5 ms·

my naive solution: politicians become monks. They go without. They are provided modest housing and budgets. I'm sure there are zounds of issues with it, but I l

my naive solution: politicians become monks. They go without. They are provided modest housing and budgets. I'm sure there are zounds of issues with it, but I like to imagine servant leaders who go without to do more for the communities they serve.

slaymaker1907 6y ago
That doesn't really solve the problem because how do we make them become monks? We already have a blueprint on how to hold them accountable: hold them to the same standard as those working in financial services with access to PII. Essentially make it impossible for them to be active traders; they can even still invest in ETFs and hands off advisors/roboadvisors like Betterment.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Even then, do you want people who are incentivized to pump-and-dump the macro market during their term? You'd almost need to enforce this for 10 years or more, even if it goes beyond their term.
skapadia 6y ago
I've had a similar thought on many occasions, but even then, they will find alternative ways to acquire wealth and power. The clergy of many religions, in aggregate, have a lot of wealth and power, even if the wealth is not directly in their name. No system can prevent humans from exercising their basic instincts, emotions, urges, needs, and wants.
- passerby1 6y ago
  In my opinion the only thing stops that is the fear of punishment. But then the initial question arises: how to prove that there was a broken law in gaining more wealth/power (by chance vs intentionally). It feels like this question was asked for thousands of years.
wpietri 6y ago
I'd be happy with that, but perhaps an easier solution is to make them moderately wealthy. Pay them a top 5% salary with a guaranteed pension for life, plus mandatory open finances for life. Then there's much less incentive to resort to graft.
- sethammons 6y ago
  Love it, that’s the other side of the coin I like
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The income for a US senator or congressman is already literally exactly at the 95th percentile at 174,000. Making someone wealthy doesn't remove their incentive to gather more wealth it gives them a stake and incentive to be more effectively corrupt.
  - socialist_coder 6y ago
    175k is not enough... it needs to be 300k at least. maybe 500k. Something high enough that the risk-reward for corruption is less attractive. 175k is a nice life but not even remotely enough to have the lifestyle you'd expect for someone running our country.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      It is the nature of ambition not to be satiated. people making millions of dollars per year want to make billions. Billionaires strive to exceed their peers. Our leaders already have a lot to lose. Predictably most of our corruption isn't high risk blatant illegality its the boringly legal influence peddling where regular donations buy your "totally legitimate" interests and concerns additional consideration by decision makers instead of paying n dollars for a particular law. There is no reason to believe paying them 2-3x as much so they can be really wealthy would lead to electing better leaders. Our lawmakers make 175k directly in salary and aprox 1 million dollars for staff and 143k for office expenses. This is not including the cost of the lifetime pension they will qualify after only 5 years and lifetime health plan for themselves and spouse after 10 years in the house or 8 in the senate. Hint I know they pay I think 28% of the cost of their gold plan. Lifetime a 2 term senator will cost the tax payers near 18 million dollars in total.
mustafa_pasi 6y ago
The Catholic Church tried this and it did not work. Monks and nuns still become greedy, still compete for positions of power and still abuse their power when they get it.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
  Maybe it helped for a while?

slaymaker1907 6y ago

That doesn't really solve the problem because how do we make them become monks? We already have a blueprint on how to hold them accountable: hold them to the same standard as those working in financial services with access to PII. Essentially make it impossible for them to be active traders; they can even still invest in ETFs and hands off advisors/roboadvisors like Betterment.

pishpash 6y ago
Even then, do you want people who are incentivized to pump-and-dump the macro market during their term? You'd almost need to enforce this for 10 years or more, even if it goes beyond their term.

skapadia 6y ago

I've had a similar thought on many occasions, but even then, they will find alternative ways to acquire wealth and power. The clergy of many religions, in aggregate, have a lot of wealth and power, even if the wealth is not directly in their name. No system can prevent humans from exercising their basic instincts, emotions, urges, needs, and wants.

passerby1 6y ago
In my opinion the only thing stops that is the fear of punishment. But then the initial question arises: how to prove that there was a broken law in gaining more wealth/power (by chance vs intentionally). It feels like this question was asked for thousands of years.

wpietri 6y ago

I'd be happy with that, but perhaps an easier solution is to make them moderately wealthy. Pay them a top 5% salary with a guaranteed pension for life, plus mandatory open finances for life. Then there's much less incentive to resort to graft.

sethammons 6y ago
Love it, that’s the other side of the coin I like
michaelmrose 6y ago
The income for a US senator or congressman is already literally exactly at the 95th percentile at 174,000. Making someone wealthy doesn't remove their incentive to gather more wealth it gives them a stake and incentive to be more effectively corrupt.
- socialist_coder 6y ago
  175k is not enough... it needs to be 300k at least. maybe 500k. Something high enough that the risk-reward for corruption is less attractive. 175k is a nice life but not even remotely enough to have the lifestyle you'd expect for someone running our country.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    It is the nature of ambition not to be satiated. people making millions of dollars per year want to make billions. Billionaires strive to exceed their peers. Our leaders already have a lot to lose. Predictably most of our corruption isn't high risk blatant illegality its the boringly legal influence peddling where regular donations buy your "totally legitimate" interests and concerns additional consideration by decision makers instead of paying n dollars for a particular law. There is no reason to believe paying them 2-3x as much so they can be really wealthy would lead to electing better leaders. Our lawmakers make 175k directly in salary and aprox 1 million dollars for staff and 143k for office expenses. This is not including the cost of the lifetime pension they will qualify after only 5 years and lifetime health plan for themselves and spouse after 10 years in the house or 8 in the senate. Hint I know they pay I think 28% of the cost of their gold plan. Lifetime a 2 term senator will cost the tax payers near 18 million dollars in total.

mustafa_pasi 6y ago

The Catholic Church tried this and it did not work. Monks and nuns still become greedy, still compete for positions of power and still abuse their power when they get it.

NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
Maybe it helped for a while?