emission rights

[kandrathe]

What is "the constituency"? The individual? The county? The state? The United States? Humanity? How about the demographics that voted for you? The interests that funded your campaign? Your religion? Your ethnic group? Your gender? Sexual orientation? Every level creates new and *contradictory* demands, both on the voter and the representative. If our politics is complicated, it's because it serves a complicated master - "the people," who are every bit as diverse and confused as ever. Increasing the responsiveness of politics to "the people" might be a positive step, but it certainly isn't going to eradicate the selfishness of individuals, groups, cities, states, or countries.

I agree with most everything you wrote here. I just disagree with two ideas (which I may have just read into what you wrote); 1) that it is the role of the government to resolve every major problem we face (e.g. building a huge hydro power plant). I understand why we tend to do it this way; because these "interests" generate political power, and so we feel safer with that power being restrained by the controls(checks and balances) we believe are inherent in government. 2) Why would be want to "eradicate the selfishness of individuals, groups, cities, states, or countries", in fact, a system that would last should design it into its very fabric. Hence, why I feel promoting "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!" and "Pas trop gouverner" are good ideas. This is another reason why I feel the government should only be limited to restraining "greed" where it intrudes on our rights, where we are harming (people, or the environment). What you might judge as selfish, or greed, others might call "motivation". When you remove self interest, you remove motivation. Again, I am in no way discouraging [y]our feelings of concern for improving the situation of those less fortunate. I just feel our caring for one another needs to be separate from the force of State imposed laws. I can prevent my two sons from beating each other, but I cannot instill brotherly love.

There is no way to govern a country which is pareto-optimal, or at least, none that I understand. (Even if their was, there are still distributional struggles.) Every set of laws involves a distribution of power and wealth, and every constituency (in all senses) is jockeying for more. To which meaning of the word "constituency" is the representative beholden? If a project is bad for the country, but good for their region, should they vote for it, or against it? If there is an alternate project, better for the country, but devastating for the people who elected them, should they vote for it, or against it? What about the current generation, vs. future generations?

My penchant is for simplifying this by delegating more decisions to the appropriate level, rather than trying to craft imperfect compromises at higher levels. I know you will raise the issue of waste in redundancy at more local levels, but that might be serviced by some contracted third party amoungst regions (e.g. my local situation with garbage haulers, or our communities shared fire and police services).

People tend very strongly to elect people who defend *their* interests. Not those of their neighbour, not those of the city or state next door, seldom those of the whole country, and almost never those of the whole species. And yet, it is the last category I am interested in politicians serving.

I don't see my government as the means to solving the problems of the people (or the species), but rather preventing us from being harmed, or harming others. I think now it has become common to use the government as the means of raising funds to "build" or enact something without regard to minority interests.