I, Government

I was thinking about a post decrying the blatant rip-off of Isaac Asimov's classic I, Robot now in theaters. But that's been done. However, thinking about why the movie is such a disservice to Asimov left me wondering...

One of the key concepts in Asimov's original anthology of short stories was the introduction of The Three Laws of Robotics. These laws were hard-coded into the positronic brains of robots and ensured that humans could remain safe from their own creations. It was an ingenious way to set aside the classic "Frankenstein" thesis of all previous robot stories and open the way for more interesting and illuminating storytelling.

The three laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

What would happen if, with some slight rewriting, these laws were to be amended to our Constitution and applied to politicians of all parties at all levels of government? An interesting question, no? I thought so. Here is my attempt (and accompanying commentary in italics) at developing the Three Laws of Politics (with apologies to my hero, Isaac Asimov):

1. A politician may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. I would interpret harm to mean physical or psychological or developmental harm. So that international aid, education and universal health care debates would have entirely different articles of debate.

2. A politician must obey desires expressed to them by citizens, regardless of political affiliation, except where such desires would conflict with the First Law. No longer would some political doors remain closed because of a citizens political party. No longer would the majority - or a vocal and well funded minority - be able to impose its bigoted or uneducated will on the rest of the citizenry.

3. A politician must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. I see this as addressing not only the political existence of the candidate, but of the politician's actions concerning the continued existence of the country. This would force consideration of the cost in lives of not only our own citizens but of the rest of the world.

You'll notice that the laws did not require a lot of changes to be applicable. The only corollary would be that under no circumstances will any group of people or any incorporation of people or businesses be considered a citizen nor accrue the rights and privileges of citizenship. Additionally, leaving "human being" in the first law while replacing it with "citizen" in the second was done intentionally to cover just such contingencies as international aid.

Could such an amendment ever make it into consideration, much less committee? Never. Modern politicians - of all political stripes - are too much creatures of self-interest rather than public interest. Would the money wielders ever allow the demotion of the corporation to merely businesses? Never. They have ascended to the halls of power where they not only feed at the public trough, but have bought the power to ensure that the trough always remains full.

Can they stop us from dreaming? What do you think?