The government would be absolutely reliant upon him. That's not an example of "less imperfect", that's an example of a whole high order of magnitude of "imperfect".

You're too frightened by the technology and in the old days it was really easy for Evil Organization Dudes to manipulate information from behind the scenes. It pains me to stoop to invoking the fear of Nazi's but you've overlooked Goebbels.

See above. I wager I know more about the technological issues than you do. You're like the guy back in my early days in the business who would quote off some article he read in Byte magazine, and it would be up to me to explain why his "suggestions" were less than optimal.

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny is a term usually used in the context of the oppression of human rights. In any case I've also postulated the possibility that politicians themselves might volunteer to effectively stream everything they say and do as they relate to the public's domain on the Internet.

Tyranny of the majority doesn't just deal with human rights, but with the nature of the relationship of government to society. Turning things upside down, as you suggest, doesn't automatically produce a better government. I envisage a much much worse government, in fact.

I just don't want to feel like I'm being lied to all the time.

You are going to be lied to no matter where you are. We all tell lies big or small. You, like untold generations of humans, have to get used to the idea that people you encounter will not always be forthright.

Fishermen rely on honest open governance more than you can imagine. Without it fish stocks rapidly go all to hell, take a look around the world. I guarantee you that as it went for us so it will go for everyone.

The analogy still doesn't stick. You're talking about a rather limited scope, like many police forces have, where on-duty officers will be plugged-in. That works for jobs where you hang up your hat at the end of the day. It doesn't work for jobs where you always wear that hat. A meeting between an MP and a constituent is fundamentally political, do you want that recorded too?

And you can say this without allowing for a single exception to the rule? I thought you were a big champion of compromise.

I'm saying that you haven't explained how this makes a better system, and furthermore I'm stating that I think it would make a much more terrible system. If you're that distrusting of the system, I have no idea why you would advocate it, rather than the Ross Perot voting box or some other form of direct democracy. Of course, that has its own set of severe problems that can only be mitigated by an independent judiciary that can override anything abusive. Which raises the other point, are you going to be strapping cameras to judges, prosecutors, bureaucrats, soldiers, government contractors and so on?

[eyeball]

Which raises the other point, are you going to be strapping cameras to judges, prosecutors, bureaucrats, soldiers, government contractors and so on?

I doubt I will be but I suppose the surveillance measures that governments are increasingly saturating societies with from the bottom up could reach that high.

Either way, we seem destined to live in a state of mutually assured dictatorship that's predicated on universal distrust. I just thought maybe we'd see some benefit from that trickle down effect I've mentioned.

Instead I think we'll likely see something more deleterious than beneficial washing down from on high.

[ToadBrother]

I doubt I will be but I suppose the surveillance measures that governments are increasingly saturating societies with from the bottom up could reach that high.

Either way, we seem destined to live in a state of mutually assured dictatorship that's predicated on universal distrust. I just thought maybe we'd see some benefit from that trickle down effect I've mentioned.

Instead I think we'll likely see something more deleterious than beneficial washing down from on high.

We live in a democracy. Last time I checked that means if we truly believe the current government is abusive or generally dishonest or simply doing things wrong, we, as a collective, get to throw them out and give someone else the chance. But that requires people be involved, rather than just sitting on their hands or coming up with absurd and ill-imagined notions like you have.

[eyeball]

We live in a democracy. Last time I checked that means if we truly believe the current government is abusive or generally dishonest or simply doing things wrong, we, as a collective, get to throw them out and give someone else the chance. But that requires people be involved, rather than just sitting on their hands or coming up with absurd and ill-imagined notions like you have.

Well as I've mentioned before I've been involved for decades in our governance. My experience has shown me that every government is generally dishonest and that simply throwing politicians out won't changed a thing.

The notion that continuing down that path is a good idea is absurd. I've noticed however how monitoring has kept me honest and figured as it is below maybe it will be above.

So the trickle down idea just doesn't do anything at all for you?

[ToadBrother]

Well as I've mentioned before I've been involved for decades in our governance. My experience has shown me that every government is generally dishonest and that simply throwing politicians out won't changed a thing.

All governments of every stripe tend in that direction. The reason that democracies developed was to give a safety valve to the natural autocracy that occurs. That was the source of the earliest democracies in Greece.

The notion that continuing down that path is a good idea is absurd. I've noticed however how monitoring has kept me honest and figured as it is below maybe it will be above.

I simply don't think the analogy follows through, and because you still have to put someone in charge at some point suggests that you've only moved the problem, not solved it.

So the trickle down idea just doesn't do anything at all for you?

It doesn't impress me, no.

To be honest, I think you're chief problem is that your coming at the issue of good governance from precisely the wrong direction. You try to imagine systems that can create a sort of political purity, I come at it from the position that all systems have to deal with the fundamental truth that those in power will seek to service that power. From my position, you can't stop dishonesty, abuses of power and the like from happening, but you can deal with them after the fact, and ultimately, because a government stands or falls based on the will of the electorate, that all-important safety valve exists.

Beyond all of that I think the West has, by and large, achieved something rather extraordinary. We have produced stable democracies with effective governments, we have established the rule of law, and, at the end of the day, have seen the rise of our fortunes as societies and individuals over the last three or four centuries on a level frankly never seen before. The problem with political hacks like us is we tend to concentrate on the minutia of the argument and lose the big picture, that, all in all, we are a well-governed people, and that even our very worst leaders are constrained in the damage they do, if for no other reason than we have systems of competing interests.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

From my position, you can't stop dishonesty, abuses of power and the like from happening, but you can deal with them after the fact, and ultimately, because a government stands or falls based on the will of the electorate, that all-important safety valve exists.

It's a matter of when blow out preventers fail not if.

[ToadBrother]

It's a matter of when blow out preventers fail not if.

They only fail if people stop voting, thus giving an increasingly small share of the population the ultimate say. By the great unwashed of undecided and non-aligned voters staying home, you only guarantee that the vast bulk of voters left putting their ballots in the box are partisan to one degree or another.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

They only fail if people stop voting...

Yes, the preventer is failing as we speak.

What's your back-up plan?

[ToadBrother]

Yes, the preventer is failing as we speak.

What's your back-up plan?

I'll keep voting and encourage others to vote. If ideas cannot sway people, then nothing can.

[Oleg Bach]

When government finds it passable having coke sniffing deceptive bastards lounging within their ranks then they are all contemptable for not having the good judgement to have weeded them out earlier..like prior and election.

[Wild Bill]

To be honest, I think you're chief problem is that your coming at the issue of good governance from precisely the wrong direction. You try to imagine systems that can create a sort of political purity, I come at it from the position that all systems have to deal with the fundamental truth that those in power will seek to service that power. From my position, you can't stop dishonesty, abuses of power and the like from happening, but you can deal with them after the fact, and ultimately, because a government stands or falls based on the will of the electorate, that all-important safety valve exists.

TB, government types ALWAYS have yet another "system" to make things work! They see reality as some sort of clockwork mechanism, where if the clock just won't track time accurately to the real world they think all they have to do is add yet more tiny gears inside the mechanism. So we get laws after laws and departments after departments yet far too often real world problems still persist.

How about Prohibition or lifestyle laws? Those are always a stunning success!

Too many citizens buy into the same sort of thinking. If a political party passes a new law, they think that is the same thing as actually solving the problem. Often the new law has no teeth, with no money behind it for enforcement and no real punishment for anyone who IS caught! The party reaps the photo op benefit for free! Worse yet, sometimes the party and the people BOTH believe the same BS!

Often this disconnect from reality stems from an academic philosophy, where "having read a book or an article" leads someone to believe they actually have an indepth, detailed grasp of a problem or its solution. Hence someone like eyeball giving a technical "solution" that someone like yourself, actually EDUCATED in the specifics, recognizes as too academic to satisfy all the real world details.

After reading your posts and especially when you mention your background, I have to ask, are you a big fan of Dilbert? Most IT guys are. You've been sounding like Dilbert trying to argue with his pointy-headed manager!

[Oleg Bach]

WHAT GOVERNMENT? Harper the stoolie continues to do the bidding of some cruel inbreed banker types..Iggy intellectualizes like the typical village idot and Layton has his head jammed tight into some dusty book on Marx...face it..crooks run the show and crooks control the money- which controls the food supply along with basic needs such as shelter..YOU will comply and do what you are told because you are like weak hungry animals that have been kicked into submission.

[ToadBrother]

TB, government types ALWAYS have yet another "system" to make things work! They see reality as some sort of clockwork mechanism, where if the clock just won't track time accurately to the real world they think all they have to do is add yet more tiny gears inside the mechanism. So we get laws after laws and departments after departments yet far too often real world problems still persist.

How about Prohibition or lifestyle laws? Those are always a stunning success!

These were all very popular laws when they were passed. I honestly don't think, for instance, Prohibition was so much governments trying to enforce social change as it was pandering to a very vocal, well-organized group. It shouldn't surprise any of us that the Abolitionists, Suffragette and Temperance movements grew together side-by-side, there were some very talented campaigners among that entire group. Unfortunately, while the righteous warrior may at times pick the right battle, sometimes they get hung up on the wrong one, and boy oh boy was Prohibition the wrong one.

Mind you, a lot of governments did win in the end. They opened up the tap, but with a whole new tax apparatus.

Too many citizens buy into the same sort of thinking. If a political party passes a new law, they think that is the same thing as actually solving the problem. Often the new law has no teeth, with no money behind it for enforcement and no real punishment for anyone who IS caught! The party reaps the photo op benefit for free! Worse yet, sometimes the party and the people BOTH believe the same BS!

I'm still not sure this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Useless legislation is often passed to placate public anger, or at least the anger of some very vocal group. Bans, in particular, are often the staple of governments in financial difficulty. They can't afford to do anything truly beneficial or revolutionary, but they can while away the hours banning bottled water or fast food advertising. And yes, the public buys into it, because as often as not the public as every bit as kneejerk as the politicians, or rather, politicians have trained senses of a kneejerk reaction needing a good, useless regulation to answer it.

Often this disconnect from reality stems from an academic philosophy, where "having read a book or an article" leads someone to believe they actually have an indepth, detailed grasp of a problem or its solution. Hence someone like eyeball giving a technical "solution" that someone like yourself, actually EDUCATED in the specifics, recognizes as too academic to satisfy all the real world details.

After reading your posts and especially when you mention your background, I have to ask, are you a big fan of Dilbert? Most IT guys are. You've been sounding like Dilbert trying to argue with his pointy-headed manager!

Haven't read him in a while, but yeah, sometimes I feel that way.

To be honest with you, maybe I have wasted too many hours investigating our system of government. It would be a lot easier to be a Myata or an Eyeball and just pound the chair, but I'll freely admit I'm a political hack, and have an innate curiousity about why things are the way they are.

[myata]

To each their own and some will find interest in a dump of soil while others in the galaxies far far away. There's inherent danger though in walking up with back aimed firmly at the direction of progress. Only works with smooth, straight uneventful and shall we say even for the sake of argument, somewhat boring paths.

Edited May 5, 2010 by myata

[eyeball]

If ideas cannot sway people, then nothing can.

I'd say you've certainly proven that to yourself.

[ToadBrother]

To each their own and some will find interest in a dump of soil while others in the galaxies far far away. There's inherent danger though in walking up with back aimed firmly at the direction of progress. Only works with smooth, straight uneventful and shall we say even for the sake of argument, somewhat boring paths.

Without out knowing how things came to be what they are, how can you possibly know if what you're setting out is a course to progress or just a repetition of former disasters?