5 ms·

Politicians should not be allowed to hold private property while in office. Have all their holdings liquidated when they get in power, at reasonable market rate

by konjin 6y ago

Politicians should not be allowed to hold private property while in office. Have all their holdings liquidated when they get in power, at reasonable market rates, and have them put in a national fund used for things like pensions, from which they are allowed to withdraw a fraction depending on their projected life expectancy. They then have a very large incentive to keep the country solvent and working well for the future. It's rather more urgent for someone to keep public hospitals running well when they can't afford to use private ones. The same is true for public transport, housing and all other goods. And if a fraction of the population won't be willing to ever run for office again: so much the better. Do you want politicians running the country who expect that their tenure would see it become worse?

chrisseaton 6y ago
You think people should have to sell all their personal possessions to become a politician? I don’t get why people expect this kind of ludicrous flagellation of politicians. Do you want monks or normal people?
- konjin 6y ago
  If you want to run the country you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is, since you expect the rest of us to die for it.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > If you want to run the country you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is, since you expect the rest of us to die for it. Do you have this attitude in all fields? Researchers who want a job in a lab to tackle a disease should only get it if they agree to be infected with the disease so they work harder, maybe? Police officers have to agree to be robbed once a month so they experience being a victim? That could be another one. To check they’re putting their money where their mouth is, right?
    - konjin 6y ago
      We give politicians the power of life and death over us, they should be held to a higher standard. If you can't stop being greedy enough to give up your 7 mansions and get paid their equivalent in cash as everyone else who has to work and depend on a pension I don't see why you should be trusted with bombing Syria for the umpteenth time. It would almost look like you're doing it to get your shares in Raytheon a bump (something I thank Joe for since my shares in murder inc have done wonderfully since his election). Doctors on the other hand don't go around cutting legs off for our own good. Do try and understand that last sentence, it would be dreadfully boring if you said the same thing for a third time.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate? What are you offering to get these higher standards? Sounds like you want to punish them rather than reward them for trying to lead? > Do try and understand that last sentence Not sure why you’ve decided to be snarky like this?
        Nextgrid 6y ago
        > If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate? The top comment suggests that higher compensation by itself doesn't help solve the problem.
        konjin 6y ago
        > If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate? They will be, but they only gain new wealth at the same rate that everyone else in the country can. No more insider trading for congress, or anyone else elected. >Not sure why you’ve decided to be snarky like this? You were being very boring, and now it turns out that you didn't even understand the first thing I said. A pointless debate that's been a waste of time all around. Do better next time.
        deleted 6y ago
- manicdee 6y ago
  I'd prefer monks or normal people over ruthless lobbyists for vested interests. If we don't insist on completely absolving themselves of vested interest, there's no way we can get close to ensuring our politicians are free of conflicts of interest. At present in Australia for example we have at least one politician whose brother owns a failing/failed coal mining company, and that politician is pushing a coal-fired green energy future.

by konjin 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

You think people should have to sell all their personal possessions to become a politician? I don’t get why people expect this kind of ludicrous flagellation of politicians. Do you want monks or normal people?

konjin 6y ago
If you want to run the country you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is, since you expect the rest of us to die for it.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > If you want to run the country you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is, since you expect the rest of us to die for it. Do you have this attitude in all fields? Researchers who want a job in a lab to tackle a disease should only get it if they agree to be infected with the disease so they work harder, maybe? Police officers have to agree to be robbed once a month so they experience being a victim? That could be another one. To check they’re putting their money where their mouth is, right?
  - konjin 6y ago
    We give politicians the power of life and death over us, they should be held to a higher standard. If you can't stop being greedy enough to give up your 7 mansions and get paid their equivalent in cash as everyone else who has to work and depend on a pension I don't see why you should be trusted with bombing Syria for the umpteenth time. It would almost look like you're doing it to get your shares in Raytheon a bump (something I thank Joe for since my shares in murder inc have done wonderfully since his election). Doctors on the other hand don't go around cutting legs off for our own good. Do try and understand that last sentence, it would be dreadfully boring if you said the same thing for a third time.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate? What are you offering to get these higher standards? Sounds like you want to punish them rather than reward them for trying to lead? > Do try and understand that last sentence Not sure why you’ve decided to be snarky like this?
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        > If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate? The top comment suggests that higher compensation by itself doesn't help solve the problem.
      - konjin 6y ago
        > If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate? They will be, but they only gain new wealth at the same rate that everyone else in the country can. No more insider trading for congress, or anyone else elected. >Not sure why you’ve decided to be snarky like this? You were being very boring, and now it turns out that you didn't even understand the first thing I said. A pointless debate that's been a waste of time all around. Do better next time.
        deleted 6y ago
manicdee 6y ago
I'd prefer monks or normal people over ruthless lobbyists for vested interests. If we don't insist on completely absolving themselves of vested interest, there's no way we can get close to ensuring our politicians are free of conflicts of interest. At present in Australia for example we have at least one politician whose brother owns a failing/failed coal mining company, and that politician is pushing a coal-fired green energy future.