Infrastructure (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

about politics in general I’ll talk at a later time.
however, now the usa have an election, and people think not-voting would do anything.
true, it’s quite shameful for a democracy to have below 50% election polls, as the eu does.
but in reality the reason why people don’t like to vote is because politics is too abstract for them.
there simply is no mechanism of “if I vote I will get a job and money”.

actually there is only one thing politics can do to create jobs:
open up a new company paid by the country, and hire.
quite a communistic approach romney proposed here:
create one company that digs holes and another that fills them again.
and then to earn some money the government will eventually sell both companies.
the buyer will then throw out the workers and sell the shovels.
if we’re lucky the buyer will keep the workers and make them do something else.
either way, the amount of jobs always depends on the amount of business-ideas.
and the amount of successful business-ideas depends on the amount of money clients have.
the more jobs, the more money for employees, the more jobs will be created in the sector of middle-class consume.
so if a government would really hire those diggers and hole-fillers, additionally more jobs would evolve.
but this way government would become poor, so it’d better be rich-people who create those 2 companies.
in other words, if you want more jobs, make the gap between rich and poor smaller!
only a robin hood, “stealing” from rich and giving to the poor, could be effective here.
no politician could ever do such a thing, rich people know how to avoid the government.

I wont spill out all the historical facts here, you can look them up yourself.
truth is rich people can afford an accountant or whatever person with good ideas.
and not only do they have the money, they usually also have the knowledge and networking in place to do so.
rich people know many rich people, and from them they can learn who’s good with juggling money.
you’d need to advance at least to upper middle-class to get access to them.
even the most introverted rich person will eventually meet other rich people.
the very action of earning large amounts of money makes this necessary.
as soon as government would do something against the rich, someone will find a cure.
and that cure will quickly spread throughout the whole network of people with lots of money.
similarly if there was a thief or opportunist among them, they’ll know sooner than a wannabe-rich.
the longer your family had lots of money, the more other rich people they will know.
they still can be taken by surprise, some scam might turn out to be scam only years later.
or maybe their desire to become richer could be used to pique their interest in some product.
government can’t do either of those. a hedge-fond or an iPhone might be more effective.
if a rich person wouldn’t take care to keep their money together, soon it wouldn’t be a rich person anymore.
my suggestion is: make them pay for them being the first to obtain some knowledge.
either there will be no gain for them this way, or they will create new jobs out of that.
that’s the modern way of playing robin-hood, sell your knowledge to the best bidder.
and after selling it give it away for free to everyone else (maybe after waiting some time).

politics has completely different duties. global warming for example is abstractly seen a matter of diplomatic co-operation.
peace in the country is the duty of politicians. decisions on what resources to plunder and infrastructure.
so if you ever see a politician promising to improve those 4 abstract subjects, vote for him/her! everything else politicians promise is bullshit.
politics simply has no power over anything else! it’s just diplomacy, peace, resources and infrastructure!

actually government has power only over one thing: real-estate.
a government is more alike to a land-owner who allows people to lend some land.
if you buy some land, then originally that land belonged to the government.
and if the government would wish so, it could disown you in this respect.
only for the sake of peace government does acknowledge your right to own it.
however, what you do not buy, is the right to do whatever you want on that land.
if you share a lake on your land with a neighbour, you are not allowed to drain all the water.
it’s the government which decides how resources found on the land get distributed.
if infrastructure needs to cross your land, government can disown you.
if your land or something on it violates diplomatic relationships, government can interfere.
same with roots for some violence reaching your land, government wont acknowledge your privacy.
police and military can commit trespassing all they want, as long as government commanded it.
so through owning the land, the government automatically becomes responsible for managing the 4 abstract topics.
diplomacy, peace, resources and infrastructure are 4 things every land-owner must manage somehow.

for this reason it also doesn’t matter what political system you have — as long as people have the possibility to be armed.
even a dictatorship will have to manage the 4 or else it will be at war with the population.
I’m not saying there’s any violent revolution that could ever be successful.
well, maybe if the military would start a revolution against its own dictator.
either way, the result is there’s no kingdom anymore to rule.
politics simply is too complicated for a single person to comprehend.
and with multiple people ruling there’ll always be someone who wants to evade riots.
even more so in a democracy with a whole parliament of rulers or in china with a party having millions of members.
in america the plutocracy is really not the fault in the system, it’s the voters who ignore the 4 duties of a politician.
not surprising when infrastructure is optimal, resources are cheap, violence is low, and diplomacy is in balance.
however, there’s still the question if some politician you vote for will destroy that optimally running system.
the 2 major parties likely wont. too big to fail. but can you really trust a presidential candidate to stay true to the party?

when voting there’s another thing to consider though, bureaucracy. now that’s something that needs correction.
as it is now the money entrusted to the government is spent for ancient structures of employees who work against eachother.
on the other hand giving the same money to some poor country could improve your country’s exports.
just make sure a very large amount of people will get that money.
if the government is already wasting money, make sure it wont end up in some hidden vault like swiss banks and such.
or alternatively modernize bureaucracy so that fewer people work for government, more computers/robots are used, less wages to pay.
let people who live in the country take part in ruling it, they’ll do it for free if it isn’t too much work for the individual.

of course schools are too an important duty of a government, no way schools can be handled by private companies.
but I count that as bureaucracy too, it’s part of our resource-management since knowledge is a resource.
in my posting about economy I said: to create Knowledge you must feed a human’s mind with science-methods.
the better people are at science-ing or whatever other abilities, the more knowledge the country has.
and it should be mentioned that rich population isn’t enough, someone, not necessarily rich, must have an idea.
if people don’t have abilities for creating ideas, the country will soon be outperformed by others who do.
so education is a matter of various countries racing against eachother, and so far usa had a winning streak.
well maybe that was partly because of the lax laws on who is allowed to do what, and partly because of size.
but that soon could change because of some of the richer big countries being more lax on what to research.
so a bit of less emotion and less “intelligence”, more randomness, that would be great for funding research…

the secret to democracy is that everything is extremely slow, basically you’d need 1 generation for a change.
the old bureaucrats must retire before they can be replaced by machines.
the tiny problem in democracy is that politicians get to decide on their own jobs and the jobs of their friends.
wait 50 years and the problem is gone, simply through the noob who gets ambushed by change…

to summarize: if you don’t care about anything related to the abstract concepts of resources, infrastructure, diplomacy and peace, don’t vote.
if you do care, then vote for someone who does too, regardless of what chances that person has for winning.
very likely others will vote for the same person, because it’s logical those topics matter.
but if it’s jobs you want to create, take a loan and hire people to work towards your ideas.
if you’re lacking ideas or are bored, then get education, as much knowledge as you can obtain and start from there.
even if you go broke, your employees will have more money to spend, other companies will sprout.
and if you ever have to decide from whom to buy or to whom to sell, never choose big companies.
they likely wont hire new people, only small companies do.
and if it’s knowledge and research you do care for, for example medicine, make sure that’s done in other countries.
the less rich a country, the cheaper the workforce, the more efficient research will be.
because, it really isn’t location of research that counts, it’s what you teach in your schools that will rise innovation!
so in that case, instead of voting, go to a poor country and start teaching and researching!
everybody must actually do something for the own dreams, a vote wont do it!
what a vote does do is to take away the non-voter votes, the more people vote the less non-voters there will be.
sounds like too obvious to mention, but most people are not aware of what this means:
the votes of non-voters get always distributed in the same way as if they would have voted like everyone else.
so if you have to choose if you should vote for a small party that wont succeed, or if not voting at all, choose the former.
if you do not vote there is not even the remotest chance your vote would change anything.
if a new party would get a dangerous amount of votes, soon the big party will take over the small one’s topics.
just keep in mind that voting definitely doesn’t change anything for you as an individual. it might change your children’s world though.
voting rather has an immediate influence on other voters, it’s a way of communication. not-voting is communication too, of the non-verbal kind.
just see your vote as a hobby. a spare-time activity alike to chatting on the net or blogging. I do.
and I take this hobby seriously. nobody would build a model railroad without proper planning either!
so why vote for the most pious candidate? why not of collecting and studying the available facts and getting your own impression?
being pious might be important for diplomacy. but politicians are much more than that! 4 times as much!