Not choosing to wield power is a lawful and ethical choice as well.
But if it is true that our "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth," then it is mostly due to the people who choose to become our government rather than surrender their power to others. Whether that's voting, being part of a campaign, or running yourself (thousands of offices go unfilled every year around the state, let alone the country) you're exercising your power and making all of us more powerful.

How do you think my party (Democratic) slid so socialist? People kept saying, "It's not my party, they left me, I didn't leave them." and they left. No matter what the excuse, they left the people who wanted a socialist agenda in power and stopped challenging them.
We've seen the result.
John Galt is for a culture of courage, not cowardice. It's for those who faced down the slide of civilization - who TRIED to turn the tide - but have reached that point where they and their peers KNOW it's time to Galt.
Have we reached that point? Not yet. As much as I long for a place like Ayn Rand suggested, my place is on the front line for now.

Where is yours?

All after Andrew Jackson, with the occasional moment of awakening (followed by a complete loss of power or life for the one who did anything rational and moral.)

If they resist corruption they get no power, and they are often replaced in the next election by the candidate selection process as rigged by the DNC and RNC. Voters rarely get a chance to vote for anyone who hasn't been bought.

When I use the word 'virtually,' in #55, it kind of makes 'disproval of #55' kind of moot, at best.

As for #44, are you saying that 'skepticism' precludes 'manipulation'?

It is, of course, your right and freedom to disagree with anything and everything I might say or write or publish. If you've got a gripe about two out of 57, maybe I'm not doing too badly, either....

Cheers! :)

I'm not impressed with those laws. In particular, Julian Simon disproved #55. And I'm very skeptical of all the groups I follow, so there goes #44.

And FWIW, am I the only one here who has read Niven's Laws?

I covered that one with http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#41st

:)

And the ones who fail get to play the parts of old people in continual remakes of Soylent Green... :)

Human nature never changes. Obama is the Caligula of our time. Beware -- Nero came after him.

I don't buy that. Yes, if it needs doing I'd accept nomination -- but I wouldn't ever want to get comfortable with power, or trust myself with it too much. I'd want to (metaphorically) suit up as if entering a plague zone.

I think a lot of fantasy books are potentially harmful, because they show us philosopher kings who are never unjust, never corrupt, and who own up to their mistakes and always try to do the right thing. That person hasn't been born.

Political power should be viewed as something nasty and radioactive -- something you don't ever want to give anybody except in emergencies, and even then you have to expect it will do more harm than good. (And of course, those who want more power are constantly making up phony emergencies, so always make them prove their case.)

Once in a while there's an exception, but they tend to get corrupted pretty quickly once they have power.

Just be thankful the Big O hasn't been competent enough to do everything he tried to do. Then we'd really be hosed.

Un huh, we've been saddled with one since U.S. Grant was elected, though Coolidge was a breath of fresh air.

Since Ludwig is right, we're all in big trouble.

Well said.

Reminds me of H. Beam Piper's "veridicator" used in the Fuzzy stories (and possibly others I haven't read yet.) It's like an advanced EEG machine that changes from cool blue (truth) to violent red (false).

In a number of fiction universes that are magic or high tech, one of the elements in the story line is that there exists some sort of a reliable 'truth detector'. Anyone who has a government position must have regular sessions with an agency that asks them a series of cleverly worded questions to see if they have been involved in corruption or illegal activities in the past X period of time.

I sometimes wonder if we should put a lot of effort into developing such a 'truth detector' (our lie detector systems are very primitive and data from the early 20th century). Then I wonder if such systems exist but have been suppressed...

Jan

But they're all incompetent, vile, and corrupt. They couldn't get the job if they weren't.

The interesting thing is how the judgments are made of what is incompetent, corrupt and vile. No one evaluates himself as incompetent, corrupt and vile even when some do so, and can always cite others' approval. Honor among thieves. That's why we need an objective way of appraising, a value system rooted in Reason, reality and rational ethics. No one has described these values with greater clarity than Ayn Rand.

There is one that is second:
The assumption that government is always corrupt and all politicians are evil, because then good men hesitate to become the government that belongs to all of us.
Run for office.

Incompetent, corrupt and vile. Great. We've got all three, and embodied in one man. Not to mention so many others. I hate to call DC Washington. He was a very great man and the place named after him besmirches his name on a daily basis.

he saw more than 0

Nice find.

Thanks. See you then, jb.

He saw Obama coming, didn't he?

Nice quote, freedom. I'll see you in the AM.