3 ms·
> instead of a body of the people specifically selected to improve the lives of everyone I doubt majority of people have time to go research credibility and vo
by usaphp 8y ago
> instead of a body of the people specifically selected to improve the lives of everyone
I doubt majority of people have time to go research credibility and vote for local politicians and other who you say “specifically selected to improve lives of everyone”
- ams6110 8y agoNor is "improve the lives of everyone" likely even in the top 10 of most politicians reasons for running for office. Power is power, and whether it's in business or government it attracts people who like to wield it.
- arcticbull 8y agoHence checks and balances, which the wealthy attempting influence don't have.
- arcticbull 8y agoHow often do you get the opportunity to vet the credibility of rich people claims, let alone stop them? If you aren't electing people for the greater good why are you voting? What makes the wealthy any more likely to be credible?
- usaphp 8y agoI am not saying rich people are more credible. What I am saying is that people who were “selected” by voting have also an agenda to get rich and get power. At least rich people are already rich and are can not be easily influenced by somebody else, like young politicians are.
- arcticbull 8y agoThats the thing about money, nobody ever has enough. I'd even argue having a pile of it makes you more likely to be influenced as the risks of losing your job are smaller. Either way, the more compelling argument to me is politicians are subject to checks and balances.