Play it out in your head. An elected official declares he wants to try and starve a powerful and relatively popular union. What happens next?

Unions have no necessary connection to the process.

The elected official's opponent in the following election simply runs a "JOHN SMITH IS SOFT ON CRIME, JOHN SMITH IS BAD FOR US AND OUR FAMILIES" campaign, and people who think public-sector unions are the devil will still vote for the opponent, because now you're pressing their bias (which is in favor of "tough on crime, lock 'em all up and throw away the key").

Are we talking about Wisconsin governor Scott Walker? Because he survives a recall vote and then goes on to help make Wisconsin a right-to-work state.

But wait. He specifically exempted police unions from his busting legislation, didn't he?

And after giving away massive tax breaks, is now pleading that the budget can't be balanced.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/18/sc...

> To help close the state’s $283 million budget shortfall this year, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) plans to skip a $108 million debt payment scheduled for May.

> By missing the May payment, Walker will incur about $1.1 million in additional interest fees between 2015 and 2017. The $108 million debt will continue to live on the books; Walker’s budget proposal for 2015-2017 will pay down no more than about $18 million of the principal.

> In March last year, Walker signed a $541 million tax cut for both families and businesses. At that point, Wisconsin was facing a $1 billion budget surplus through June 2015, the Journal Sentinel reported.

I didn't say it was pleasant. What's necessary rarely is.

So you're advocating some sort of violent overthrow? We can't just snap our fingers and remake the political system into something completely different than it is, no matter how much Lawrence Lessig wishes we could. Grim fanatical purity is good for fundraising, but it won't get any laws passed.

No, I'm advocating for politicians to make decisions that are better for society, but will cause them to not be re-elected (similar to what happened in Australia when they outlawed firearms).

So you want the whole system to be based on the assumption that human beings are good? That is every bit as realistic as the assumption that USA is identical to Australia. b^)

I agree with you, but the Port Arthur massacre happened 8 weeks into Howard's term as PM of Australia. The Howard government was in power for 10 years after that, they won four straight elections.