andrel wrote:
> forced to comply with the rules dictated by the now richest 8.

Maybe. I don't really see *that* happening too soon. :-) I suspect the 
leaders would ensure something more catastrophic happens before that.

-- 
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 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:36:32 -0700, somebody wrote:

> "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.

It's called public service.  There are people who do that who aren't 
"losers or fanatics", even in the system we have today.  Just not that 
many - those are the types of people that need to be attracted to 
actually *serve* the public rather than themselves (which is what most 
politicians do).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 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

The western USA. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 
>> Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P
> 
> The western USA. ;-)
> 

Ah! The western part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, I remember now.

Apologies to both of the sensible Americans ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:53:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:42:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> 
>>> Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in?
>>> :-P
>> 
>> The western USA. ;-)
>> 
>> 
> Ah! The western part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, I remember now.
> 
> Apologies to both of the sensible Americans ;)

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> You are assuming that only useless and naive people who can't find other 
> work would be the only ones to do public service.

The vast majority of all military people I've spoken to are in it because 
they want to "serve". Certainly Schwartzenegger didn't need the money either.

>> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? 
> There are plenty who do.  Why?  Because they can.

And people are stupid. Like people who take bribes in the form of real 
estate.  Consider: the only way to give someone real estate is to record it 
publicly in the county recorder's office where, by definition, everyone can 
see 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 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:04:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You are assuming that only useless and naive people who can't find
>> other work would be the only ones to do public service.
> 
> The vast majority of all military people I've spoken to are in it
> because they want to "serve". Certainly Schwartzenegger didn't need the
> money either.

Exactly.  Though it's debatable what the Governator's motivation is.  I 
think power is a powerful siren call as well....

>>> If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe?
>> There are plenty who do.  Why?  Because they can.
> 
> And people are stupid. Like people who take bribes in the form of real
> estate.  Consider: the only way to give someone real estate is to record
> it publicly in the county recorder's office where, by definition,
> everyone can see it.

Yep, true enough.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/13/2010 1:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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

I think you are missing a major issue here. Its not just about what they 
are payed. If you select for only those who are unbribable via 
corporations, you *assume* you are going to end up with those that 
support the people. All you have to do is look at the nutcases fighting 
over who the *real* Republicans, or even *real* Tea Baggers, are, to see 
what you could end up with instead. Many of these people truly believe 
that their side holds the truth, the other side is all liars, and that 
their tactics of harping on 1-2 key issues, to get elected, is a way to 
"get around" all the evil roadblocks, media bias, and liberal control, 
that might otherwise keep them from representing "the people". They 
could live in a bloody hut in a frozen snow field, and they would 
**still** imagine that the majority of Americans where anti-gay, 
anti-liberal, bible thumping, creationists, and that 90% of everything 
taught in history and civics classes are lies, unlike their 
**certainty** that the constitution references God, and probably even 
once had the Ten Commandments in it, before liberals hid this "fact".

What you, potentially, end up with, when you elect people who claim to 
represent the people, with **no** other alterior motives, is complete 
wackos. At least someone in the pocket of, say, a pharmaceutical 
company, is **marginally** less likely to cut their own, and their 
special interests, throats, by declaring that research on Stem Cells 
should completely halt and biology classes should stop, even badly, 
teaching about Evolution. Get someone whose only interests is either a) 
believing, without cause, that the country **wants** that, or worse, b) 
got elected by a state filled with idiots that actually think its true, 
and... the result would be an even worse damn mess than we have now.

Certain assumptions are flat out naive. Jefferson's assertion that his 
neighbors beliefs where not a threat to anyone, no matter what they 
might be (while ignoring the obvious fact that the neighbors neighbor 
might want to both rob and murder you), is one example. Another is this 
assumption that you can "cure" corruption in governments. The very thing 
you propose almost *guarantees* that are larger than normal number of 
people will have ideas that are disengaged from reality, the public 
interest, or anything else that might produce a useful result. And, 
ironically, the very thing that could stop such people, outside 
interests apposed to how those ideas might upset their wallets, is, by 
nature of your solution, absent. Its certainly not going to be some 
loser, who got into it to help people, isn't good at speeches, has no 
audience presence, and never had a job, or stocks, etc., that conflicted 
with doing their job. Such people are rare. The sort with personal 
agenda, huge stage presence, and a total disregard for right and wrong, 
in any sense, including the willingness to lie their way into power... 
those are **way** less rare, since they spend most of their lives 
practicing how to con people.

Bets on how many of which we would end up with?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:07:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Bets on how many of which we would end up with?

There's nothing wrong with being an idealist, as long as it's tempered 
with some reality.  I've only been talking about an ideal situation so 
far.

Jim

Post a reply to this message