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

Post a reply to this message