trc@houti.UUCP (06/28/83)
OOPS - this is the note I intended to post under the title "Drawing the line at politics" Sorry about the duplication! ----------------------------------- Response to Alan S. Watt: I agree with much that you say. A few points of difference: Rights would exist whether the government grants them or not. Governments should be formed to better protect/enforce those rights. I believe that it is possible to draw the line between government and the individual quite accurately. The practical way to do this is to draw the line correctly, but somewhat broadly, and limit further changes to the line to be within the bounds of this "thick line". Specifically, the laws of a government should all be established at its foundation, with room for administrative rules, which will be judged by a legal system (similar to the supreme court). The US federal government structure is not too bad for this purpose. While I agree political campaigns are not a good way to run elections, I think that elections themselves are not too bad an idea. What is needed is a better method of nomination, and some restrictions on what a candidate can do to get elected. These changes should be based upon the idea that a government position is a JOB, not a chance at political power. The latter attitude leads to candidates that want power, which are exactly the kind one doesnt want to govern one! If the job has no inherent attraction, high pay might be a decent incentive, so long as nomination standards are kept high. When you say you "dont think pure ANYTHING will work", it is equivalent to saying that nothing will work - because if something appeared to work, one could describe it in a "pure" theory. It would be more accurate to say that you dont think any of the present theories will work, though some are closer to working. (Sorry if this appears to pick nits, but it is an important distinction.) Tom Craver houti!trc