On: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

[dleslie]

Bias towards those whose profession benefits from a growing abundance of laws?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Entangled → dleslie]

If you are going to build a bridge are you going to hire an engineer or a cook? Now if you're going to create laws would you hire someone who has studied roman, germanic, sharia law since the times of Hammurabi, philosophy, sociology, politics and everything necessary to understand human interaction and association, or a bus driver?

We get the government we deserve, proportional to our level of ignorance.

There is a big difference between picking from a pool of politicians (crooks who climb the ladder by manipulation, backstabbing and deceit) and the best lawyers according to market forces and meritocracy then randomized.

[dleslie → Entangled]

The writing of laws can be left to staff, who may be lawyers, the impetus to have them written and passed need not be left solely to those who benefit from there being an abundance of them.

It doesn't take an Engineer to recognize that a bridge needs to be constructed.

[Zigurd → Entangled]

If you ask the engineer whether to build the bridge, you might get a biased answer.

[namlem → Entangled]

You need to balance it though. For example by adding economists and social scientists to the pool. You can't let one group have too much power.