On 7-2-2010 13:50, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the
>> people who *want* to do a real *public service*.
> 
> What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that they
> cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public service for
> free?
> 
>> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
>> would participate.
> 
> No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them less.
> I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would mean we
> have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.
> 
>> I don't think they would because those people are
>> largely driven by a profit motive.
> 
> I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
> anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
> they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter of
> regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that the
> profit does not come under the table.
> 
> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? I
> don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
> losing the $1M pay. 

Strange but true in practice they do. Possibly partly explained by the 
fact that if you and all your colleagues are corrupted anyway that 10K 
is just like any other bribe. Watch the British scandal over the 
declarations of the MPs. That is often below 10K, and almost everybody 
defends themselves by pointing at the others.

> But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
> to look much more appetizing.

Politicians here earn about 100K enough for very comfortable living but 
not so much that we only get people that are motivated by money. Just 
being motivated by money has too much danger of corruption. That starts 
during the campaign because getting elected is of utmost financial 
importance, and after being corrupted things will go on as usual while 
in parliament/senate. Second problem is that you get a very small social 
subgroup, which is not good for democracy. People earning 1M are too 
often too much trying to earn money and making sure their friends also 
get a 'fair' share. You get legislation aimed at increasing the wealth 
of the current wealthy and aiming at diminishing opportunities of those 
that are now less well off.

Post a reply to this message