I am fully aware of how things happen in the real world. I know of the corruption and loopholes and work arounds which have been established to degrade democracy and to address issues some 300 year old document could never have predicted.
I would negate their power to do more than continue to propose legislation. There would be no standing law making committee to write laws. They would have a very short turn around time and measures could be taken to prevent special access from being created. The SC’s have no reason to listen to the Chamber of Commerce. They need no election funds or advertisements and they will not serve more than one term. I’m attempting to engineer a real world solution to design out the causes and motivations for legislators to engage with special interest groups.
Also the executive will have less influence in this system. It is the role of that branch to enforce laws and deal with international concerns. Not to write laws. It would be a good thing if that branch were less involved in legislation.
Also the executive will have less influence in this system. It is the role of that branch to enforce laws and deal with international concerns. Not to write laws.
International concerns usually do require treaties and treaties are laws. Do you want that the state doesn’t engage in any international treaties?
You basically want to remove anyone competent enough to think a few years about an issue and develop reasonable strategies to deal with it to be removed from the system.
Even if I would agree with the goal you won’t achieve it.
The SC’s have no reason to listen to the Chamber of Commerce. They need no election funds or advertisements and they will not serve more than one term.
Again naive. You don’t need to pay politicians money that they listen to experts who spend a lot of time thinking about a specific issue in detail. Listening to experts who study a given subjects for years is what any reasonable person does. That doesn’t automatically means that one does everything that one hears but the ability to actually spend a lot of time to build experience in a subject usually helps when it comes to explaining how to do things.
If you are a bunch of 10 random citizen and 10 people with PhD’s in medicine and you want to overhaul the medical system it makes very much sense to listen to the various stakeholders and their perspective of how a proposed law might effect them.
If you design a system to avoid letting stakeholders speak with the law makers you are going to end up with laws that do things that the people who wrote the law didn’t foresee.
I am fully aware of how things happen in the real world.
Then you wouldn’t say silly things like: “It is insane that we allow the same people who are elected to cast their eye on society to identify problems, write up the solutions to those problems, and then also vote to approve those solutions.”
Of course congressman can do those things but the aren’t the only ones.
Alternatively you could also think you are arguing with fools which is no good assumption to make when you are on LW.
I am fully aware of how things happen in the real world. I know of the corruption and loopholes and work arounds which have been established to degrade democracy and to address issues some 300 year old document could never have predicted.
I would negate their power to do more than continue to propose legislation. There would be no standing law making committee to write laws. They would have a very short turn around time and measures could be taken to prevent special access from being created. The SC’s have no reason to listen to the Chamber of Commerce. They need no election funds or advertisements and they will not serve more than one term. I’m attempting to engineer a real world solution to design out the causes and motivations for legislators to engage with special interest groups.
Also the executive will have less influence in this system. It is the role of that branch to enforce laws and deal with international concerns. Not to write laws. It would be a good thing if that branch were less involved in legislation.
International concerns usually do require treaties and treaties are laws. Do you want that the state doesn’t engage in any international treaties?
You basically want to remove anyone competent enough to think a few years about an issue and develop reasonable strategies to deal with it to be removed from the system.
Even if I would agree with the goal you won’t achieve it.
Again naive. You don’t need to pay politicians money that they listen to experts who spend a lot of time thinking about a specific issue in detail. Listening to experts who study a given subjects for years is what any reasonable person does. That doesn’t automatically means that one does everything that one hears but the ability to actually spend a lot of time to build experience in a subject usually helps when it comes to explaining how to do things.
If you are a bunch of 10 random citizen and 10 people with PhD’s in medicine and you want to overhaul the medical system it makes very much sense to listen to the various stakeholders and their perspective of how a proposed law might effect them.
If you design a system to avoid letting stakeholders speak with the law makers you are going to end up with laws that do things that the people who wrote the law didn’t foresee.
Then you wouldn’t say silly things like: “It is insane that we allow the same people who are elected to cast their eye on society to identify problems, write up the solutions to those problems, and then also vote to approve those solutions.” Of course congressman can do those things but the aren’t the only ones.
Alternatively you could also think you are arguing with fools which is no good assumption to make when you are on LW.