[herrdwq]

People get into governance for the ability to influence things, whether because they want to serve honestly, or because they seek power and positions. All that demanding people to go unpaid would do is either bar the poor from ever thinking of governance (which would bar a huge number of people), or force people while in governance to become corrupt in order to further their material wants while in office. The system right now, has very high barriers, high pay for congressmen and senators, and on top of that we have high corruption.

Obviously what is there is not working out at all. I don't see how making it clear that the congressmen are there to serve the people is a bad thing, and to remind them of that by not cutting them a cheque would be a good thing.

A poor person getting elected would be such a story. I'm only seeing about 3 congressmen out of some 525 who are under 100k net worth. There are a few that are slightly over, and many, many more who are much weathier.

I think if one got elected who was in dire financial straights that we would be able to gage this on a case by case basis.

[sasaderesada]

Average wealth is something like 5 millon dollars.



And you don't see a problem at all?

[Czrzftmz]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Average wealth is something like 5 millon dollars.



And you don't see a problem at all? Not at all. If anything, it should be higher

[CevepBiageCefm]

Not at all. If anything, it should be higher Hush you. I'm having fun here.

[Kt-viagra]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I've not seen a congressman who isn't already independently wealthy, and substantially so.

Public office is already restricted to those who have the money to campaign and to reach out to the people. Even if this is true, which I would dispute, it certainly hasn't been true for most of this nation's history, and there's no reason it shouldn't be true in the future, especially given that this discussion is about a hypothetical government. This line of reasoning is totally without merit.

I think it would be better if the salary was done away with and that way those with a financial incentive would be less likely to serve. Another failure. Do you really think people run for public office because of the paycheck it gives out? This fails to make sense given your claim that all the politicians now are independently wealthy. If this is true, why would they be interested at all in a paycheck that is far lower than many high-level managerial or law positions in the private sector they could achieve? Your first flawed argument contradicts your second flawed argument, but unfortunately two self-negating wrongs don't make a right.

[diseeKeythilt]

Another failure. Do you really think people run for public office because of the paycheck it gives out? Good question.

No, I don't which is why I am saying they should get nothing at all.

This fails to make sense given your claim that all the politicians now are independently wealthy. The vast majority are. There are some exceptions. I just did a cursory look through the ones who were worst off, and found that they are actually pretty wealthy.

Are you seriously telling me that someone like Biden is really going to be in the hole?

If this is true, why would they be interested at all in a paycheck that is far lower than many high-level managerial or law positions in the private sector they could achieve? Good question. If they aren't motivated by the money and the compensation is already inadequate, in your words, why don't we dispense with the compensation.

I'm curious to see where the evidence is that making a position volunteer will automatically increase corruption, given that corruption is already very, very high.

I see no evidence that making the positions without pay would lead to an increase in corruption, given that compensation is already inadequate.

Honestly I think the corruption has nothing to do with the compensation, but more to do with the character of the individual congressman. So therefore, the pay should be irrelevant to corruption levels. You could double it and corruption would not go down.

[ChyFDjfed]

If you don't think the paycheck induces people to run for public office, then by wanting the job to be unpaid you are deliberately stating that you want the job to be taken only by the independently wealthy. No, I am saying that you must have the financial means to take the job as well as the desire to perform a service to your country.

I honestly don't believe it takes someone being indepedently wealthy to serve 2 years in congress, so I'm going to call out that bullshit claim right there. I didn't set the bar at 100k because I was considering the independently wealthy, I was looking at people would could be reasonably asked to do this job for two years without bankruptcy.

You want to preclude all people who require some kind of compensation, forever, from attaining public office. Yes sir.

Your perfect world is a plutocracy, because anybody who isn't a plutocrat is impoverished by public service. Ahh, well that's a false assumption. There are a great many of people who volunteer, and give their time, and they tend to be less concerned about money. You see because their time is less valuable they are inclined to give it up for other things.

No. Where did you get that idea? That's what Zkribbler's statistics say. Biden is officially in the hole. He has negative net worth if you can believe that.

Uh, because we want to encourage people to run who aren't independently wealthy? We already have that, and the current system doesn't seem to be motivating them at all. Plus as you said the job is not well paid.

I would rather make it a volunteer job which will encourage those who are willing to give more of their time. Maybe a wife of a congressman will work for two years, and maybe a man will save up for a run so that he can serve his country.

There are many, many ways to make it happen if you are determined enough to do so.

I can't believe this idea is encountering so much resistance. Wilson would have supported an idea like this, so would have Bryan and the other Progressives.

I had lunch with Jimmy Carter a few months ago, along with a few other staff members (I worked for the guy last year). Somebody asked him what he felt the difference was between politics now and when he was running for president. He replied that the difference was money - he ran for president with what would now be considered a shoestring budget. There was no possible way, he said, that anybody running now with the resources he had then could ever achieve high public office. Interesting. No, I don't like the man for what he did while he was president. I think he was one of the worst presidents, as he was ill-suited for the job. However, that certainly does not deprive him of insight into certain matters. Just being wrong on other things doesn't mean that Carter is wrong about this.

You may not like Jimmy Carter, but it is true that we are making it harder and harder for the non-independently wealthy to gain high office because of the ridiculously high bar of spending needed today. Why on earth would you want to make it impossible altogether by removing the paycheck from the office? Well you should have asked Carter what he would have thought about doing so. I see it as an overall piece of electoral reform. I'd like to see more teachers and those of moderate means running for the presidency. Back in Coolidge's day, there was no campaign. The candidate, if he desired to, could hold speeches on his front lawn. The Bull Moose would go around and stump speeches.

Yet, we do not see a surfeit of leadership in those days. I think the campaign is too long, is too involved. Congressmen are forced to be professionals concerned more about getting elected then what they do when they get there.

I think there is a real possibility for grassroots political campaigns in this day and age, and I think Thompson very nearly did it himself, using the tools of the modern age.

Why pay 6 million dollars for TV ads, when you can set up a Youtube video and reach a larger audience in the same amount of time? Why pay for expensive polling, when you can accomplish the same thing through other means?

If you accept the current situation as a given I don't! I would like to see the system revert more to what it used to be in the past.

If you do think that money should play less of a role and we should reform the system such that other qualified people will be able to achieve office regardless of their personal means, Yes, and I do not believe that these type of people would be seriously motivated by the money. I do not think they would be deterred by a volunteer position.

But the system can't control for character, can it? So we leave character up to the voters and control for what we can. I'm a populist. I believe that the more connected a candidate is with the people of America, the less likely he will be suspect and the more likely we will attract men of high character.

[Investblogger]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Another failure. Do you really think people run for public office because of the paycheck it gives out? This fails to make sense given your claim that all the politicians now are independently wealthy. If this is true, why would they be interested at all in a paycheck that is far lower than many high-level managerial or law positions in the private sector they could achieve? QFT. A Congressman or Senator can make an order of magnitude more money out of office.

[leyliana]

Originally posted by GePap
The United States, surprising as this may seem to you, is not a dan of corruption, at least compared to the general situation worldwide. Indeed. Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2007 rated the US as #20 (out of 179), between France and Belgium. I'm uncertain on what basis Ben claims we have "high corruption."

[sobre]

#1 is least corrupt, yes.

What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, a poll of polls, drawing on corruption-related data from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions. The CPI reflects views from around the world, including those of experts who are living in the countries evaluated.

[russianstallian]

Originally posted by Colon™
Higher ranks mean lower perception of corruption. Perception by experts and reputable institutions.

Why is the CPI based only on perceptions?

It is difficult to assess the overall levels of corruption in different countries based on hard empirical data, e.g. by comparing the amount of bribes or the number of prosecutions or court cases. In the latter case, for example, such comparative data does not reflect actual levels of corruption; rather it highlights the quality of prosecutors, courts and/or the media in exposing corruption across countries. One strong method of compiling cross-country data is therefore to draw on the experience and perceptions of those who are most directly confronted with the realities of corruption in a country.

[anderriter]

I don't agree that they shouldn't be paid, but they are definitely paid less than they are worth.

[Feelundseenna]

And who repairs/maintains the machines? Other machines? Is it turtles all the way down?

[enteltcheft]

Originally posted by Elok
And who repairs/maintains the machines? Other machines? Is it turtles all the way down? People in robot suits that can do the work of 5 gorillas.

[Soolfelpecelf]

Originally posted by Agathon


The idea that people are wired a certain way is usually a cover for some hegemonic ideology. We know that it isn't really true. Anyone who has read Stanley Milgram's books knows that human psychology is situational. An even better example is the plight of indigenous peoples who find it very hard to assimilate into modern capitalist society as it violates many of their identity forming norms. We would find it similarly difficult, were we transported to live in a mediaeval city. People have adapted to live in many forms of society. The idea that modern capitalist society is somehow an expression of a universal human nature is simply ridiculous. It's simply another form of despotism, which has been the characteristic form of human organization since people started living in large groups.

As feminists have been pointing out for years, what counts as "human nature" in our society turns out to be very much to the advantage of a certain class of male citizens. It's not particularly difficult to see through this once you compare ordinary social conceptions of human nature with the scientific view of the human being. It very quickly becomes obvious that these beliefs have very little to do with reality. Rather they are a cultural lens through which people interpret reality. You can even look back to the beginnings of modern philosophy, in particular people like Locke, to see the modern "person" being born. Modern scientific studies are coming to the conclusion that rather than a tabla rasa, humans come preprogrammed with many of the features of their personality. Biology matters, and if we are true materialists, this should be unsurprising. There is a point for all those chemicals floating around our bodies and they do push us in certain directions. Biology may not be destiny, but it certainly is a strong motivator.

For example, homosexuality is almost certainly a biologically determined behavior, possibly as a result of genetics, more likely a result of epigenitics. But homosexuality does not mean that men will sleep with other men, just that they want to sleep with other men. Many can and do force themselves to sleep with women, even if they don't like it all that much.

Of course, you are absolutely correct that a great deal of our behavior is socially determined. The "extreme" emotionality of Arab males and the supposedly cold behavior of Arab women is the opposite of how Western men and women are supposed to act. Men are supposed to suppress their emotions and women are supposed to be the ones to let it all hang out. The reality is far richer than the stereotypes, but they illustrate a point.

[tsovimnpb]

For example, homosexuality is almost certainly a biologically determined behavior, possibly as a result of genetics, more likely a result of epigenitics.

You have no idea WTF you're talking about.