/sci/ - Science & Math

Easy answer: They write their own checks, and make their own retirement plans (congress retirement plan: full salary every year until you die.).

>>3650316

/thread

>>3650316
But having a Government's lifestyle reflect that of its population is only natural, right? How did it get to the state it's in? Why can't we change it?

>>3650292
Prolly cause no one would want to be shat on for doing anything important, and inevitably, they'd just raise minimum wage to inflate the whole economy.

...anyways, their pay is not the problem..hell, money ain't the problem.

The problem is people are selfish, and they've decided thats fine, and modeled the government and capitalism that way.

>>3650325
People don't have real power. I mean, we can vote people in, but we can't just waltz up and say: Here's how it's going to be fucking done from now on, you greedy dicks. We can just decide who gets to fuck us over.

>>3650316
>congress retirement plan: full salary every year until you die

Meanwhile, my 62 year old Grandma had to go back to work after her husband died.

I only speak for italy, but in here it's because there are the same people in parlamanet, and they have been there since 40 years. they are all old motherfuckers and the only young ones that manage to get into poitics are the ones that are REALLY good at sucking up.

if only you knew all the privileges they have compared to us

>>3650325
Because it doesn't even really matter anyway. Their salaries aren't making them super rich, the insider trading is.

>>3650325

The usual argument is that bureaucrats need a large salary otherwise they'll take bribes and embezzle funds. Except, of course, politicians still take bribes and embezzle funds. Do they do so to a lesser degree than had their salary been lower? Maybe.

I think it's perfectly fair.

The problem is it doesn't really solve anything. Politicians will still get huge amounts of campaign funds from big corporations, and then get very well paying jobs afterwards in return for basically functioning as corporate drones in terms of voting. If they don't do it, they don't get funds and thus don't get elected because money controls elections. Fixing that requires major reconsideration of our values and what we really want our society to be like.

tl;dr its cool but doesn't solve the real problem.

>>3650331
>they'd just raise minimum wage to inflate the whole economy

Except that would devalue their money. The intent is for them to raise the overall lifestyle of the population as it would reciprocally improve theirs. The only way to improve theirs, is to improve others.

>The problem is people are selfish

Regardless, it would likely lead to more balanced decision making.

>>3650341
Because as we all know you cease to be a person once you hold a government office.

>>3650316
Holy shit is that true? What the fuck makes them think that they deserve to get full salary after retirement over someone who literally breaks their fucking back on the job for decades and is dependent on the money he/she saved up and shitty social security funds to get by?

>>3650360
You would only get the bottom of the barrel (the argument goes...)

But seriously, money is not the issue with governance.

>>3650325
>How did it get to the state it's in? Why can't we change it?

Because, brace yourself, AMERICANS ONLY EVER ELECT LAWYERS WITH ENOUGH MONETARY BACKING FROM CORPORATE AMERICA.

Ever notice how almost every single one of them is a lawyer? Big money needs someone with a pretty face, and a quick tongue. Lawyers are their solution.

>>3650355
>I think it's perfectly fair

The Australian Government used to work for free.

I think OP's idea is reasonable really. It would encourage people to join politics because they want to make change for the better, not for the benefits. It should be a hard job that rewards you by allowing you to help others, not for paying well.

They tried doing this with their health care plans (which are fucking awesome). Make them all switch to Medicare-type health insurance. They currently have a single-payer system (SOCIALISM) and their families are completely covered.

They didn't like the voters fucking with their health care so they nixed the idea.

>>3650378
I know shit all about politics outside of Italian. Is this generally the case? Are lawyers dominant in most societies? I know a lot of Chinese and Japanese leaders have actually been scientists/engineers.

>>3650381
This is actually a pretty good point.

>>3650363
You cease being a party of certain enclaves when you join any body of work. Some of the disparities we see today is because of the cloistering effect of large bodies of people, particularly wealthy.

If you sat down with bill gates and discussed the past year of your life and he did with you, how often do you think you'd have anything to compare with him?

>>3650374
>But seriously, money is not the issue with governance.

lrn2CREAM

>>3650292

Bribes.

>>3650409

Western world: lawyers
Eastern world: engineers
Third world: soldiers

This is why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

4:15 onwards

The problem becomes that lots of politicians are rich regardless of salary. If you cut the salary then regular people who want in can't get the funding to campaign.

>>3650423
>6:20
>TAKE A PICTURE OF MY SHIRT

>>3650416

That is incredibly accurate.

The third world is run by soldiers because often the only functioning organ of society is the military.

The east is run by engineers, scientists and economists because they're looking forwards to catch up to and surpass the west in all fields.

The west is run by lawyers because we're a corrupt, degenerating society that worships mammon

>>3650416

Western world: richest and most free
Eastern world: less rich and less freedom
Third world: no money and no freedom

>>3650444
>Eastern culture: Deep, meaningful, artistic, beautiful.
>Western culture: HERP DERP pic related

>>3650292
Yes. I've thought about this before in fact I would like to go one step further. All federal legislators will be paid the federal minimum wage. Insurance, pension, etc... will also be equal to the minimum mandated by federal law. The same for state legislators but they get paid according to state laws.

Also legislators are forbidden from receiving money, property or gifts from anybody for any reason for the duration of their term and two years after.

>>3650423
I always lol when people make out obama to be a socalist when he isn't even a liberal

>>3650412
CREAM is the symbtom. People like Liberty are the disease.

When it became socially acceptable to be pessimistic about human nature, suddenly those in power widened the gap between rich and poor.

For the time being, money is meaningless to this discussion.

>>3650447

Eastern culture: extreme never changing hierarchy
Western culture: constantly changing hierarchy

>>3650461
>Eastern culture: Videogames, anime, art.
>Western culture: HAMBURGERS DEEEEEEEEEEEERRRP

>>3650457

Agreed, Obama is a planned economy corporatist (fascist).

>>3650444

Hey kid. How's that "liberty market" working out for you? You know, the one that is so vaguely stated as to be indistinguishable from any other system in history?

>>3650472

How is the market that is not in place working?

>>3650472
>2011
>Hating America

>write they own checks
>fake moon landing
>start wars for oil
>etc.

This is why the Government should be completely revamped.

Someone has probably already said this. But...

Higher wage isnt implicitly mean better quality of life. If they rages minimum wage to $100 an hour it would be for the disadvantage of society, but for their advantage.

Also inflation etc etc.

>>3650471

I thought the west was the most free? Now you're telling me it's fascist. I don't know what to believe, oh great Liberty.

>>3650494

obama ≠ the west

>>3650472
How is trying to talk to Liberty like he's not 12 years old working.

>im 12 n i lk lbryty!

>>3650488
When did I say anything about raising wages?

Having an average wage pretty much means you will have an average lifestyle. By forcing them into an average lifestyle, they would benefit themselves by trying to increase the average quality of life for everyone. Not by increasing wages, but by making the country a better place for all in every facet.

>>3650475

But it's in place everywhere. You said it's the system where everyone does what they want subject to their ability to do so. Surely every society on Earth satisfies that.

>>3650517

Or they could embezzle funds.

>>3650504

Then what is? Which are these countries that are most free and most prosperous in your opinion?

>>3650517

>Having an average wage pretty much means you will have an average lifestyle.

You dont think the perks of being a poltician are that you are powerful and you have powerful peers? I think it has more than just money. In congress your wage isnt exceptionally high. At least I dont think it is.

Even if politicians made exactly average income, I doubt their life style would be normal.

> they would benefit themselves by trying to increase the average quality of life for everyone.

How? I dont see how making their wage average incentivizes bettering society.

>>3650533
Somalia.

>>3650558
fake liberty is fake

sage for faggotry

>>3650538
U.S. House members make 150k a year. The average American makes less than 40k a year. If you don't think 150k is a lot of money compared to 40, you're disconnected from reality.

Nifty idea. It'd never work as it requires the government officials to willfully reduce their pay. Greed is fundamental to society after all.

>>3650565
I have the dumb =[

>>3650538
Dude, bringing them back 'down to Earth' will reduce at least some of the silly decision making at the very least. I kind of like this point from earlier on:
>>3650381

>>3650586
They're making their millions elsewhere.

The same reason the salary for the average policeman tends to be much higher than other public employees with a similar level of training.
Becuase you want people who hold responsibility in society to have all their needs met, otherwise they will be inclined to give in to blackmail and take bribes.

It's not the yearly salary, it's the lifetime benefits. Remember that being a billionaire is all but a requirement to run successfully.

>>3650586

150k is a lot of money, and can provide a pretty good life. But I dont think its as much as the millionaires or billion dollar companies they are standing next to. 150k is a lot closer to 40k than it is to even 1 million dollars.

>>3650597

Thats a neat idea not to pay politicians. but I like I said I dont think people get into politics for the money. Money is only one of many motivators. Alternatively, if someone isnt getting paid they require an external source of financial support, which might be conditional like "Ill pay for you to be a politician IF you do X"

>>3650526

The Liberty market is not in place as there are a large amount of states.

>>3650533

A large collection of countries in the "west."

>>3650632
yeah, and 40k is a lot compared to 1 dollar. The point is that Reps make a lot more than the average person.

>>3650632
They would still get paid, but it wouldn't be a motivator at all. If they didn't want to help, they'd get a job elsewhere.

>>3650636
My market sits in the imaginary place that all good markets are: heaven.

>>3650636

But people choose to be in those states, otherwise they would secede, right?

>>3650639

Not anyone can get elected.

Do you know how hard it is to say huuur derp middle class over and over to appease the dumb masses?

>>3650640

What if they really want to help, but they also need money because they need food? And at the same time, someone who might not care to help, who can also afford to not make money wants to become a politician?

>>3650649

Nope, men with guns will come throw you in a cage if you attempt it.

>>3650661
They're getting average wages. If the average person can't afford food, then there are bigger problems than a few rumbly tummies.

>>3650665

But they have the freedom to come to you with guns. We've been over this, you gave me no reason why they shouldn't.

>>3650656
It looks pretty easy, i've seen you for the past month saying herp deerp repeatedly.

>>3650674

freedom ≠ Liberty

What's E.K.'s opinion on this issue?

>>3650671

I was taking about australia where they get paid nothing, sorry.

>>3650681

E.K. is a Keynesian.

That should tell you something.

>>3650678

You didn't explain why.

>>3650678
Liberty =/= any plausible reality

>>3650700

Freedom is doing whatever you want. Liberty is doing whatever you want without taking the ability of others to do whatever they want away. Liberty is a two way street.

Also I havent see anyone attempt to argue against my minimum wage problem.

If I am a politician, increasing minimum wage to $100 an hour increases my wage. But it results in massive unemployment.

>>3650685
Oh ok, I see. I was referring to both OP's idea and the aforementioned post. I don't know much about the early Australian Government, but I'm sure it wasn't as time consuming as it is now so clearly zero pay is out of the question - but the core principal (I'm going to work for my country because I want to help build it) is obviously a good motivator. Throw in pay to make it a viable career and you have a 'everyday man' in touch with everyday decisions.

>>3650706

And how is it enforced? Last we spoke you didn't believe in Liberty police making sure people stick to their Liberty obligations.

>>3650705

Utopias cannot happen, by definition.

>>3650722

You cannot force Liberty.

>>3650715
You don't increase minimum wage because it would effect you negatively in the long run.

What about this one guys: You can only be a politician if you can write an essay on evolution. You don't have to agree with it, but show you can at least fucking understand it. Too many shit tarded idiots in my politics.

>>3650727

Then how do you have it? You criticise countries for not having Liberty, but you give no guide as to how they can attain it.

>>3650730
>>3650727
>>3650723
>derp
>herp

>herp derp deerp.

>>3650727

>>3650736

Remove the state.

>>3650730
Every politician needs a masters degree in a science, engineering or math field.

>>3650745

I would accept this if they cannot give grants for science, engineering, or maths.

In reality, politicians should have economics degrees and accounting degrees.

>>3650743

But if you remove the state we'll have freedom, not liberty.

>>3650773

> liberty

wut

Liberty is the absence of the state. Freedom is doing whatever you want.

>>3650745

Of course, in a matter of years grade inflation will render master degrees worthless.

>>3650770

Accounting? Really?

>>3650782

> makes the budget for our country

Yeah, accounting would be important for that responsibility.

>>3650781

And how will you stop me from doing whatever I want if you remove the state?

What if what I really want is to form the state again?

>>3650787

Of course you realise they hire accountants for that purpose.

>>3650292
>I had a thought,

Hello anonymous. 4chan tech support has identified your problem and we wish to fix it for you.

Please state your credit card number and pin.

>>3650795

If you do whatever you want, and it includes an initial act of aggression, the state still exists.

>>3650801

I have no problem with accountants backing up accountants.

>>3650806

Then how do you plan to remove the state?

>>3650815

Liberty.

>>3650815
Dude, you totally walked into that one.

>>3650827

So in other words you want to remove violent thought by doing whatever you want to do except where it doesn't impinge on others. Try that sometime. See how it works out. Like, declare independence from the state, and when men with guns come, remove their violent thought with whatever the fuck.

Why do I bother trying to reason with 12 year olds. I swear I wasn't this retarded when I was a kid.

> why don't politicians and other Government officials in charge of policies, etc. have their wages equal to the average wages of the population?
Law repealed with unanimous approval from congress as first order of business in first session.

>>3650852

I support no forced removal of thought, violent or otherwise.

>>3650871
What if it is my thought to embrace the state? What if it is my thought to force everyone else to embrace the state? What if my thoughts are so compelling I convince everyone but you to embrace the state?

>>3650889

Thoughts, like speech, are never an initial act of aggression. I welcome all thought, violent or otherwise.

>>3650871

So you don't support Liberty?

>>3650889
Then you've acted against, liberty, obviously.

>>3650900

Liberty is not now, and never has been defined as forced removal of thought.

>>3650897
I find that most people are attracted to libertarianism because of its consistency. Sure makes processing the world a lot simpler, doesn't it?

>>3650906

> against, liberty, obviously

Grammar. You. Please.

>>3650906
You don't need to bracket the word liberty in commas. It actually ruins the flow of that sentence.

>>3650917

Never having to contradict yourself is as plus.

>>3650909

But it has been defined as the removal of the state. You think you can remove the state without force?

>>3650924
It is my, liberty, to do so.

>>3650927
And a minus, but I'll let you figure why that is true on your own.

>>3650931

Thought is not now, and never has been defined as the state.

>>3650934
William, Shatner, I presume?

>>3650940

But you said if I ever do something violent the state exists. And I will only ever do something violent if I have a thought to do something violent.

>>3650954

thought ≠ act

Violent acts are not now, and never have been defined as premeditated acts of a violent nature.

>>3650972

Then how will Liberty stop violent acts?

>>3650985

violence ≠ initial act of aggression

>>3650996

So how will Liberty stop initial acts of aggression?

>>3651002

Liberty is the absence of initial acts of aggression.

OP its a great idea but i have two words for you:

expenses scandal

>>3651009

But you've said Liberty will remove the state. Now you're saying Liberty is what you get when there is no state. But there is always a state as long as there are initial acts of aggression. So Liberty can never ever happen? Then why don't you shut up about it?

>>3651028
Don't you get it? Once we abolish the state, everybody will get along!

>>3651036

>no state
>no police
>everyone gets along

>Paedos and murderes renounce their ways

fuck you simpleton

>>3651028

The state not existing is the removal of the state, yes.

>>3651036

If they do not "get along" and an initial act of aggression is committed then the state exists.

>>3651044
>what is sarcasm

>>3651047
>If they do not "get along" and an initial act of aggression is committed then the state exists.
You're making even less sense than usual.
I'm impressed.

>>3651060

Initial acts of aggression can only happen within a state, and/or by a state.

>>3651072
Were you born this naive, or did it take some effort?
You think before we invented states, humans were not violent?

>>3651047

NO RETARD. YOU DON'T GET IT. SUPPOSE I'M STUPID ENOUGH TO AGREE WITH YOU. SUPPOSE I WANT LIBERTY. HOW DO WE ATTAIN IT. HOW DO WE REMOVE THE STATE. WE CAN'T USE LIBERTY TO REMOVE THE STATE BECAUSE A PREREQUISITE FOR LIBERTY IS THE STATE NOT EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>>3651083

Initial acts of aggression happen within a state. The state existed since initial acts of aggression existed.

>>3651093

How about, follow Liberty?

>>3651114
>Initial acts of aggression happen within a state. The state existed since initial acts of aggression existed.
Fascinating. So by that definition, animals have states as well then? Since, you know, they have initial acts of aggression.

>>3651114

But Liberty is the absence of a state, and the state exists.

>>3651121

Non-human animals cannot commit initial acts of aggression. They lack the knowledge.

>>3651125

Correct, Liberty does not exist now.

>>3651161

Then how can I follow it?

>>3651161

Choice.

why do you faggots keep capitalizing 'liberty'? faggots

>>3651182

To distinguish between the dictionary meaning and the Liberty meaning.

>>3651161
>Non-human animals cannot commit initial acts of aggression. They lack the knowledge.
So when a group of chimpanzees, together in a group, quietly go about trying not to be noticed, look for a monkey to team up on and kill and eat, do they not know that they are being aggressors?
(this has been observed on video)

>>3651208
Also, if anyone's interested, here's video of chimpanzee hunting


it's incredible stuff


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik

>>3651208

Nope.