Eliminating Corruption

If you pay politicians the equivalent to those on the private sector (e.g. consultants) then corruption would not be as rife.

So taking further steps to reward public service with money would attract people who have more integrity?  Or do you think it would reduce the temptation.  The ambitious and the greedy can never have enough.  It's how they define themselves.

If you pay politicians the equivalent to those on the private sector you would be the corruption.

LOOOLLL  >>3

We should just privatise the state.

All these are bad suggestions. What is needed is limited government. But the corrupted status quo will see to it that it won't get accomplished.

http://www.iwantapal.com/

Bump.

Who cares, there will always be corruption. There comes a time to stop trying so hard and just roll with it.

>>6
You should take a look at Singapore as an example. It pays it's prime minister the greatest salary for any world leader in the world ~$4m. And there's little to no corruption.

>>10
Considering his decisions have an impact on the entire Singapore economy which grosses 182000 million, I think this is worthy insurance.

>>10
>>11
I've taken a close look at Singapore.  I've even spent time there.  Chewing gum is illegal. Caning is a routine punishment.  You were saying?

It should be an honor to serve one's country government and impacting the lives of so many Americans. If a politician would be corrupt while being paid less than what they'd make in the private sector then I frankly believe that they are just unfit to serve no matter how much you pay them.

>>12
I'm saying we should think outside the box instead of just accepting what we're spoon fed, we should criticise the status quo and establishment like the radical rebels and artists we are.

Maybe we should accept the possibility that Singapore's authoritarian model is right instead of blindly declaring anything traditional or "reactionary" to be evil.

I know of quite a few people who deserve a good caning.

>>14
Corporal punishment could be used. However, I think powers could easily be misused.

>>15
The only way to effectively prevent power from being misused is to prevent power from being used at all.  And a government without power is just a waste of time and resources.

>>16
So what are left with Anarchy as a corruption free system?

>>17
Sadly, the political world does not obey Newton's first law and the specifics of human interaction require that individuals try to exert force on one's environment and one another's environment.  Some power, even if external, must exist to make sure that the power vacuum does not get filled by anything, whether or not that thing comes from without or from within the Anarchy.  A corruption free system must still exist independently of the anarchy, lest the anarchy become something by trying to defend itself.

>>17
Anarchy hardly counts as a corruption free system.  Rather than a single potentially corrupt government ruling over it's citizens, an anarchy is essentially the same as each "citizen" being ruled by a potentially corrupt government of one (himself).  So, if anything, it is more prone to corruption than a single government, if only due to the numbers involved and the law of averages.

Anarchy is only corruption free if each and every person is in and of themselves powerless.

High-level politicians already make bank from seats on boards, speaking engagements, and book deals.  The main problem is the campaign finance laws.  They're essentially written as exceptions to bribery statutes.  Repeal those laws, and start prosecuting violators for bribery.

How about we make government positions a job that someone has to PAY to be elected. I.E. they are paying money into the government. Therefore only individuals that are serious about serving the people would be willing to take the job.

>>21
If you make people pay to get these jobs, you preclude the service of anyone who cannot afford these fees, plus a term of service without an income.  In other words, you get the same rich assholes running for office.

>>22
Well instead of money perhaps make it something that is of worth to the person who wants to run. I.E. something they would need to sacrifice in order to run.

Obviously rich shit bags wouldnt have a problem throwing away money, but maybe a higher percentage of money, or maybe property or somthing of worth. whereas money would work for a poorer person because they have less money, so every little bit would count

A person already sacrifices their privacy when they choose to run.  Personal entrance barriers are not the issue, the problem is the people they have to rely upon to raise campaign funds.  Reform campaign finance, and you'll get candidates that can run on their true ideas.

>>24
So make all campaigns only state funded and make donnations from companies illegal?

>>25
Nah, letting the state control the funding of those challenging incumbents is dangerous.

Cap the individual donations at a relatively small amount, say $100 - $500, depending on the race.  Then, limit the amount of overall spending that can be done by campaigns, and crack down on the PACs.  Elections shouldn't be decided by 30 second ads on television.

>>26
>depending on the race
wat

>>27
He means what political level the election represents.  Mayor, Senator, Congress, Governor, Presidential, etc..

getting rid of capitalism would work.
because then there would be no government, so there would be no politicians to be corrupted.


communism can solve MOST problems :)

>>29
You are an moron!

>>30
Now there's a compelling argument. shithead

>>31
If you think even China is still an authentic communist nation, you're a fool. Communism has proven to not work when put into practice, jerkface.

>>29
Communism is unrealistic etc.. It ignores the fundamentals of reality.

Ideology, ethics, morality, religion, much of philosophy and all the freedom and rights people have fought for, the entire thing, is pretty much about getting people to act more like they would under some utopia like communism. Now at first this seems like an argument in favor of communism but really it just proves that communism doesn't teach us anything new or solve any problems, it's just an abstract theory about what is best (which is still up for debate, "people like to own shit" Zappa), not a practical theory about how to make things better like libertarianism.

Yeah, sure, capitalism is about greedy and greedy people can do mean things, however greed also motivates people to work hard and work smart and in the real world you need this to build a decent economy so you can solve material problems. Obviously we should limit capitalism when it oversteps it's bounds rather than totally eliminate it.

>>33
(not >>29 here) I agree with you. But I would say that a lot of the corruption that goes on in 'capitalism' is all this corporatism; the corporations run the show and they're in bed with the government (lobbying, backroom deals, etc.) If I were to advocate libertarianism, it wouldn't be the libertarianism that Alan Greenspan advocated. Because you can't even argue for a free market without first talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and legalizing competing currencies, for example, being that the Fed is statist control of the entire monetary system.

I do agree with you that communism doesn't work. It was given a try and it just didn't work when put into practice.

>>33
Communism is the perfect system on paper, but it never works in real life.  All it takes is one greedy faction to throw off the entire balance.  Plus, the only way to keep that balance is to have a government with ridiculous amounts of power over people's lives.  With such power, a communist government would be more susceptible to corruption, not less.

>>34
The problem I have with free market dogma is that the freer the market becomes, the more power and wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer entities.  Without some sort of action by the state to level the playing field, small and medium-sized businesses simply cannot compete with the economies of scale utilized by Wal-Mart and their ilk.

>>35
The problem I have with free market dogma is that the freer the market becomes, the more power and wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer entities.  Without some sort of action by the state to level the playing field, small and medium-sized businesses simply cannot compete with the economies of scale utilized by Wal-Mart and their ilk.

Right, but like I said before, you can't legitimately argue for a free market without first talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and completely getting rid of the corporatist machine that government and these corporatist groups hold.

Without some sort of action by the state to level the playing field, small and medium-sized businesses simply cannot compete with the economies of scale utilized by Wal-Mart and their ilk.

That's actually happening BECAUSE of statist control of the economy and subsidizing of corporate entities like Wal-Mart. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html

The thing is most libertarians don't advocate abolishing the corporate welfare that's going on because to support nothing but true small businesses and people that do actual producing in this country like this gentleman for instance http://www.owenrein.com/ is that it's not attractive. And I disagree with that, I think that they shouldn't support the idea of corporate welfare at all, because it actually goes against libertarian philosophy, at least the kind that most American libertarians advocate.

That's not to say that the government can't do absolutely nothing in terms of the economy. What should be done is to lower the taxes, and to lower, the better. I can understand your feelings about "free market dogma", but those who advocated for a free market in the past were a joke, because while they're advocating for such a market, in reality they're supporting the corporate welfare, and subsidizing harmful entities like Wal-Mart.

>>36
I find this fascinating.  I have spent most of my life as an unreconstructed, FDR-style liberal.  But, perhaps I have been wrong.  Perhaps the government's attempts to influence the market have led to the influx of corporate welfare that is killing this country.

Most people are retarded sheep, who are happy to serve the powers that be.  But, the service of the people has been exploited to the extreme, and now it is reaching critical, unsustainable levels.  Large concentrations of wealth and power, like Wal-Mart, make huge profits, but they do not pass on these earnings to the employees that create them.

How does the economic ship right itself?  How do we build a world that makes the best of our human resources, while giving those people the comfortable life that they have earned?  Can true free market principles be utilized to curb the influence of corporate giants?

It must be about more than lower taxes, how does the libertarian outlook benefit mankind?

>>37
You bring up quite some interesting questions. I, personally, myself wouldn't know how to go about implementing such a thing. Abolishing the corporate welfare will no doubt be a difficult task as the very few who profit greatly from it will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. That much, I can assure you.

Anti-corporatist libertarians like myself advocate for people to regain control of their means of production, and people who have control over the means of their own production generally are freer than people who don't. And some of my liberal friends say that the government should help in achieving this objective. I agree, but my view differs from theirs in that they feel that there needs to be more government involvement in doing so, whereas I say there needs to be much less.

>>38
What if I want someone else to control my means of production? Will I be executed if I engage in free trade?

>>38
Control of the means of production?  Really?  You sound like a Marxist, not a conservative.  The people who own the means of production will control it, that is how it has always has been, even with socialism (though they use propaganda to tell the people otherwise).

The question is: How do you keep this merchant class in check, and answerable to the people?  How do you utilize the economic benefits of a market economy without letting the corporate interests take control of the country?  Someone please answer these questions, goddammit. I think I've found a flaw in the liberal worldview (my worldview), but I can't find any ideas to validate it.