Melting Pot

meltingpotR

 

Melting Pot

This sign has proved quite accurate. We put too much trust in our politicians, left, right and middle. They screw us, sell out to the highest bidder, and leave us baffled about what to do about it. We cannot, after all, turn to our leaders to straighten things up; they’re the ones who screwed things up in the first place! They won’t want to destroy what has become a good thing – for them.

While my assumptions about this idea need testing, I believe our entire method of making laws needs to be tossed and replaced by scientists schooled in ethics and law. No more lobbyists, no more law based on opinions, offensiveness, beliefs, riders, fears, persuasion or other untestable condition. Lobbyists MUST be banished and replaced with reporters given full access without limitation or the need to ask permission. Reporters must be present at tests of proposed legislation as anointed by lottery. Reporters attempting to interfere with a test would be banished from all government functions. Legislators from both houses, and all Federal Judges would still uphold the Constitution but be required to pass a detailed test on the scientific method designed by a committee of scientists and, later, approved by the Scientific Congress, in order to continue in their roles. The Constitution can serve as is, far into the future. I would love to see a version of it translated into modern English, not as an official document, but to compare with the original so we can see what we now think the original intended. It would be an early project written by the Scientific Supreme Court, and annotated to show the differences of opinion that occurred. I would also love to see an annotated copy of the original, annotated to show differences of interpretation between the first years and now.

Our watchword should be ‘Justice’, not in an emotion-driven “get even” sense, but in the reasonable “Fair play” sense. With that in mind, the Scientific Congress would need to be told, in writing, several things at a minimum before considering each bill:

  • The bill’s identity and author.
  • What is the bill’s purpose?
  • Who will the bill benefit?
  • At whose cost will that entity receive benefit?
  • What is your interest in this bill?
  • Have you received, or do you expect to receive, any cash, merchandise, trips or other rewards for introducing this bill?
  • Does this bill have a precedent __here __elsewhere that can be studied for its social effect?
    __if no.
  • Your hypothesis for this bill is:
  • What prediction(s) are you hoping this bill will demonstrate as correct?
  • Alternate prediction (from across the aisle)

That list, of course, would have to be rewritten by scientists and in some way agreed upon by we, the people.

Even when we don’t trust scientists, it is because we realize they, too, are people, subject to all the woeful ills and flaws that infect the rest of us. The purpose served by inserting the scientific process into the legislative mix is to remove the human element. Asking, “What is this law’s purpose” of a proposed bill, then finding a way to see if it can accomplish that without introducing harmful side effects, can only be done by applying the processes of science to the legislative process. Self-interest, emotional involvement, personal preferences and opinions, are all barricaded from affecting results by proper application of the scientific method. I can think of no safer way to run a democratic republic.

Advertisements

Please leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s