Binomial Politics

Let's imagine politics boiled down to yes or no answers or opinions to questions. Now the chance of a politician holding the same view as you would be simplistically 50%. Using my A level statistics (they said I never would) and imagining there is only 10 issues in politics (gross under exaggeration) the chance of any politician agreeing with everything we think is one over two to the power 10 or around 0.1%. Let's say there are 4 main parties that you should even bother voting for with our flawed system (over exaggeration) then the chances of finding a politician that agrees with you is extremely slim. This means compromise, let's say compromise on what you believe about small issues like abortion, capital punishment or opinions on marriage. I'm not sure of you agree but that strikes me as quite flawed, what's the point in a party? To do politics for you? I guess it is in a way but there's no need to leave all the power in their hands.
One solution is to allow people to vote on many issues in referendums. We have the tech for cheap and regular votes, why not use it? The benefits would be threefold. Firstly politicians would be reminded on a regular basis who's boss, everyone would be drawn to politics and compromises would be limited. I'd say I'm using my A level statistics to great effect.

Coolness, the selection of Social Evolution

Get a group of people, cut contact with the outside world and give them lives to lead and you would notice (among other things) several profound things about coolness. Firstly several people would vie for dominance, it would essentially be a democracy, people would give attention and think more highly of those they deem to be good. By good I mean the person to have the most and best admirable qualities. Perhaps they would be attractive, strong, witty, intelligent and confident. They would be the successful ones. Their behaviour, dress sense and lifestyle would become the local cool and therefore people would want to emulate them. This is social selection at its finest, judging which qualities make someone cool then encouraging and feeling the need to conform to it. The reason I say all this is an interesting (at least I think so) idea that society works like a giant computer. Each person and each interaction is like a decision, each one refining what it means to be cool. Weaning out uncool qualities in yourself and putting pressure on others to do the same is evolution in the social sphere.

First World Problems

Today I finished reading the last book in the Hunger Games Trilogy. It may not be considered a literary classic or particularly sophisticated but it most certainly raises some interesting questions. Something which struck me early on was the disgust I felt for the people of the capitol. For the first few chapters the book describes abject poverty and some amount of injustice. When Peeta and Katniss visit the capitol, their evaluations of the people of the capitol struck me as familiar. Whether intended or not the comparison is very easy to apply to our world. If you look at the graph of inequality in a previous post, it becomes obvious that its the same as the world we live in. Although not any more through military might but by economic, developing countries are suppressed  as the developed nations thrash around to stay at the top. Katniss frequently speaks as the capitol people as weak and with high standards of living. Reminding me only of the first world problems meme. We live in a pretty tame part of the world, using our iPhones from District 3 where that particular factory's suicide rate, although shockingly high, is considered average. Furthermore wearing our Primark clothes from district 8 and having stockpiles of food so huge, that it rots rather than feeding the needy. Worst of all, I feel impotent, it seems no action I can take will help. If you don't buy from developing countries you starve them of all income movement in selfish nationalism and if you do you are lining the pockets of frankly horrible multinational corporations. Even aid or Fairtrade is often seen as counter-productive, catching the poor in cycles of dependence. Perhaps that's the real and only First World Problem.

Am I my Brothers Keeper?

With the healthcare bill on course to be rejected in America, I can't help but see the majority of the American public as primitive and foolish. How ironic that Britain, the country that they shook off as oppressive and uncaring, would have a progressive and perfectly equal system of healthcare. I have absolutely no worries at all if I'm injured, there's no tiers of care depending on what you've paid and no worries of sorting out insurance documents. As a country we like to moan about the NHS but seriously, its a life saver. IT's literally something we take completely for granted, it has saved my life with surgery that there is no chance my parents would have been able to afford. How is one of the most advanced countries in the world struggling with this? A common argument is that people shouldn't be forced to have healthcare and contribute to healthcare for the poor. I'm not getting into the ins and outs of the actual bill and how it works but the consensus is that basically, rich Americans don't want to pay for the poor Americans to have life saving healthcare. But that's when my laughing stopped because we are no different...

Despite wide reaching and hugely successful results from the introduction of a welfare state, it still receives bad press. I know it isn't perfect but its hard to argue it isn't progress from the literally Dickensian days of the Victorian era, we still find it hugely satisfying to blame benefit cheats and "scroungers". We enjoy condemning the system without realising the horrible place it brought us from. To what degree are we willing to help the needy, especially those who don't want to be helped. Imagine overnight you lost your whole support structure, your family friends, your house and your job. What would you do? Quite probably sit on the street in a helpless and drunken stupor in utter desperation and sadness. Just as the "rich you" would walk past, condemning you as a hopeless scrounger who isn't helping themselves.