emission rights

[kandrathe]

This is the point of contention between Pete and I in our previous discussion. In order for things to work for the people, the people need to ensure they elect officials who serve their interests. They don't.

Unless you adopt a very naive perspective as to who "the people" are, isn't this exactly the problem you are railing against? That elected officials do not ask "what is best," or "what is right," but "whose interest do I serve"?

I think there is a bit of nuanced equivalence between "interest" and "what is right". My view would be that representatives would not be champions of change according to popular demand, but rather the voice for every represented constituent equally whether they be the majority or minority. Too often our representatives abrogate their responsibility for justice to the courts, and even intentionally ram unfair, unlawful, unconstitutional, or intentionally vague laws through our system for the purposes of malfeasance on behalf of themselves or benefactors.

I would say that if any of their constituency is potentially adversely affected by legislation, the representative would provide the voice for that constituent, and vote according to their conscience as to what best defends the rights of all of the citizens. A law may be very good for 99 percent, but I feel the representatives have the responsibility to prevent harm to all 100 percent. The courts act as a final arbitrator to this, but impartial justice should begin with the lawmaker.

Again, this is why I reject the progressive taxation scheme. It unfairly penalizes the minority who has typically only become exceptional in their success. It perpetuates the Robin Hood myth, in justifying crimes against the wealthy, merely because the poor are so needy.

The interests of different constituencies, regions, demographics, all weigh on politicians' minds all too heavily. Would voting one's interests change that? It seems to me everyone already does - and that this is the fundamental (and perhaps unchangeable) source of political problems.

My wife recently took a temp job grading essays. She needed to apply a fair heuristic across every essay, regardless of what opinion was voiced, or whether she personally agreed with the opinion of the writer. I see the job of representative as similar to this; dispassionately setting aside what is best for the individual, to look at the impact across the entirety of their constituency, protecting and defending the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights). Again, I would want our representatives to envision themselves in every pair of boots, and not just the boots of the majority opinion (or wealthiest opinion).

Whether reducing the number of lawyers would help or not, I can't say for certain, but I'm skeptical to say the least. While I like diversity in government as much as the next guy (my favorite Canadian senator is a career jazz pianist and bandleader) are taxi drivers and rig workers and junior high school teachers really such angels that their presence would change the very nature of government?

My perspective, from the street level, is that "the people" feel their representatives are epidemically unconnected to what is happening to "the people". I think less incumbency, and more diversity would definitely enhance the "connectedness" of the House. But, you know me, I would rather we revert the Senate to the old way, where the State congress would appoint them (which would bring more importance to local State elections). I would rather the Senate be the forum of States rights, and the House be the forum of the people.