Would a good insurance company insure against politicians?

Submitted by Andjelko Galic on May 8, 2007 - 7:06pm. ::

We are now one of the most powerful nations. We, the voters actually control to a large degree, what our representatives do in Washington. Why cannot we make all the elected politicians, or their political parties, buy some liability insurance, given the kind of disasters they can create? Why do we wait for violence to resolve our disagreements? Why not let insurance companies take care of this? They are very good in calculating their risks and developing procedures for minimizing the risk?

‹ face for radio How do I know my submission was received? ›
Bookmark/Search this post with:
delicious delicious | digg digg
login or register to post comments
Isn't "a good insurance company"...
Submitted by nurmihusa on May 9, 2007 - 3:44pm.

... as oxymoronical as "an honest politician"? Teehee.

Seriously though, we do need to look again at our assumptions about how things work. Reassess how they SHOULD work. Nations have so many bizarre myths about who they are and they rarely, if ever, have any connexion to actual reality.

*n*

PS: Croatians and Finns (I'm Finnish) need to work out a deal with regard to vowels and consonants. You send us some of your excess consonants and we'll fork over a heap of vowels for you! What say?

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about" - Oscar Wilde

login or register to post comments
yeah ok...
Submitted by chadbullock on May 9, 2007 - 2:40pm.

first of all the premium was be outragesly high...and we the tax payer would probably have to pay it..then if we won a pay back...you wouldn't see it for 10 years....if at all! and I'm sure that would lead to some incredible violence ; )

login or register to post comments
Who decides if an action is a harm?
Submitted by tlfiegen on May 8, 2007 - 8:07pm.

Few laws or decisions are black and white. Most laws are compromises and contain things that try to do the most good for the most people while harming or angering the fewest people. The exception to this principle is that leaders must keep their contributors happy. So sometimes the good of many is sacrificed to keep the big dollar donors or PACs happy.

Even if we all agree that our leaders made a bad decision, the law presumes the sovereign is always right. You cannot sue the government except in limited circumstances.

Tom

login or register to post comments
Sure but,,,,
Submitted by Andjelko Galic on May 8, 2007 - 9:06pm.

That is a typical status quo response. Take a look and see where did that theory lead us to? Measure it against the stated objective. We have at least some 80 wars going on at any given time. Why?

The basic concept in that theory is that the government is like a king. The government is not a king, so why do we keep the outdated theory.

We the people, reads our Constitution and we are now technologically in a postion to actually hear more people say what they want.

To put a right on the books means nothing if you do not create conditions where people can actually exercise that right. The question here is not what can we find on the books on the subject but how can we formulate a better theory and a bettr practice based on a new theory. The current model can no longer be justified.

login or register to post comments