No Bartering Ideas

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

It seems that it would be advantageous for the executive branches of a government to determine a course of action based on rational logic and assessment rather than bartering and ransoming ideas for leverage.

The original idea of America’s political formation was the idea of equal representation in opinion and decision.
As such, it was seen fitting to frame the architecture of the executive process as one whereby each member of an office had a say in what was included in the decision by way of proposition and vote.

It is a brilliantly simple outline, and one that sounds entirely reasonable. However, given a few hundred years of human interaction using this system and it has been reduced into a system largely governed by bartering and ransoming differing ideas for political leverage.

Ideas, which may or may not be fully understood or read by the governmental representative of the idea, are carried into the offices of government for executive decisions regarding the stability of the nation, in some capacity, as if they are Pokemon trading cards.

Understanding that human behavior is not ignorant of short sighted behavior which results in damage itself, and that it also equally carries with it the perpetuation of hyperbolic self preservationism, I’m not suggesting a descent of a heavenly state of perfection for humans in solution of this dilemma.

As such, and with mind of efficiency of acquisition of a solution being a reasonable consideration, it would seem at least sensible to instate a law that marks the action of bartering or ransoming propositions or votes as a life sentence crime of treason.

Instead of simply ensuring that a large mass of representatives all have their equal chip on the table through barter and ransom, only accept the process of court: to, in equal turn, display the logical or evident reasons for or against a proposition, and then within 72 hours, vote upon the matter as it was decided (unless the need to postpone due to current events requiring observation over decision so to make a decision accurately, and itself does not invoke threat of harm in postponement).

2

I started watching a lecture yesterday, Harvard University CS50, intro to computer science. It’s posted on youtube. In it was an analogy that I think applies here:

In trying to explain how precise you have to be to give a computer instructions and have it do what you want it to do, what he did was had his students write some ‘code’ for a human to follow to make a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich. He then had his TAs follow the instructions as a computer might – in other words, without making the sorts of assumptions that only a human could make, only following the said directions and interpreting what was left unsaid semi-randomly.

So the directions said something like, “Put the jelly on the bread” and two of the students opened their jelly containers, grabbed a handful of jelly and put it on the bread.

And the lesson was, if you don’t write your code specifically and precisely enough so that anybody with any assumptions could do it correctly, then you’re not coding right.

This is the problem with the American Constitution – let’s assume, for a moment, that ideally if the constitution was followed as it was meant to be followed, politics might be a bit more sensible than it currently is. However, it’s not being followed as it was meant to be followed – it’s a set of instructions that’s missing key details. It gives a vague outline of the directions, but all the missing details leave loopholes for actions that were not meant to be. Just like not including “Use a knife to smear the jelly” will result in the TAs using their hands, not including certain details in the outline of how the government should run has resulted in corner-cutting, bartering, and just in general the spirit of the constitution has arguably been lost. It’s followed more or less literally, but…so were the pb’n’j directions. Following ‘literally’ doesn’t work unless the code was written with perfect precision.

And it clearly wasn’t.

3

That is the assumed perspective from which I write, yes.

4

At the same time, you have to make the assumption that humans will act semi-rationally and forego the temptations of money and power that fuel the distortions of intent. Part of any such “coding” would have to include sorting out extraneous hidden agendas. That is the problem with any system. If the instructions are too specific, then creativity is stifled. If too loose, then evil creativity is not only possible, but damn well likely. We know too well the likely results of flexible interpretation…

5

The fact that we are only a month into the second term of this presidental adminstraton and news anchors are already talking about potential canidates for 2016 means less disusson will take place about what to strive for during the next four years.

Musical chairs.

6

No, it has only to assume that the nature of human behavior predicts a social cycling rate whereby the main body of time will be relatively individualistically driven in motive with sporadic and radical penetrations recoiling in passion when such architectural maintaining results in harmful socioeconomic faults.

The point of the opening proposition is that it is understandable for the results to be what they are, given the nature of human behavior and its fluctuant allegiance to society.

Making the law above would not right the world of all wrongs, nor create a perfection out of the current system.
It would, instead, at least assert a mindset in precedent as to what the expectation is in conceptual frame.

Some dictations exist, not to be the change, but to implicitly evoke the change through implication.

Right now, if someone barters or ransoms an idea in government, they can talk about it on the evening television as if one was talking about a sports play strategy.
The bar of esteem and value of the seat is set rather low, by result.

Ideas are then whores, instead of respected and invested paths for hopefully beneficial ventures for the people by their esteemed champions of office.

7

People deeply self identify with ‘issues’ in the same manner they identify with famous actors, favortite classical books like ‘Pride and Prejudice’ or Athletes, sports teams, supermodels… for a sizeable potion of the public, democracy is by default factional, it won’t ever be anything but that. This is the joys of the right hemisphere, the same hemisphere that produces the ongoing drama SCIENCE VS RELIGION, Frontal Lobes vs Posterior. It’s natural as much as it’s lame, and most politics is more busy body waste than actually aimed at doing something useful. Today people lead more pointless lives, and as a result, the stakes have correspondingly gone that much higher. Think of Diogenes pushing the barrel though the city during the seige preparations… his life, not too easy.

I really don’t care- it’s a largely static element in many cases that does the above, we know San Francisco is voting as a Bloc in one direction, and half the ideologists will back it, no matter how iffy, tangential, and overall silly and harmful the tangents are going to be if ever actually inacted, and the other half is going to back what they think they understand how things always have been. The actual movers and shakers desiring public office, more often than not, either were motivated for the power and money, or quickly yeild to it once in office, seeing it as a side show attraction that gets them a little bit more long term security and somehow doesn’t muddle or offend their core values.

All in all, the system can work at times, and quite wonderfully, when a emotional situation overwhelms everyone and we unify behind it. Japan attacking us is a example, we knocked off the bullshit and unified together, and when everyone was drafted into the big war machine, we all got sent to new and interesting places, lived under odd rules, we all lost, and we all shared. When we got back, that impulse carried us politically until just the beginning of the Vietnam War when a generation that had nothing to do with the wars previous, nor the universally binding experience, largely rejected the political uniformity of outlook and values… as is expected- they never were conditioned for it.

We didn’t have a draft this time around- it was a over stretched volunteer army. The Army prefers the right hemispheric perspective for it’s enlisted. We fucked up in this regard. Alaska didn’t- it’s introduction into America was as a military colony, and a substantial portion of the population is in the military, or retired given the favorable culture. You might be able to work out the partioning on a scale like this in Alaska. Just know the right hemisphere isn’t going to be able to overcome hipocrisy or claiming positions are more innocent and pure than others. The backwardness of the Roman Republic, or of post Stalinist Soviet Republicanism, should be a clear indicator of the eventual decay and downfall inherent in taking up too truthful and honest of a position- the left hemisphere will dominate in the ever widening cracks, until eventually Chomsky (kind of the left hemisphere) pulls a crossing of the Rubicon in a relaxed cardigan. Then we’re all fucked. The Spice will not Flow.

Besides, the earliest democracy in America always was rooted in the bartering of Ideas. That’s central to American democracy, even during the era of the House of Burgesses. We elected men on the basis of the ideas they sold themselves on. We tried under guys like Jefferson to act completely shocked when others would elect them without them pretending to desire office- but that was s sham, and Adams and Jefferson were aggressive in their politics for well over a decade previous.

What you want- it was never the norm. Can it exist? Yes… for a short time. I don’t want to exist in a society than tried to stretch it out to the long term. It would be interested to see The House of Represenatives or the Senate in the next swearing in to adopt you ideas into the rules. Not like they matter very much right now anyway, they are quite deadlocked and ineffective as it is.

It’s okay to bargain positions. It’s called debate. If we were not going to hold out the option, we wouldn’t need a Senate Building or House of Represenatives… congressmen could just dial in on their cellphone whenever a new bill alert pops up and vote on it immediately, without ever hearing the details, or allowing them to be swayed by arguements.

I honestly doubt we could pull off building a interstate turnpike without bartering. If it covered 2 states, 48 would lose out. Alot of agreement derived from bartering goes into getting the multiverse of agreements that actually see the light of day agreed upon. Our own constitution is stamped with this process in how it ever was actually produced in the first place. There isn’t a single legislative theory that govern’s it’s construction. Overlap of claims, and occasional contradictions. It’s why we have the amendment process.

Just keep a eye out for the true shitheads. Currently, the general rule is, if you’re from Chicago, your a scroundrel. May not be the case in ten years, but some of the worst political crooks this nation has have bursted out of that city over the last ten years, causing some bad embarrassment and scandle. Blogovich is a excellent example. It’s the motivations for office, and the actual actions taken to abuse it that concerns me. Not the haggling process that is expected in any republic.

8

Bartering on what is or is not in is one thing, bartering propositions outright or holding them at ransom is entirely another.

In the former, we barter on what is included, like was done with the declaration of independence even.
On the latter, we would find a representative individual withholding from signing the declaration of independence unless another of their propositions, not part of the declaration, was also accepted (bartering) - or, threatening to have the declaration changed to their liking or they won’t vote in favor of another proposition (ransom).

9

Yes, that’s what happens when Republicanism is a part of the government. I’m afraid that’s a central portion of our democracy, and the results of doing otherwise i very frightening. If it’s important enough for someone to have to sign off on something… assuming that document has value in a wide legal system, then it’s quite justifiable for them to say no. We got some nice laws for extortion and blackmail, and there is likely going to be room for categorical inclusion of more and more bad phenomena…

but you gotta recognize the office is a office of a person, a person that exists in a real world of repercussions. What survives and still thrives in our merit system requires increased risk and responisbility the higher it goes up.

Think of a bad scenerio, like Terminator 3, when the officer was debating, and bargaining with everyone in congress, the pentagon, and his own staff on activating skynet. Kinda wish he wouldn’t of pressed that button, don’t you? He was even attempted to be bribed to do what others saw as his obvious job. Your opposed from my understanding of your position to people bribing or buying off others as a evil to the overall logic of the system, in this case… he was bribed to BE a part of that perceived system. Yes, it required him signing off.

In Iraq, I managed to get effectively scrapped a few ideas that the British came up with early in the war in our AO, when I insisted Just War Theory be a component to anything I would build. Drove the XO nuts when he said my refusal violated the chain of command just because I felt it wasn’t right to use things in certain ways. I said it was completely and fully my right as I was the only one capable of building a effective system in the first place- my ideas would of had repercussions, some moral, good, but if positioned hastely and incorrectly, bad… they scrapped the project for the most part all together from my arguments otherwise. Had I been the good, low ranking subordinate, went along with the system as laid down, some otherwise uninvolved locals might of got swept up in the war from seeeing a rather harmless chance to take revenge on the annoyance of a war that occupied their neighborhoods from unguarded hardwear left unguarded in a nearby field. Vandalism isn’t a god enough excuse to kill someone, especially if you gotta plant the damn shit to get them to vandalize it in the first place. The logic could balance out in the right scenerio, but they were not interested in selectively weeding out the kind of people who would hit our targets prior to that point. They just saw the ‘law’ as the law, if you attacked, you were a insurgent. Humans are more muddled than that, and I wasn’t intested in racking up needless kills so we could look badass.

Expectations arise from legality- and executive functions have wiggle room in response to them. It’s good sometimes to drag ass, stall, or entice. Following all regluations and laws to the T can be dangerous and cruel. It’s why I am a Machiavellian first… I want the best solution for all. To acheive the best of all possible worlds. We’re not a pure democracy, we’re a democratic republic- contracts and rules, wiggle room and courts with jury of peers. Common law, and respect for great authority and hard decisions… searching out the human element.

10

I don’t accept it, sorry.
It has no justified place in governing a people to barter, or hold ransom, ideas for political gambits.

Also, your XO exchange isn’t an example of bartering or ransoming as I was referring to.
That’s within the constructs of what you were doing.

The example of unrelated would be telling your XO that you wouldn’t do the work unless they accepted open gay policy in his command.

11

Ideas may stand by themselves and may even deserve an up-down vote, but all decisions we make about any idea ARE a political gambit. It makes no difference whether the halls of congress or the kitchen table. All positions taken are the culmination of trade-offs. In an ideal world, all ideas would be governed by principle. We aren’t ideal examples of humanity living in an ideal world. The disgust of bartering is watching elected officials betray the wishes of the people who they are supposed to represent in favor of supporting their personal interests. Few are the principled.

12

So what exactly is wrong about establishing a regulation that dictates such is not permissible?

It seems like I’m more or less seeing outlines of why it exists as a human behavior, which I already admitted to existing.

13

Not only would I be 1000% in favor of that, but could give you details and experience as to its establishment.

But what makes you think that ANY existing governing body would allow such a thing?

14

What caused anyone to think anyone ever had the chance to create any amendment?
Inherent debt to us. I have the right, claims the American, because it is right and prudent to demand.
Regardless of the inferiority; to them belongs the right to attempt.

15

I didn’t ask of the right or probability of success.
I asked of the probability of powerful and insurmountable adversaries.

16

Right, and I was answering to that.
We gave the right, not because it was prudent in probability of success, but because it was prudent in spirit.

17

I haven’t seen a lot of that lately.
And I’m pretty sure that you haven’t really either.

18

That doesn’t matter, the subject isn’t the zeitgeist, but the motive of proposition.
The idea here presented is still quite possible to push for as much as any other idea.

If the only contention against it is that it will most likely never be passed, then that’s just a perspective that summarizes the general flaw of America’s current atrophy.

19

Well, I grant you that it is the fatalist perspective.
The intent in pointing it out is to encourage seeking another means.
Getting a lot of people to say “hey I like that”, has a very high probability of accomplishing nothing positive.
That means that in order to establish such a paradigm, a different approach must be made.

20

I’m just getting the idea out there as it seems to me.
To get it enacted, the internet is a magic tool of meme.

It essentially first would need spreading to get onto the public table.
After that, it would need a public demand upon Congress.

That’s about the only way to get it done short of becoming a Representative yourself and then putting it into proposition once in, but then you’d have to barter and ransom to twist arms into pushing it through - which would violate the spirit of the law.

Really, only the people can force this on Congress.