5 ms·

If we ban wealth, we should also ban career politicians. Otherwise we are just trading one unjust ruler for another.

gnramires 3y ago
I think tying politician salary to median income (or even some weighted average of median and the lower percentiles) could be very good for politics. Along with remaking the system for lobbying (buying influence), which should be done in a very careful setting (maybe a public or semi-public forum), to bring legitimate concerns to politicians and not buy influence... (cost should not be a significant barrier to reaching congress members as much as legitimacy!)
RhodesianHunter 3y ago
The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career.
- bendbro 3y ago
  In this fantasy wealth is banned so that problem is solved. Perhaps we conscript our leaders via some random process?
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  > The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. I think that ship has sailed. > Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career. Many elected political offices get paid a reasonably good salary, higher than median wages. Many people change careers after 5 or 10 years too. Even the commoners. So I'm don't buy this assertion.
- kilolima 3y ago
  Women do it all the time...
  - Timon3 3y ago
    And they suffer for it by way of worse job chances, lower salary and in general worse career prospects.
hayst4ck 3y ago
This seems like the type of thing that feels good, but I don't buy that it is good without more justification. I've never read any compelling support for the idea, it is almost always presented as obviously a good idea with little justification. It's proponents rarely seem to feel like it needs justifying and I greatly disagree. The "revolving door" seems problematic. The politician -> industry bribery pathway seems like it would be strengthened by policy such as this. The root problem is corruption, not experience. Corruption is a force that is happy to work on any system and I see no reason to believe that term limits would do anything to reduce corruption, only modulate it. If the positions themselves are limited, it just pushes power and seniority into supporting positions such as staffers or the party apparatus itself, potentially even the think tanks/lobbyist groups that are often the entities that write the laws anyway. The greater issue is that you are describing an idea of how to reduce corruption in terms of what politicians need to do. An iron law of reality is that you cannot control other people, at best you can influence them. If you want to solve political problems you must ask "what can I do?" because talking about what politicians should do is glorified masturbation. The answers are at least: Get directly involved and run for a position of power and don't be corrupt when provided the opportunity to be Never choose loyalty to a person over loyalty to ideas. Loyalty is the unit of corruption. Get directly involved in the bureaucracy and use your position to do good and stifle bad Use your position at work to practice professional ethics Get involved with a union to provide consequences via striking, show solidarity Get involved with investigative journalism to uncover corruption and speak truth to power Get involved with campaigns to get candidates you don't believe are corrupt into positions of power Get a good grasp on what fighting authoritarianism with force requires and meditate deeply on the use of guillotines or analogues When someone else puts themselves at risk or sacrifices themselves to fight power, venerate them Understand that "If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny." Educate yourself on the history of revolutionary movements and try to make complex ideas simple and viral Understand that cynicism is coerced consent and that cynicism does not change anything
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Yes, see the entire field of anarchism

I think tying politician salary to median income (or even some weighted average of median and the lower percentiles) could be very good for politics. Along with remaking the system for lobbying (buying influence), which should be done in a very careful setting (maybe a public or semi-public forum), to bring legitimate concerns to politicians and not buy influence... (cost should not be a significant barrier to reaching congress members as much as legitimacy!)

RhodesianHunter 3y ago

The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career.

bendbro 3y ago
In this fantasy wealth is banned so that problem is solved. Perhaps we conscript our leaders via some random process?
throwawaylinux 3y ago
> The problem with term limits is that they discourage the lower classes from getting involved in politics. I think that ship has sailed. > Only the wealthy can afford to just take a 4-6 year break from their career. Many elected political offices get paid a reasonably good salary, higher than median wages. Many people change careers after 5 or 10 years too. Even the commoners. So I'm don't buy this assertion.
kilolima 3y ago
Women do it all the time...
- Timon3 3y ago
  And they suffer for it by way of worse job chances, lower salary and in general worse career prospects.

hayst4ck 3y ago

This seems like the type of thing that feels good, but I don't buy that it is good without more justification. I've never read any compelling support for the idea, it is almost always presented as obviously a good idea with little justification. It's proponents rarely seem to feel like it needs justifying and I greatly disagree. The "revolving door" seems problematic. The politician -> industry bribery pathway seems like it would be strengthened by policy such as this. The root problem is corruption, not experience. Corruption is a force that is happy to work on any system and I see no reason to believe that term limits would do anything to reduce corruption, only modulate it. If the positions themselves are limited, it just pushes power and seniority into supporting positions such as staffers or the party apparatus itself, potentially even the think tanks/lobbyist groups that are often the entities that write the laws anyway. The greater issue is that you are describing an idea of how to reduce corruption in terms of what politicians need to do. An iron law of reality is that you cannot control other people, at best you can influence them. If you want to solve political problems you must ask "what can I do?" because talking about what politicians should do is glorified masturbation. The answers are at least: Get directly involved and run for a position of power and don't be corrupt when provided the opportunity to be Never choose loyalty to a person over loyalty to ideas. Loyalty is the unit of corruption. Get directly involved in the bureaucracy and use your position to do good and stifle bad Use your position at work to practice professional ethics Get involved with a union to provide consequences via striking, show solidarity Get involved with investigative journalism to uncover corruption and speak truth to power Get involved with campaigns to get candidates you don't believe are corrupt into positions of power Get a good grasp on what fighting authoritarianism with force requires and meditate deeply on the use of guillotines or analogues When someone else puts themselves at risk or sacrifices themselves to fight power, venerate them Understand that "If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny." Educate yourself on the history of revolutionary movements and try to make complex ideas simple and viral Understand that cynicism is coerced consent and that cynicism does not change anything

wahnfrieden 3y ago

Yes, see the entire field of anarchism