OT: protectionist practices?

[Fritz]

Darrin Chandler wrote:
> I learned from science teachers, science books, and systems analyst
> consultants that the value of a model is not how close it is to reality,
> but how well it can be used to predict behavior.
>   
I'm not so sure about that.  For example, if your model strays too far from
reality and assumes that water flows uphill, it probably isn't going to 
predict
anything too useful.
> The reality is that there's no such thing as "The Government" since it's
> merely a collection of people, with individual motivations,
> proclivities, strengths and faults. Not just politicians, but staffers
> and civil servants.
>
> However, it is extremely useful to think of government as an actual
> entity in severeal ways. Notably, it tends to fight to keep power it has
> gained and keep control over resources (money) it has gained.
>   
Since we're a computer group, how about we adopt the following analogy?

Government is like a computer system consisting of software (laws),
hardware (buildings, roads, tanks, fighter jets, etc.), and system 
administrators
(politicians, judges, appointed positions, etc.).  Okay, for now?

We all know how computer systems can go wrong, e.g. they can be hijacked
and turned into "zombies" by compromising the software, crashed by
malicious/incompetent sysadmins, etc.
>   
>> Our federal government has evolved into the "stick-up gun" for large,
>> private, corporate interests:  in essence a wealth transfer mechanism.
>>
>> A question for all the libertarian, Second Amendment fans on this list:
>> When there's a handgun shooting do you blame the gun or the shooter?
>>     
>
> I don't agree. While corporations and other lobbying groups have
> influence, and interests diverging from mine, I have trouble holding
> them culpable.
Even when they break the law?
>  I hold the government accountable (through my
> representatives). The government is not a "gun" being wielded by others.
> It's a system meant to represent us and act in the interest of the
> public good.
>   
As you say "It's a system meant to represent us and act in the
interest of the public good." that is correct.  However, as we all know,
how a system was designed to work and how it actually works are
sometimes two very different things.
> We have means of influencing the government and holding it accountable.
> That certain groups seem to have disproportionate influence is merely a
> reflection that MOST people DON'T BOTHER to exercise their right to
> vote, or to write to their representative / senator / governor /
> president.
>   
Let me give an example of an issue that I took a personal interest in.
Remember a few years ago, there was the issue of "media consolidation"
before the FCC?  The FCC solicited public input and about 10,000
citizen comments were received: 9,995 against further media consolidation,
5 for allowing it.  (These numbers may not be exact, but they should be very
close.)

Then FCC Chairman Michael Powell basically thumbed his nose at the
citizens and said he was going to ignore the public's comments.

Sometimes the system *IS* broken!  You can see why people sometimes
feel hopeless and frustrated when competing with large corporate
interests.
> Thinking of the government as a mere "gun" means it is only a tool in
> the hands of someone else. 
Yes, .......... that's correct.
> That absolves them of all wrongdoing. Since
> we are able and meant to control our own government, this also absolves
> US of all wrongdoing. It's shucking our responsibility, and it's
> nonsense.
>   
"Black Box" voting w/o a paper trail? Purged voter lists?
Darrin, are these examples of governmental incompetence
or strategies for rigging election outcomes?
> If every angry talk show caller and every irrate mailing list / web
> forum participant actually wrote to their representative and voted then
> our government would be a lot different than it is.
>
> I know that some of you DO actually do these things. Good for you, and
> keep at it!
>
>   

Yes! People need to stay involved.

Fritz