Politics as "productive work".

Hello all, first time posting here.

I was wondering if, assuming a society in which politicians would fill the role prescribed by Rand's theory of government, politicians would be performing "productive work" as outlined in Rand's non-fiction.

Cheers, all.

Post 1

Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 8:04pm

That's a good question. Wish I had an answer! :)

By productive work, I take it you mean having an actual job of some kind where values are produced, right?

That would be a nice change from the career politicians we've had for 100 years or more. I'm not opposed to independently wealthy individuals holding office either, but their government role should still be on a part time basis. There's just no need for a full time politician of any kind.

Post 2

Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 8:13pm

It would be a full time job unraveling all of the bad laws, crafting good laws and dumping the tons of regulations. Getting from here to there would take a while.

Post 3

Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 9:48pm

I can think of a dozen scenarios that wouldn't require a lot of time to get there. WWIII being at the top of the list.

Post 4

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 2:30am

Hi, James. And welcome.

I was wondering if, assuming a society in which politicians would fill the role prescribed by Rand's theory of government, politicians would be performing "productive work" as outlined in Rand's non-fiction.

While politicians could productively uphold individual rights -- i.e., their only proper purpose -- I don't think that they'd be performing the productive work of which you mention. They would, instead, be performing a function which allows for man to maximize productive work. Think of an air-traffic controller. They don't, themselves, do the work of getting people to far off places -- but they do allow for the enterprise of plane flights, which get people to far off places.

Without air-traffic controllers, there'd be precious little commercial flying going on (because it would be too dangerous). It's the same with business and individual rights. Without rights protections, businesses won't thrive. This is incredibly apparent in countries like Africa. A political solution -- i.e., rights protections -- is required before there will ever be any economic booms in Africa, despite it having such vast natural resources (gold, oil, etc.). Until then, folks there will starve and fight and kill and die.

Ed

Post 5

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 6:02am

Ed,

It's strange, but I don't view politicians as those who protect the rights of citizens. I see them as overseers of actual, full time rights protectors - police, courts, military, etc.

If I had a problem, or suspected a problem with corruption in my local police department, I'd call my congressman. However, I wouldn't call my congressman if a crazy neighbor shot my dog.

Post 6

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 9:23am

Teresa,

"Politicians" - that's what we've taken to calling them most of time and it has a derogatory connotation. But they brought that to the word, not the other way around. These political animals could instead be called by their titles: Congressman, Senator, President.

Those politicians in congress actually have a job and if they started to do it, we'd see them differently. Part of their job is to ensure that the appointments to the judiciary are qualified and to act as a check on the powers of the administration - that part of the job is important to protection of our freedom. And if they were being productive, they would be crafting legislature - tending to the law - that's there primary function. Nothing is as important a part of a free enterprise system as that set of laws that define the boundaries of permissible actions. Needless to say, not just any law will do.

The principles of individual rights are few and relatively simple. The possible human actions are many and complex. Law needs to precisely bridge the gap between rights that exist and the human actions that might occur.

Statutory law is the product of legislators.

Post 7

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:26am

Statutory law is the product of legislators.

It's still a part time job. Unless you're saying legislators have a duty to oversee, or foresee, every possible angle an action can or might be taken, micro-managing the law, rather than making the law simple, in which case I can understand those who defend lawmaking as a full time job. But I don't agree with the idea.

The law should be simple. There are very few actions that actually violate rights, when you think about it.

Theft, physical violence, and contract issues. That's about it.

Post 8

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 1:35pm

Teresa,

Getting the law cleaned up would be a full time job for a number of years. After that... maybe, maybe not.

But take a look at the Uniform Commercial Code for an example of civil statutory law (that link is to the UCC as adopted by Arizona) and it will show you the complexity required to implement the simple individual rights involved in making a voluntary agreements when neither party has crossed over the line to criminal behavior. Law, even when done properly - and as simple as possible - is very complex - because human actions can be complex and the law needs to adequately define what future acts would be acceptable and which would not. It is all well and good to mount one's challenger and decree that all law shall be simple, but then when you go to court over a legitimate difference of agreement, you want the judge to apply the law, not to make it up at the time according to his idea of how to apply the proper moral principles.

Case law, what we get when we record the decisions of judges as the they apply existing laws, is risky in that it is law made up at the time by the judge. It is unavoidable, because the law has to be applied to all the circumstances that people get themselves into. Good legislature takes the best of the case law, where it can be generalized, and converts it to statutory law - adding clauses to existing law that provide more detailed explanations - that keeps judges from going overboard in their interpretations.

Criminal law is just as complex. Every Objectivist will answer the same way when you ask if anything other than self-defense is a justification of killing someone. But to implement that simple principle, you need to define powers and procedures for law enforcement to follow, criminal code, define self-defense's boundaries, define the standards of evidence, the definitions of first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and much, much more.

Post 9

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 2:19pm

Getting the law cleaned up would be a full time job for a number of years. After that... maybe, maybe not.

Well, duh, Steve! But, that wasn't how I read the original question.

Post 10

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 3:32pm

"Well, duh..." is one of the least interesting replies I've received.

I pointed out that politicians (legislators) produce laws - that is productive work. I pointed out, in response to your reply, that law needs to be complex and there is a lot to it. I also mentioned administrative oversight and approval of Executive appointments which are part of Congress' work. And I indicated that I didn't know if it would take a full time congress.

I took the time to make a thoughtful response to your posts, and to James' original question. What kind of answer is "Well, duh..."?

Post 11

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 5:00pm

Steve,

Don't be offended, but would your defense of full time legislation have anything to do with the fact that you're now, or were, involved with local politics?

I can't for the life of me see the need for more legislation. Unless human beings evolved dramatically new physical talents, like sprouting wings, or the ability to breath underwater, why would we need more law? There is the occasional case that will test current law, but we see those maybe once a year, if that.

Science can, and should, be a matrix for developing legislation. We don't know everything about human nature, but we know a whole bunch more than we did 200 years ago. I'm trying to think of something science would need to discover for anything shattering to happen with law. Can't do it. The Founders pretty much got it right the first time.

If every local, state, and federal law were sifted through, you still think we'd need more legislation to cover actual rights violating action? Why? I think that's an outrageous idea.

Almost as outrageous as your suggestion that criminal law is so hopelessly complex, by it's very nature, rather than because of the mess made of it by past legislators and culture. Past mistakes are compounded, rather than corrected. This passage was ridiculous, Steve:

Criminal law is just as complex. Every Objectivist will answer the same way when you ask if anything other than self-defense is a justification of killing someone. But to implement that simple principle, you need to define powers and procedures for law enforcement to follow, criminal code, define self-defense's boundaries, define the standards of evidence, the definitions of first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and much, much more.

Are you saying we need to keep the statuesque, as if every crime needed it own unique law?
Are you saying subjective law, like hate crime legislation, is just as valid as any established capital murder law? Are you saying that coming up with a law which penalize drivers for accidentally injuring, or killing, a state employed road worker more severely than a driver who kills a 15 year old girl driving on her permit with her mom and younger brother is simply a "productive" effort of the legislature?

You have to know what I'm going to say about that. We have enough law. We don't need more law. We have so much law now that all the legislature does is build on existing bad law. There's nothing "productive" about that.

Getting the law cleaned up would be a full time job for a number of years. After that... maybe, maybe not.

It's disappointing that you're not convinced. I, on the other hand, am convinced that we have more than enough law to justify a part time legislature.

Post 12

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 5:26pm

Passing budgets is a part time occupation, it can be done once every two years according to the Constitution. Passing new laws might be necessary every twenty years or so. The president can call special sessions to address new laws when necessary, to declare war, and to handle necessary judicial and cabinet appointments that come up on occasion. That means one session of maybe two weeks every two years for budgets, and maybe a few special one day sessions every year as needed. This sounds more like a hobby than a career. As for productive work? I suppose you could call it productive if you call lawyers productive. But the productivity of legislators is like that of the sort of intestinal parasites that let cows digest cellulose, nothing much for men to be proud of and produces a lot of gas.

Post 13

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 7:10pm

Teresa, I'm not now, nor have I ever been involved with local politics. I'm on the board of directors of a private corporation - that is as close as I've ever come to politics.
---------------

I never called for more laws than we have now. I think that the total amount of law that would be needed for all local, state and federal operations that were appropriate for a minarchist state would be a tiny fraction of what exists now.
-------------

Teresa, I never used the phrase "hopelessly complex." And where did I say that current and past legislators didn't make a mess of things? Damn, woman, please quit putting words in my mouth! :-)
--------------

Criminal law is complex for a good reason. Perhaps you didn't follow any of the links I provided. Are you saying that there should be no written definitions of what constitutes valid evidence, or what constitutes a crime? Are we just supposed to get turns standing in front of judge or jury and arguing our understanding of NIOF? Who goes first? Is hearsay okay? Should there be bail hearings? Can I request an evidentiary hearing if the prosecution's evidence is suspect? Is accidentally killing someone in a car accident to be the same as purposely killing someone to rob them?
-------------

("statuesque" means like a statue; Elegantly tall, graceful, and attractive - statutes are the legislatively passed laws.)
-------------

I said it would take years to clean up the law - that means throwing out laws that should never have been written in the first place, and just cleaning up the ones that should be there, like those on robbery and murder.

Of course each offence needs it's own law - you can't charge someone with "malicious violation of an individual right in the first degree." You are mixing up ethical/political principles with the law. The law is the definition of the act that violates those principle - it is the bridge between human actions and ethical principles. It needs to be detailed to make this a nation of laws, not a nation of men.
-------------------

Teresa, you asked, "Are you saying subjective law, like hate crime legislation, is just as valid as any established capital murder law?"

Please show me where I said that. It is nonsense and it is not implied by anything I said.
--------------------

You asked, " Are you saying that coming up with a law which penalize drivers for accidentally injuring, or killing, a state employed road worker more severely than a driver who kills a 15 year old girl driving on her permit with her mom and younger brother is simply a "productive" effort of the legislature?"

That is absurd and I said nothing like it. "Productive" as in producing something - to make something. If the rule of law is of value, then law is of value and laws don't grow on trees. Someone needs to make them. A bad carpenter will produce a bad house, a good carpenter will produce a good house. We have many bad laws on the books. Why should I have to explain something that simple? Our first laws were written by men like Jefferson - and their "productive efforts" were of lasting value.
----------------------

Teresa, on the issue of "enough law" - we have too much law and we have lots of bad law. But we don't have enough good law. There is a staggering amount of intellectual effort and coordination required to get us from where we are now to where we need to go in this area of cleaning up the law. Anyone that thinks a bunch of yahoos can come in and get the job done working part time just don't have a clue.

Post 14

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 7:24pm

Ted,

The American Revolution became a full time occupation - there was considerable time and effort put into getting the country started. If we are lucky we will have a chance to witness our country put back in proper order. Assuming that situation arrives and that good people work with little dissent to distract them, it is still a sizable task. It would be a full time occupation.

I said above that I didn't know if the running of a minarchist government, after it was all set up properly, would require full time legislators. But I can tell you that the effort involved in creating budgets is more than two weeks every two years. I would be delighted if congress could be as absent as you opined, but it sounds unrealistic to me.

Lawyers have earned their ugly reputation in our current culture. And we live in a system where laws have become our enemies in too many circumstances - but the basic fact remains that law is a very good thing and in a more rational political environment lawyers would be seen as values.

Post 15

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 9:12pm

Okay, Steve, you make me Speaker of the House, and you have the President submit a budget for the Congress's approval, and I'll show you whether I can get one passed in two weeks.

As for the revolution? Sounds like special pleading on your part to refer to such special circumstances. Perhaps some became full time ambassadors and warriors. I don't think that other than those who drafted the important documents any job as representative amounted to more than a part time job. No need to argue, its a matter of history, we can defer to the sources. I won't call you a defender of bureaucracy. Even if I see a pattern

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/12, 9:14pm)

Post 16

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 6:37am

Okay, I have to agree with Steve, in that I do believe being a congressman, senator, president, mayor, governor, etc. must realistically be considered a full time job. These positions are our representatives. They must make themselves available to us. They are expected to be aware of issues which affect us, and to dutifully inform us. They are, I think, a necessary layer in the complexity of the modern world.

The fact that our current batch of officials are more politically motivated and suck at their jobs, shouldn't influence our opinion on this.

jt

Post 17

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 10:23am

The most productive role a politician can play, from my extremely minarchistic bordering on anarchocapitalistic perspective, is to play King Log. If a politician spends all day long telling people "Not the government's problem, try resolving your 'problems' yourself -- don't come to me unless someone has initiated force against you, and even then first try availing yourself of arbitration or, failing that, your Second Amendment rights", similar to Hong Kong under British colonial rule, and I'll voluntarily kick in my share of their well-earned salary.

Now, THAT is adding value.

Post 18

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 10:35am

Steve: "It would be a full time job unraveling all of the bad laws, crafting good laws and dumping the tons of regulations. Getting from here to there would take a while."

Actually, Steve, legislation along the lines of this:

Section (insert subject matter covering an entire swath of laws covering, say, Worker's Comp) is repealed.

does not take a great deal of time to write or enact.

Crafting good laws -- the few laws needed to punish initiation of force -- or, more precisely, making aggressors compensate their victims and make them whole, if such is possible -- is also a rather non-time-consuming process.

I like the approach to lawmaking under the near anarchocapitalistic government of Iceland about a thousand or so years ago -- on regular occasions, the populace would gather and someone would recite the entirety of the legal code, with the citizenry dropping anything that seemed counterproductive or tiresome -- and all sorts of laws start appearing tiresome when you have to listen to the full legal code. Only took a day or so to read all the laws.

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 7/13, 10:38am)

Post 19

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 3:41pm