On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living 
stipend.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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*.  If there's no money in 
it, you keep the money out of it (you have to monitor contributions, 
bribes, and the like - but you take the money that's being paid to the 
congresscritters right now and hire people to monitor that - you'd still 
end up with leftovers).

You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people 
would participate.  I don't think they would because those people are 
largely driven by a profit motive.

> The
> #1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private
> groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing
> someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them
> with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election.

Yeah, so you watch for that activity like a hawk, and if someone is 
receiving bribes, you prosecute them and throw their asses in jail - both 
the person bribing the official and the official who accepted the bribe.

> Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make
> this stupid idiocy worse. 

I agree with this.  One of the worst supreme court decisions in all time.

> The last thing you need is to make it a field
> that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because
> it pays shit to work at it.

Only crazies and the corrupt want to get into it now, for the most part.  
Look at Michelle Bachmann or watch *any* of the house or senate debates 
on TV where they pull out a stupid chart on an easel.  You have to be 
crazy to say some of the things that are said on the house floor.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>> Don't you want the exact opposite?
> 
> Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
> Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
> public.
> 

Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b6e194b$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> > Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

> You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living
> stipend.

Sure but you'd then only attract losers or fanatics, or more likely both.
Unless you live in dreamland. In that case, why pay any professional above
minimum wage? Make doctors work for a can of soup. I am sure that would
ensure brightest people providing the best health care.

Post a reply to this message

"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

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

On 2/7/2010 9:33 AM, andrel wrote:
>> 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.
>
Point is, if I can make $10K a year, and *still* somehow get another 
$10K donated for "campaign money", or other projects, out of which I can 
funnel some cash for myself, you haven't solved anything. Its not about 
whether someone makes $10K a year, or $10 million a year, its whether or 
not various other interests can get by with funneling as much, or more, 
to them other ways, while they are there. And, in the US at least, its 
been the trend for the politicos to arrange things so this *is* 
possible, to support reelection campaigns, pet projects, and various 
crazy assed revisionist/activist goals they have, which ignore the 
people, in favor of what ever schizo idea they (or their 
church/party/secret_cult/personal_business_associates/family/all_of_the_above 
happen to hold).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 7-2-2010 18:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 2/7/2010 9:33 AM, andrel wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
> Point is, if I can make $10K a year, and *still* somehow get another 
> $10K donated for "campaign money", or other projects, out of which I can 
> funnel some cash for myself, you haven't solved anything. Its not about 
> whether someone makes $10K a year, or $10 million a year, its whether or 
> not various other interests can get by with funneling as much, or more, 
> to them other ways, while they are there. And, in the US at least, its 
> been the trend for the politicos to arrange things so this *is* 
> possible, to support reelection campaigns, pet projects, and various 
> crazy assed revisionist/activist goals they have, which ignore the 
> people, in favor of what ever schizo idea they (or their 
> church/party/secret_cult/personal_business_associates/family/all_of_the_above 
> happen to hold).

I agree, but a major part of the reason why the US law works the way it 
does is that the people who are 'in charge' are precisely the ones who 
got there in that way. And often they are part of the same subculture 
that also 'influences' broadcasting networks to give more time to people 
who defend this system than to the ones who are opposed. Then you are in 
danger of ending up with a situation where the majority of politicians 
is corrupt *and* the people re-elect them because they believe that is 
the way it should be.
The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one was 
apparently not enough.

There are probably good historical reasons why the US politics work the 
way they do. I am happy to live in a more sane country. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one was 
> apparently not enough.

Historically speaking, it tends to be the crises that make it worse, not better.

You don't get the draft during peacetime. You don't get the Federal Reserve 
when the economy is humming along.  You don't get to toss out Habeas Corpus 
unless there's a big "emergency" that "justifies" it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 7-2-2010 22:02, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The US need a very big crisis to get out of this mess. The last one 
>> was apparently not enough.
> 
> Historically speaking, it tends to be the crises that make it worse, not 
> better.
> 
> You don't get the draft during peacetime. You don't get the Federal 
> Reserve when the economy is humming along.  You don't get to toss out 
> Habeas Corpus unless there's a big "emergency" that "justifies" it.

I was thinking about a crisis so severe that the US drops to place 
number 50 of richest countries in the world and their government is 
forced to comply with the rules dictated by the now richest 8.

Post a reply to this message