It’s interesting that the fundamental argument put forth for left-wing statist control, such as yours, is the same argument put forth by the religious right: People are intrinsically evil and not to be trusted.

Both are under the same delusion as you: that the people who are attracted to running and maintaining a statist power structure will be less evil and more trustworthy than the rest of us, who find such structures repugnant. History proves this wrong, over and over again, but it’s a very seductive belief: if only the people like me could tell everyone else what to do, things would be better.

This is an arrogant and nihilistic belief, whether it comes from left-wing or right-wing authoritarianism. I prefer to take a more positive view of life and humanity.

@24- The problem is that it’s rare to ever successfully link the personal wellbeing of the elected official with the wellbeing of the state. Generally when this occurs, it’s because someone’s decided it’s revolution time and that’s an awful lot of trouble.
Possibly financial incentives would be good- “Oops, ran up a trillion dollar deficit…I’m afraid you’ll be taking some of that personally when you leave office” or “Good job– unemployment’s down. Have a bonus.”
Basically, you’d need to make the politicians’ rapacious self-interest work _for_ the country.

Any excuse to grab authority over a group or resource is rarely ever passed up. And once given it is rarely ever released voluntarily.

Bush had a golden opportunity to grab additional presidential powers. He did it. Obama, despite his very different politics, sees the value of this authority and isn’t that eager to let go of it.

Welcome to the real study of politics.

But advances in technology tip the balance in favor of smaller groups and that is I think a real danger.

And what if one of those smaller groups has managed to capture, say, the legislative branch of government? In that case, the more unlimited the power exercised by that branch, the deeper the trouble we’re in.

If only it were just a thought experiment…

Sounds great. Really. You first. Make sure you bring the French along.

I voted for the first time in my 40 years of life in 2008, because of the raping that the Bush/neocons have been doing to this great country.

/I am sad, very sad

–

There is the other side to this which needs to be kept in mind. In a world of increasing population density there is an increased need for security. Advances in communication technology means that criminals are better able to plan and execute their crimes. Advances in other areas give individuals a power to rival that of the state. With a little bit of effort a dedicated group can bring a powerful nation to it’s knees.

Civilization is relatively fragile. It’s continued functioning depends on it’s various antagonisms being subordinate to the ruling authority. Social and technological advances tend to grant more power to societies’ antagonists (white supremacists, the KKK, anarchists, communists ect.) and thereby threaten the stability of society as a whole.

And it would be a very bad thing if our civilization were to collapse.

Bad people use this. Foolish people are used by it.

In the case of America: inability to generate more than two parties means an eventual failed state.

That pretty much describes the politics of this age.

Is that what you mean?

Or maybe you don’t view a healthy system of laws as an essential part of civilization?

When you don’t visit the polling place, you cast a vote for the status quo, you send an explicit message of acceptance and support for the current administration and its policies. Your failure to vote is entered into a spreadsheet and your viewpoint is registered as “everything’s OK and peachy for John Phantom, he wants more of the same”.

I’m not kidding about this, and it’s not a figure of speech. This is how it works in the USA. When you don’t vote, you endorse the people in power, at least as far as the lawmakers and other elected officials are concerned. If you can’t be bothered to vote, they sincerely believe you are happy with them.

Even if every voting booth in the country is rigged against you (and I assure you, mine is not; I watch it like a hawk and I thoroughly understand the technology) you can still vote for the party in power – by not voting.

Now how much do civil liberties groups shell out a year in campaign contributions?
(I presume they mainly think that being right has some persuasive weight…which it would if you could buy a TV spot with fifty feet of moral high ground)

Yes I understand that. Please bear in mind what I said was “on the other hand”. There is always another side to things I thought it important to spell out a few. It also help spur on discussion.

The larger problem as I see it is that we are the barbarians. Society has always been made up of conflicting subgroups who would be at each others throats if it weren’t for the power and authority of the state. But advances in technology tip the balance in favor of smaller groups and that is I think a real danger.

I’m hardly the first to make that observation either. Many sci-fi authors have felt that increases in technology would also demand a more regimented society. If I were an alien and wanted to destroy humanity all I’d have to do is hand out a bunch of Star Trek like phasers. You’d all be dead within a year.

“Or maybe you don’t view a healthy system of laws as an essential part of civilization?”

I do, I am mostly playing devil’s advocate.

Now we’ve been far longer, and look where its gotten us. Can’t say much more or else the Department of Precrime might indefinitely detain me for “national security”.