With the various decisions that are being made by the Supreme Court in the US, I was wondering why these positions are a guaranteed job for life, especially since the decisions made affect hundreds of millions of people. It seems strange that 9 people have that much power over an entire nation and these days, the laws they make or overturn, influence at a global level too.
And, it isn't whether or not their decisions are bad, where for example, I agree that people should be able to refuse service to people they don't want to serve, as they are running a private business, because that is their prerogative. Whether it works for or against them making money in the long term, that is on their shoulders, they carry the burden. It isn't really up to society to decide who they serve, it is up to society to decide whether they support their service or not.
This is obviously different if it is a public service paid for by taxpayers, which raises questions about some of the educational institutions that are at least partially funded by people who can't even get into them.
However, I find it interesting that there is still a "job for life" at all still, though I understand why it was initially created this way. The idea was that they would be independent of the political climate and more impartial, and maybe back in the day more than two hundred years ago, this made sense. But, in the type of politics we have now, with massive polarizations, and billions of dollars in lobby groups driving agendas (lobbying started 100 years after the Supreme court for life rules), is it still relevant to have jobs for life that affect the people, not elected by the people?
Are jobs for life relevant at all?
And, there is a bit of a difference from 1789 when the first Supreme Court was created.
What was the average age of death in the 1700s in America?
At the time of America's founding in 1776, the average newly-minted American citizen could expect to live to the ripe old age of 35, giving them a few months to run for the presidency before they keeled over.
"For life" meant something quite different then. And, the cultural and technological changes were far slower than they are now. A Supreme Court judge back then wouldn't have had to face the same kinds of technological complication they face now, and they were making decisions that would affect people, much like them. Are the supreme court making decisions for people like them?
I don't think so.
But, the fact is, that no matter what decisions they make, it is never going to be suitable for all people, even if it is good for the majority of people. Majority voting for a government is a stupid voting system anyway, because it assumes that each voter is qualified to make decisions on topics they likely have very little understanding of, like economics. For instance, would you want someone who is struggling to manage their personal finances, making financial decisions for you? Unlikely, but that is essentially what is happening in government elections. This is the same for medical considerations, education, or military support.
And this is why people choose a person to represent them, not subject matter experts who are qualified in a narrow field. They make their decisions of support based on a personality and promises, even if they have no idea how those promises could or should be accomplished.
No centralized decision-making process is going to be right for everyone and because of the way the entire system is set up, it is always going to favor some over others. The Supreme Court is a good representation of this, because they might be making decisions that go against the majority preference.
Maybe they know better?
Perhaps. But, if it comes down to affects on people's individual bodies, like that of abortion laws, they don't have the right - in my opinion. In the same way, that while I think a business owner can refuse service, I don't think anyone should stop what two consenting adults do in a bedroom.
I predict that over the next few decades, the decision making powers are going to continually decentralize, where technology is employed to facilitate better group decisions, applying more of a stake-weighted process, so that subject matter experts have more say, and lobby groups have less power, because there will be financial transparency and webs of trust employed throughout the system. If this doesn't happen, then I predict that it will go the other way, with increasingly authoritarian governments, whose power and control become so crushing, we aren't able to choose any life path for ourselves at all.
One of those directions is a dystopia.
It isn't a simple process, but I am a firm believer that we have arranged ourselves to value the wrong things, where the incentive is there to maximize wealth, not wellbeing. In my opinion, a strong economy isn't an indicator of a healthy society, rather a strong economy should only be possible through developing a healthy society. This means that the mechanisms for wealth creation, have to be tied to wellbeing improvement. It shouldn't be make money and then do good, it should be,
Make money by doing good.
One thing is certain though. No government cares about all its citizens, because they operate like corporations. They only care about what they value, and they only want their team to win. It is a process of attempted monopolization, with all parties looking to overpower the others to take the entire market, so then they have absolute power.
It never ends well for the majority.
We should all have a job for life - where our job is to improve lives.
But that is not how the incentives align.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
