On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:50:31 -0700, 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 are assuming that only useless and naive people who can't find other 
work would be the only ones to do public service.

>> 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'm saying make sure that they're provided for.  I'm not suggesting they 
be made homeless - but at the same time, if the average congresscritter 
is making more than the people they ostensibly represent, then they 
aren't actually *representing* those people very well, because they can't 
*identify* with them.

So you take the money out of it entirely.  Make sure they have a place to 
live (it doesn't have to be fancy, a studio apartment should suffice for 
most), food to eat, basic health coverage (including catastrophic care), 
and a way to do the people's work.

>> 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.

People driven by a profit motive will do what increases THEIR profit, 
whether that helps the people they represent or not is inconsequential.

> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? 

There are plenty who do.  Why?  Because they can.

> 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.

Where did I say they would make $10K a year?  I said make sure their 
needs are provided for.  Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars 
a year.

There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public 
service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message