[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
nobody wants to be ruled.[/quote]
I think you are dead wrong on this, tho I like much of what you say[/quote]
Why? Can you think of a situation where a person voluntarily decides against his own will? I’m not even sure that’s possible.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
This is why I somewhat like Thomas Sowell’s idea of paying Congressmen and women $1M per year with term limits of course. It would not only help take away some of the financial incentive to allow their votes to be bought but would encourage the best and brightest among us, who wouldn’t otherwise give up the large income they make in the private sector, to run for office on their principles. [/quote]
I don’t believe this would end corruption by any means. 1M a year isn’t encouraging many of the best and brightest to give up anything really. And I don’t see how an increased salary is going to reduce the pressure on personal favors. Companies have a LOT of money invested in influencing people of power. 1M per year doesn’t scratch the surface of what type of money is spent on campaigns.
Though I do support the term limits idea and I like Sowell I just don’t believe this would have the effect he thinks. 1 million for four years for me would be a lot of money, but how many humans would turn down the opportunity to make more? Greed doesn’t stop at the 1M mark 
[quote]H factor wrote:
Greed doesn’t stop at the 1M mark [/quote]
Thanks, that’s where I was headed.
Nick and H Factor are right, paying legislators a $1 million salary will not stop them from taking bribes and contributions from special interests.
It’s amazing how few people know that laws are written by lobbyists and not politicians.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious what it would be like in Nickviarville , please give me a detailed description . All the nuts and bolts
[/quote]
I have no desire to either rule or be ruled. I view anyone who wants to rule as an aggressor, whom I should be justified in defending myself from. I view anyone who wants to be ruled as a fictional character-nobody wants to be ruled, most just believe that THEY are in charge of others.
The only way I could give you a detailed description of a society is if it was to be centrally planned.[/quote]
so you want to live in a society with no rules ? infrastructure or taxes ? just you and nature ? People ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
so you want to live in a society with no rules ? infrastructure or taxes ? just you and nature ? People ?
[/quote]
Well, technically, I want to rule my property and let others rule theirs. I want the infrastructure that the market creates. I don’t like taxes, only payments. There’s no getting away from nature; that’s what we try to do in our current society. I’m not sure what your “People ?” question means.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Our government has managed to convince people that voting is a natural right, and that one has a right to decide how property which is owned by others is used. [/quote]
Of course since property and people do not exist in vacuums and life is finite. When it comes to some forms of property what is yours today will belong to someone else at some point just as it belonged to someone before you. Go to the inner cities and you’ll see what the “mine, mine, mine,” attitude creates. The best places to live just happen to be where people believe in a sense of community.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Nick and H Factor are right, paying legislators a $1 million salary will not stop them from taking bribes and contributions from special interests.
It’s amazing how few people know that laws are written by lobbyists and not politicians. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t it stop some of them? Politicians take bribes and are influenced by lobbyists because they want money. If a Senator is guaranteed $6M for a single term the incentive to take a bribe is reduced. It would also make it more expensive to buy votes which in and of itself is a good thing in my opinion. No one is saying this would be a cure-all but I believe it would help.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Why wouldn’t it stop some of them? Politicians take bribes and are influenced by lobbyists because they want money. If a Senator is guaranteed $6M for a single term the incentive to take a bribe is reduced. It would also make it more expensive to buy votes which in and of itself is a good thing in my opinion. No one is saying this would be a cure-all but I believe it would help.
[/quote]
Be careful…it’s a small step from there to capitalism/libertarianism.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Why wouldn’t it stop some of them? Politicians take bribes and are influenced by lobbyists because they want money. If a Senator is guaranteed $6M for a single term the incentive to take a bribe is reduced. It would also make it more expensive to buy votes which in and of itself is a good thing in my opinion. No one is saying this would be a cure-all but I believe it would help.
[/quote]
Be careful…it’s a small step from there to capitalism/libertarianism.
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean there. If you think I’m a liberal you’re mistaken. I am strongly in favor of limited government and free markets.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Why wouldn’t it stop some of them? Politicians take bribes and are influenced by lobbyists because they want money. If a Senator is guaranteed $6M for a single term the incentive to take a bribe is reduced. It would also make it more expensive to buy votes which in and of itself is a good thing in my opinion. No one is saying this would be a cure-all but I believe it would help.
[/quote]
Be careful…it’s a small step from there to capitalism/libertarianism.
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean there. If you think I’m a liberal you’re mistaken. I am strongly in favor of limited government and free markets.
[/quote]
I mean this: You have proposed that paying representatives huge sums of money will help prevent corruption. I agree. If market forces will improve our existing government structure, why not let market forces determine what structure we have?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
so you want to live in a society with no rules ? infrastructure or taxes ? just you and nature ? People ?
[/quote]
Well, technically, I want to rule my property and let others rule theirs. I want the infrastructure that the market creates. I don’t like taxes, only payments. There’s no getting away from nature; that’s what we try to do in our current society. I’m not sure what your “People ?” question means. [/quote]
Well , what infrastructure has the market created besides a few logging roads . No electricity. No freeways no schools . probably some where in a days travel for supplies .
The people I am speaking about are your fellow man . Do you care to live in a community or out in nature with you , your gun , fishing pole and gardening utensils ?
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
This is why I somewhat like Thomas Sowell’s idea of paying Congressmen and women $1M per year with term limits of course. It would not only help take away some of the financial incentive to allow their votes to be bought but would encourage the best and brightest among us, who wouldn’t otherwise give up the large income they make in the private sector, to run for office on their principles. [/quote]
I don’t believe this would end corruption by any means. 1M a year isn’t encouraging many of the best and brightest to give up anything really. And I don’t see how an increased salary is going to reduce the pressure on personal favors. Companies have a LOT of money invested in influencing people of power. 1M per year doesn’t scratch the surface of what type of money is spent on campaigns.
Though I do support the term limits idea and I like Sowell I just don’t believe this would have the effect he thinks. 1 million for four years for me would be a lot of money, but how many humans would turn down the opportunity to make more? Greed doesn’t stop at the 1M mark [/quote]
True, but I think there might be some solutions for this…
All bank accounts and stocks are declared to be audited every year.
Any money that is from a corporation, lobbyist, or private donor and not your salary stipend means you are automatically kicked out of office and lose the ability to run again for 10 years or 2 Senate terms.
You are prohibited from working for or receiving any money from private firms in the biggest lobby areas for 5 years after your last term ends. During this time your accounts are also audited.
Term limits are instituted.
Sort of the political version of Germany’s DUI policy: screw up one time and you lose your license for a decade. Do it again and you never drive EVER. No mercy.
I’d be ok paying them lots of money doing this. We could even set up a smaller stipend of say 250k for their 5 year post Congress “wash-out” period.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Well , what infrastructure has the market created besides a few logging roads . No electricity. No freeways no schools . probably some where in a days travel for supplies .
The people I am speaking about are your fellow man . Do you care to live in a community or out in nature with you , your gun , fishing pole and gardening utensils ?
[/quote]
You must be kidding…
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
nobody wants to be ruled.[/quote]
I think you are dead wrong on this, tho I like much of what you say[/quote]
Why? Can you think of a situation where a person voluntarily decides against his own will? I’m not even sure that’s possible.[/quote]
A person deciding against there own will might be impossible, depending on the semantics of exactly how you mean it
I agree this is impossible
This is not very rare at all, I can think of two big circumstances related
a. Passing on the decision because the other guy is more knowledgeable on a topic
b. Passing on a decision because one is not comfortable enough with the answer they’ve got. Possibly because of morals or ethics, so they pass the choice to someone else
Give enough leeway on enough topics under points 2a and 2b, and one has chosen to be ruled. Examples are easy - I can do you one better and even explain why, or a part of why
Democratic dictatorships look like a good example - I’ll go with that
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
A person deciding against there own will might be impossible, depending on the semantics of exactly how you mean it
I agree this is impossible[/quote]
-Me too.
-I can think of tons of situations like this. He has just decided that he doesn’t care enough to make a decision. However, if you decide to take your wife/girlfriend/whatever out to dinner, decide to let her pick, and she decides you two should dine on cow turds, are you going to be eating cow turds for dinner, or are you going to make your own decision?
[quote]This is not very rare at all, I can think of two big circumstances related
a. Passing on the decision because the other guy is more knowledgeable on a topic
b. Passing on a decision because one is not comfortable enough with the answer they’ve got. Possibly because of morals or ethics, so they pass the choice to someone else[/quote]
-I agree, but a. and b. are pretty much the same. I will be calling an electrician tomorrow for these very reasons. However, I will not be calling a painter to do my electrical work because my wife and kids think our dining room needs to be painted.
[quote]Give enough leeway on enough topics under points 2a and 2b, and one has chosen to be ruled. Examples are easy - I can do you one better and even explain why, or a part of why
Democratic dictatorships look like a good example - I’ll go with that[/quote]
-Neither is choosing to be ruled. In both situations, the person is still in full control of himself. If an electrician shows up to my house tomorrow and seems like a moron, I can tell him to leave.
-Democratic dictatorships are a good example of what?
Each situation you listed differs from government in a significant way: the person CHOOSING to allow someone else to make the decision is not obligated to go with the decision the other person makes. That is not at all the way any government I’m aware of operates.
Let’s assume(I really have no idea) that the U.S. comes as close to that as any country. In the U.S., we vote on representatives. If 50.000000000001%(of whatever population) chooses one candidate, that means 49.999999999999% have not decided to give that candidate the power to make decisions for them. However, 49.999999999999% will still be obligated to do what that representative tells them to do. We also have to consider the fact that only maybe 60% of the population votes-perhaps because many do not like any of their choices-many would prefer to make their own decisions. We can now see that 50.000000000001% of 60% of the population gets to decide who makes their rules.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Well , what infrastructure has the market created besides a few logging roads . No electricity. No freeways no schools . probably some where in a days travel for supplies .
The people I am speaking about are your fellow man . Do you care to live in a community or out in nature with you , your gun , fishing pole and gardening utensils ?
[/quote]
You must be kidding…[/quote]
please tell me about this Nickville place , I have never heard of a place like that
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Each situation you listed differs from government in a significant way: the person CHOOSING to allow someone else to make the decision is not obligated to go with the decision the other person makes. That is not at all the way any government I’m aware of operates.
[/quote]
I didn’t actually list any situations besides democratic dictatorships - which is government, and there is an obligation. I wrote mine extremely broadly as I usually do - nongovernment examples did fit, but so does government
[quote]
Let’s assume(I really have no idea) that the U.S. comes as close to that as any country. In the U.S., we vote on representatives. If 50.000000000001%(of whatever population) chooses one candidate, that means 49.999999999999% have not decided to give that candidate the power to make decisions for them. However, 49.999999999999% will still be obligated to do what that representative tells them to do. [/quote]
Here is what I was getting at
The 50.000000000001% is not actually ruling. They are choosing to be ruled. 100% will still be obligated to do what that representative tells them to do
(…Unless they change their mind… but that is making a new choice. “Obligation” being a relative term, perhaps)
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I have no desire to either rule or be ruled. I view anyone who wants to rule as an aggressor, whom I should be justified in defending myself from. I view anyone who wants to be ruled as a fictional character-nobody wants to be ruled, most just believe that THEY are in charge of others.
[/quote]
They had decided to be ruled by day 3
They may have later enjoyed the thought that they were ruling Samuel. That feeling of power may have even been part of the selling point, but Samuel was the only former slave that did not decide to be ruled
Yea they are fictional characters but the thought processes are realistic enough, in my opinion
it may be a little long but the insight is very good , it covers the disconnect that comes from being freed from taxation and in a sense explains how we lose control of our Government