Should Politicians be paid?

[Sam]

Should politicians get a salary for participating in the political
system? I say NO! Do not pay politicians at all!

Politicians go into politics to advocate certain ideas. They do this
because they believe in these ideas. If they didn't believe in these
ideas, they shouldn't advocate them. Also, if they do not support
specific ideas, they shouldn't be in politics.

Politics is about ideas. It's not a profession where one gets paid for
sitting in an office all day. If one truely believes in an idea, one is
glad to share this idea, discuss it with others in order to advocate
it.

True politicians will gladly spend time on promoting their ideas, even
if that means that it will cost them some money to travel to a venue
where they're invited to speak. In these days of the Internet, they can
put their ideas on websites, communicate with people by email, send out
mailing lists and post at groups like this one. So, advocating
something doesn't have to cost much money at all - if you truely
believe in something, then surely you'll be willing to spend the time
to write the idea down, which may be all it takes to spread the idea.

But do you ever see a politician posting here at groups like this one?
Do you get many emails from politicians with good ideas? I don't! Yet,
all these people who have been elected sit there in their posh offices
and they get paid for doing what? Showing up in parliament to vote for
something that's often already decided, fixed or rigged in the first
place? Do you know in advance how your chosen member will vote? They do
ask for your views by email?

Weel, here I am and I do ask for your views on this. I say politicians,
counsellors, parliamentarians and all those who have been elected into
office through some democratic voting procedure, should not be paid at
all! They have been elected because of the ideas they were supposed to
have.

They should not get cars to drive around in, they should not get travel
tickets to go on trips, they should not get any money from taxpayers
for their ideas, because if they don't give their ideas for free, we
cannot trust them to stand behind their ideas when it comes to a vote.
Indeed, NOT paying politicians will make them honest! That way, only
people who truely believe in ideas will make the effort to promote
them.

I am Sam, I gave you this idea for free!

[Sardonic Witt]

Dude, if no one makes money doing it, no one will do it.

Ever heard of capitalism?

[Sam Carana]

Yes, what is the difference between democracy and a democratic republic? Isn't it interesting to compare different systems, including those in ancient Greece, specifically in Athens, where there were democratic elections on some issues, but where people were also appointed to political committees by lot. Socrates rejected both methods and instead advocated people to be appointed on merit ( i.e. aristocracy). Plato and subsequently Aristotle followed this school of thought. His political activism was the most likely background against which Socrates was offered the choice between leaving Athens or drinking poison.

 

You say that people aren't necessarily elected because of the ideas they have. Question is, shouldn't they be? You add that they are elected to represent the interests of the people who elect them. Question is, do they? How can we be sure that those who are elected, do actually take decisions that are in the interest of the people who voted for them? How can we know whether these politicians even know what these interests were in the first place, if they don't take a stand on issues? How can voters know whether such politician will even represent their interest or actually decide something that turns out to be against their interest? To verify this, don't we need to know in advance what kind of ideas those politicians have?

 

Some people may vote for politicians merely because they have nice faces. But are those voters not effectively deceived by the system, if they know little or nothing about what will make the respective politician decide one way or another? Shouldn't it be a matter of principle for politicians to let people know in advance how they stand on specific issues?

 

Some politicians only make vague promises. They spend much time during election campaigns traveling from place to place shaking hands and cuddling babies with a smiling face. But they don't spend time to articulate what they stand for. How can such people be trusted in principle and on principle? Politicians who seek a political career only for the glory, the power and the money, without having a real view on anything, are such politicians not rorting the system and disempowering, if not betraying, the very people who did put their trust in them?

 

I have one simple suggestion to make the system more honest: don't pay politicians! This will weed out the career politician. Because I think this is a great idea, I freely share this idea with you, taking the time to write things down and go over it in detail. Why can't politicians do the same? Shouldn't they do the same? Why should they be paid when they do not even bother to articulate their views, probably because they don't want to have much of a view in the first place? Is that the best system we can get, a system full of administrators and bureaucrats who demand to be paid for nothing else than lusting for power, while there are plenty of people out there willing to give their well-articulated views for free?

 

Paying salaries to people who are elected into office is a bad idea. It encourages career administrators to sit behind a desk in an office, over people who take a more principled stand. By paying politicians, the system bribes them to collaborate while discourage change. People who do want change should vote for someone who is more willing to take a stand, rather than to accept career politicians to merely seek to sit out their term in office (or even get a next term) for not rocking the boat. Not paying politicians will make the system more honest!

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Sooooo ... only rich people can make policy? Because I can't see anyone
else being able to serve as a senator if there is no compensation.

And who has time to research political issues except those paid to do
so? Some of us spend time reading or writing, but taking responsibility
for others requires a lot of time that most people don't have. We have
families to support.

And not to be rude, but I wouldn't pay you for this idea or any others
you've posted.

[Sam Carana]

On 5/31/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sooooo ... only rich people can make policy? Because I can't see anyone
else being able to serve as a senator if there is no compensation.

 

It doesn't take money to make policy. It takes dedication and it helps if you have a conscience. Paying poiliticians attracts greedy people who go into politics for the money. Not paying politicians encourages people to go into politics for the ideas they believe in. Politicians are way down the list of trustworthy persons in the public eye. Politicians are widely seen as being dishonest, as people who promise one thing and then do the opposite. This distrust can be remedied with one simple move, i.e. to stop paying politcians.

And who has time to research political issues except those paid to do so? Some of us spend time reading or writing, but taking responsibility for others requires a lot of time that most people don't have. We have families to support.

 

Should politicians be researchers? Don't we need people who already have ideas, rather than fools who are searching for ideas and who claim to be so objective and neutral that they have absolutely no idea what to say? Why not kick the parasites out of the system and get some honesty into politics?

 

And what constitutes political research anyway, in terms of funding, staff and results? Let's first look at institutions where some positive political research is done, like NGOs, interest groups, non-profit institutes and think tanks. They are typically funded by donations given by people who do care about specific ideas. Again, it's the fact that people care about these ideas that makes them fund these institutions. In regard to staff, the people who work at these institutions often receive low or no salaries and many contributions are made by volunteers. In regard to publications, such institutions often attract paying audiences when given speeches and lectures and they manage to sell their research results as publications. People who buy such publications often do so because they are interested or sympathize with earlier reports, i.e. they respect the name and reputation established by the institution. Importantly, they will not measure their success in terms of magazines sold, but in their political influence.

 

By contrast, let's have a look at the educational institutions that are engaged in "formal research", such as universities and colleges. This world is controlled by government, public funding, regulations and licences. Huge amounts of funding are given to them by the government bureaucracy. Their staff are generously paid, there is little or no control over what they claim to have achieved. Students are coerced into lecture rooms to act as captive audiences. Few people outside these institutions are interested in their boring publications. Little or nothing comes out of these institutions, especially in regard to politics. These institutions act like puppets, praising the very government bureaucracy they feed on, while promulgating loads of paper without substance. This is the negative side of research, costing taxpayers huge amounts of money that nobody benefits from. Even ivory tower lecturers who may be glad to get away with getting paid for doing nothing will in the end look back at a lifetime of wasted energy and efforts, having vainly exchanged references with other empty people who similarly never had any political influence whatsoever.

And not to be rude, but I wouldn't pay you for this idea or any others
you've posted.

What made you think I wanted to be paid, and of all people by you! Even if you insisted on paying me, I would refuse.

 

Some politicians seek to play the populist card, claiming to donate lots of money to charity. I say don't trust them! It may well be their highly-paid tax-consutant who advises them the charities, in between tips how to schedule their holidays so they can portray them as business expenses! Ask them where their charity donations go to and they may not even know what they supposedly felt so strongly about. If voters want to donate money to charity, than they can do so directly, rather than let some idle politicians play with their money to their own tax advantage.

 

Let's take a more principled step. I say that politicians shouldn't be allowed to decide the height of their own salaries. In fact, they shouldn't get any salary at all!

 

I am Sam, I have the plan 

[Sardonic Witt]

So again, your public servants need to be wealthy enough to be
self-sufficient and already have ideas (based on no inquiry or research
you say). Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. You seem to be
advocating an ignorant aristocracy run this government.

And your crap about education is getting annoying. Does this have to
come into every discussion.

Did you go to university? Were you home-schooled? What is your
experience with the things you talk about?

And you asked why you might want to be paid? Read your own words, when
you said you were giving us your idea for free, as if anyone would
consider paying for your ideas. And why by all people me? Do i deserve
more free stuff from you than most people?

And now politicians shouldn't be allowed to donate to charities because
you question their motives, but other people do not deserve the same
scrutiny? What the ?

[Aeantis]

Yes, that does put the government up for sale in a sense.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/1/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

So again, your public servants need to be wealthy enough to be
self-sufficient and already have ideas (based on no inquiry or research you say). Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. You seem to be advocating an ignorant aristocracy run this government.

 

There's a big difference between public servants and politicians, or at least there should be! Politicians should have ideas that public servants are to implement. Not the other way around! You seem out to twist things around or at the least you don't seem to want such a difference, because you seem to be supporting the arrogant inferiocracy that we now have.

 

By paying them, politicians effectively become public servants who don't have ideas but follow the orders of the bureaucracy. Yes, paying politicians makes them into servants not of the public but of the bureaucracy.

 

Politicians should NOT get paid, Politicians should not follow orders from public servants, instead the public servants should implement the political ideas articulated by the politicians. Politicians should have ideas and follow principles, without seeking or even contemplating to get bribed into doing the opposite!

 

The bureaucracy of public servants seeks to get higher and higher payments for all these bureacrats and it seeks to suck politicians into their scheme, under the false pretentions that this would result in a better aristocracy, whereas it does in fact result in an inferiocracy, as it advantages only the most greedy politicians who lack good ideas.

 

Instead, this bureacracy should do what the people want for a change! Public servants are supposed to implement the ideas that politicians have, they should not pay politicians to be silent when they rort the system!

And your crap about education is getting annoying. Does this have to come into every discussion.

 

Your rude language shows what kind of person you are! You brought up the issue of research, knowing very well that the education system is full of people who seek to get paid by taxpayers for research without substance. By contrast, as I said, there are many think tanks who don't claim taxpayers fiunding and yet gladly do research for free! It just shows how much biased the education system is and how much it is part of the problem. I can only assume that you are part of this and that you seek to attack me personally in a vain effort to discredit ideas that expose your own position.
 

Did you go to university? Were you home-schooled? What is your
experience with the things you talk about?

 

Yeah, let's get even more personal, what's your background? Teaching at a primary school in Sardinia? Or are you one of those politicians without ideas, afraid to lose the nice income you get for doing nothing?

And you asked why you might want to be paid?

 

No, I didn't ask you that, I said "What made you think I wanted to be paid, and of all people by you!" Read my words again!

 

Read your own words, when you said you were giving us your idea for free, as if anyone would consider paying for your ideas.

 

Yes, read my words again. YOU brought this up when you said "I wouldn't pay you for this idea or any others you've posted". Read your own words as well!

And why by all people me? Do i deserve more free stuff from you than most people?

 

I said "What made you think I wanted to be paid, and of all people by you!" Wouldn't anyone be hesitant to make a transaction with you? How can we trust your integrity, if you seem set to twist things. Your posts speak for themselves.

And now politicians shouldn't be allowed to donate to charities because you question their motives, but other people do not deserve the same scrutiny? What the ?

 

When politicians accept money for supposedly taking some political action and then instead spend (part of) that money on other causes, yes, then I have reason to ring the bell! 

 

You haven't brought up anything of substance. By default, this reconfirms my view that politicians should not be paid!

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Just because they aren't paid doesn't mean they aren't bribed. Politics
is the art of compromising. The Polis is the public will. You cannot
have public servants who are not politicians, whether they are paid or
not.

Politicians do what people want, just not all people all the time. They
do what their constituents want and lead when they think their
constituents want leadership.

>You brought up the
> issue of research, knowing very well that the education system is full of
> people who seek to get paid by taxpayers for research without substance.

Uh, I don't know this. You THINK this, and you're wrong. Don't project
your neurosis on me.

> By
> contrast, as I said, there are many think tanks who don't claim taxpayers
> fiunding and yet gladly do research for free!

Uh, look again. Those are privately funded think-tanks you're talking
about. Someone is paying the bill, and that someone has influence over
the process.

>It just shows how much biased
>the education system is and how much it is part of the problem. I can
only
>assume that you are part of this and that you seek to attack me
personally
>in a vain effort to discredit ideas that expose your own position.

Assume away. You're still wrong. I went to university and learned a
lot. I went to public school and it gave me what I needed. What about
you? What are your experiences?

>Yeah, let's get even more personal, what's your background? Teaching at a
> primary school in Sardinia? Or are you one of those politicians without
>ideas, afraid to lose the nice income you get for doing nothing?

No and no. Now will you answer my questions?

And i wrote "I wouldn't pay you for this idea or any others you've
posted" IN RESPONSE to your "I am Sam, I gave you this idea for free! "
and "Because I think this is a great idea, I freely share this idea
with you." Get a clue.

>I said "What made you think I wanted to be paid, and of all people by you!"
> Wouldn't anyone be hesitant to make a transaction with you? How can we trust
>your integrity, if you seem set to twist things. Your posts speak for

>themselves.

What are you TALKING ABOUT?

>When politicians accept money for supposedly taking some political action
>and then instead spend (part of) that money on other causes, yes,
then I
> have reason to ring the bell!
> You haven't brought up anything of substance. By default, this reconfirms
>my view that politicians should not be paid!

Then I am sad for you. You reconfirm a ridiculous view by ignoring my
questions and then disregarding my words? And this from the one who
thinks he can make education better?

Answer my questions. I don't need specifics, but I want to know that
you know what you're talking about.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/2/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just because they aren't paid doesn't mean they aren't bribed. Politics is the art of compromising.

 

Politicians shouldn't compromise on principle. People who have no ideas and no principles to start with shouldn't go into politics. Not paying politicians will come a long way to weed out the ones who are in it for the money.

The Polis is the public will. You cannot have public servants who are not politicians, whether they are paid or not.

 

Public servants implement the political ideas of the parliamentarians who are in government. Public servant who do the opposite and follow personal views should expect to be reprimanded, if not sacked. That doesn't always mean that public servants should follow the instructions of their superior offices. An obvious exception is whistleblowers, where people ring the bell because they spot corruption, etc, which should not be tolerated by government anyway. 

 

More generally, we should question the need for public servants in the first place. As far as I see it, most of them can be kicked out just like that, today rather than tomorrow. They're just a burden on society, a pest that should be taken out. It takes some vision to see the whole picture, but stopping to pay politicians is a good step in the right direction.  

Politicians do what people want, just not all people all the time. They do what their constituents want and lead when they think their constituents want leadership.

 

Well, here's news for you. People don't like to see politicians walk away with huge salaries for doing nothing more than to sit in luxurious offices paid for by taxpayers money! Put the issue before a referendum and I'll win this all the time!

>You brought up the
> issue of research, knowing very well that the education system is full of
> people who seek to get paid by taxpayers for research without substance.

Uh, I don't know this. You THINK this, and you're wrong. Don't project your neurosis on me.

 

You said: "And who has time to research political issues except those paid to do so?" As of this constituted an argument in favor of politicians being paid. The education system shows what happens if people receive taxpayers money to do "research".

> By
> contrast, as I said, there are many think tanks who don't claim taxpayers
> fiunding and yet gladly do research for free!

Uh, look again. Those are privately funded think-tanks you're talking about. Someone is paying the bill, and that someone has influence over the process.

 

Exactly, they are not paid by the taxpayer. That's why they are so much more successful than the researchers at universities. The latter are depending on taxpayers money.

>It just shows how much biased
>the education system is and how much it is part of the problem. I can
only
>assume that you are part of this and that you seek to attack me
personally
>in a vain effort to discredit ideas that expose your own position.

Assume away. You're still wrong. I went to university and learned a
lot. I went to public school and it gave me what I needed. What about you? What are your experiences?

 

Apparently, you haven't leanred much!

>Yeah, let's get even more personal, what's your background? Teaching at a
> primary school in Sardinia? Or are you one of those politicians without
>ideas, afraid to lose the nice income you get for doing nothing?

No and no. Now will you answer my questions?

 

No and no. We are discussing issues and your efforts to degenerate into personal attacks are not helpful.

And i wrote "I wouldn't pay  you for this idea or any others you've
posted" IN RESPONSE to your "I am Sam, I gave you this idea for free! "
and "Because I think this  is a great idea, I freely share this idea
with you." Get a clue.

 

Yet, you insist that politician who may use my idea should be paid for that! Now who's the hypocrite?

>I said "What made you think I wanted to be paid, and of all people by you!"
> Wouldn't anyone be hesitant to make a transaction with you? How can we trust
>your integrity, if you seem set to twist things. Your posts speak for
>themselves.

What are you TALKING ABOUT?

 

About the nonsense you keep adding. Meanwhile, I received several more private messages from people who support me for saying that politicians shouldn't be paid. If you cannot come up with substance, then stop adding this kind of nonsense, because it just shows that you have no arguments. 

 

I am Sam, I say it how it is!