RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : A Corrupt Profession

Tuesday
May 13, 2008

A Corrupt Profession by Tibor R. Machan

There are those who believe that business is inherently corrupt--communists would be among those, and socialists. The very idea of striving to make a profit is treated by these people as morally objectionable. Of course, some even think medicine fits the bill, or military service. And there are animal rights advocates who believe the entire meat industry is morally base. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (74 messages)

Post 0

Tuesday, May 13 - 2:19pm

Link

Edit

politicians work in a completely corrupted profession by hiring themselves out as thugs in nice garb.

Is nice to find another who agrees with me on this - that other is idealism, a nicer version but just as nonreal as the socialist kind....

Post 1

Tuesday, May 13 - 3:30pm

Link

Edit

You Get What You Pay For?

Let's imagine that $537 Billion a year out of the federal budget is pork or unconstitutional. (I'm sure it's actually much higher.) What would happen if we gave all 100 Senators, 435 Representatives and the President & VP just one term of office, with no ability to be re-elected, of twice the current length and then paid them a hefty bonus based on the real (non-inflationary) growth of the GDP but after they leave office?

For example, the president would have one eight-year term. He would be paid a modest stipend while in office. But he would be paid $50 million a year, multiplied by the percentage growth of the GDP, for the last four years of his term and the four years after he left office. If the GDP grew by 5% each of those years he would get a bonus of 8 x 5 x $50 million, or $2 billion. Senators and Representatives would get a similar deal.

In effect, we would be bribing the politicians to cut spending and the amount we would pay them in bonuses would be far less than what we are already paying on pork and entitlements.

Is this insane?

Post 2

Tuesday, May 13 - 4:24pm

Link

Edit

In post #1 Ted writes:

> [...] Is this insane?

I'm guessing yes. Given the power that politicians have, I'm afraid that a scheme like this would lead to a steady stream of "bright ideas" that would make Enron and the mortgage banking crisis look like the good ol' days! If there is one group of people that proudly wear short-term blinders as a high fashion statement, it's politicians.

I agree with Rand that the only safe solution is for a complete separation of politics (force) and economics (trade). This is where we need to be building a wall rather than along the Mexican border.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 3

Tuesday, May 13 - 4:33pm

Link

Edit

Jeff, that's why I suggested the built in delay before the bonuses - no spending the seed corn today to inflate the numbers while you're in office. We could even delay the payoff period until the pols were entirely out of office. This would encourage long-term planning. Lowering taxes and removing regulation are proven means of improving the GDP. In any case, the bonuses themselves would not be all that big given the size of the current budget.

I don't see any way of establishing my system, since the constitutional change would be fought tooth and nail by statists.

But I think concentrating the minds of politicians on long term growth could only be beneficial.

Post 4

Tuesday, May 13 - 4:35pm

Link

Edit

Excellent article Tibor.

You express my sentiments exactly, which is why I have refused to participate in this system by voting (as I've discussed here). There may be a utilitarian argument for voting for the lesser of two evils, but I have never been able to stomach that path myself.

Of course, not playing the game according to rigged rules doesn't mean you stop trying to correct the system through other less morally compromised channels that remain available to us such as free speech. And that is why I applaud your speaking out on this subject.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 5

Tuesday, May 13 - 4:42pm

Link

Edit

Ted:

I would be open to any idea that could produce beneficial results, but I guess that when it comes to figuring out ways to jigger or cheat a system, I'm just a piker. I don't think I'm anywhere near clever enough to anticipate and plug the holes that scoundrels and politicians (yes, I know I'm being repetitive :-)) can uncover and utilize for their own gain.

Having said that, I do think your proposal is an interesting idea.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 6

Tuesday, May 13 - 5:43pm

Link

Edit

It has nothing to do with the persons and everything to do with the institution. You get "politicians" in the business world, especially in departments that are forced to be "cost centers" such as shipping or security. The xerox room, the loading dock, facilities maintenance, these people are placed in functions that do not allow entrepreneurship and certainly do not allow reward for productivity.

By the way, I hold two political offices, one elected, the other appointed. Nothing said in the original essay applies to me. I pay for a lot out of my own pocket. In fact, many politicians do. The laws are very strict and remuneration is not all that great. (The benefits can be nice, but the pay usually sucks.) What CEO would work for what the President of the United States is paid. What company would insult its president with the salary of a state governor? You can make more with a string of successful car washes. People who serve in elected office do just that: serve.

Politics is how we decide what to do with the village green. The vast majority of people who hold public office do so because they are motivated to make the best decisions possible regarding that "village green" whether it is the military or the streets or the schools. That good intentions do not solve problems is another issue entirely. The fact remains that politicians are not a race of Martians, alien oppressors whose ray guns and telepathic powers reduce us to their meals.

In fact, it might be said that RoR depends on politics. If this were a marketplace, the writers would rent space and charge for the reading of their posts. Writers would buy ideas from each other and remanufacture them into other packages. Instead of a market, we have a political town hall forum. One writer's status as a senior statesman will leave him immune to criticism for his vacuous meanderings while another will be locked up in the Dissent Forum. A true marketplace would operate differently.

Politics is just another way that people solve common problems.

All in favor, say "Aye."

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/13, 5:57pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, May 13 - 7:11pm

Link

Edit

Politics is how we decide what to do with the village green. The vast majority of people who hold public office do so because they are motivated to make the best decisions possible regarding that "village green" whether it is the military or the streets or the schools.

except that 'green' is a pile of weeds which keeps growing and enlarging its area, never being trimmed back but encouraged by its 'managers' to proliferate...

Post 8

Tuesday, May 13 - 8:29pm

Link

Edit

Michael, you're and interesting puzzle. Am I mistaken in my understanding that you are an advocate of some form of anarchism? Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression, but if it is so, then how does an anarchist end up holding two political positions? Just curious.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 9

Tuesday, May 13 - 8:35pm

Link

Edit

Actually, I think that Ted has the germ of a good idea. Ted, I really recommend Spencer McCallum's "The Art of Community." McCallum makes a really good case for the idea that only a proprietor with a direct interest in the returns from a proprietary community is largely immune to corruption. Only such a person is in the economic position to have all the incentives to consider objectively the right thing to do for the entire community.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I set against this the risk factor in having a single individual in perpetual charge, and I note that a similar investment in community success can be achieved when people are convinced that they will be involved for a long time, are also convinced that they can personally make a difference, and finally are convinced that the community and its leadership are generally competent and trustworthy, all of which apply in the Mondragon example I've mentioned before. Imagine a government run to make a profit by increasing the net worth of the country governed.

Post 10

Tuesday, May 13 - 8:41pm

Link

Edit

Thanks, Phil. Now, if only I had a sanction for every time someone has said that I have had a good idea...or the germ of one...

(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/13, 8:42pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, May 14 - 5:27am

Link

Edit

My opinion. Ted's basic idea of linking a president's (and maybe others in political offices) to their after-the-fact performance is good. However, GDP is not a good way of doing it. The formula is GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). The G is for government spending (see here for more info). Hence, the formula would offer a prima facie incentive for politicians to increase government spending (be it for war, welfare, or other).

Post 12

Wednesday, May 14 - 5:53am

Link

Edit

C. Jeffery Small asked: Am I mistaken in my understanding that you are an advocate of some form of anarchism? ... how does an anarchist end up holding two political positions? Just curious.

An easy answer would be: By being inconsistent i.e. hypocritical. I mean, let's be brutally honest...

On the other hand, who better to hold any power than someone who questions its validity? Do you think that government offices should only be held by socialists? That never works out well.

Drilling deeper, anarchy as a social theory assumes an integrated society. On that basis, when I move into a new community, I get involved in it. That might only mean joining a local coin club or pilots club, working to help those groups with their visibility. On behalf of a coin club, for instance, I would find the local historical society and introduce the one to the other if they did not know each other -- and even in a small town, they might be two different circles. I taught writing to children at the local library. In another thread, I mentioned serving on the board of the East Lansing Food Co-operative. I served on the local citizens cable tv committee. For a White House Conference on Libraries and Information Services, I represented my local patron community.

It is how you get involved.

I can be a recluse. As often as not, I have lived in a town and had no involvement. The choice is mine.

When we moved to Ann Arbor, I chose to get involved in politics, Ann Arbor being a self-consciously political town. The Democrats rule here, virtually a one-party state, with all that implies. I joined the Greens, the Libertarians and the Republicans. When I say "joined" I mean that I actually wrote checks in excess of the basic dues. Furthermore, even for Democrats, I have contributed to the campaigns of locals whom I found to be hard-working. That is why I still write checks to Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Even though we are 180 degrees apart politically, she was my county commissioner back in 1980 and then my state rep and state senator. I moved out of Michigan. She was elected to Congress and the Senate. I moved back to Michigan. Sen. Stabenow does the hard work of an elected representative. Sen. Stabenow represents Michigan. The other senator, Carl Levin, represents the federal government in Washington DC. I materially support every opponent he faces.

Anyway, when we moved here, I started attending township and county board meetings. I wrote letters. I wrote checks. With an interest in criminal justice, I got appointed to the community corrections advisory board to represent communications media. I was reappointed to another two-year term. In the August 2006 open primary, I was elected a Republican Party precinct delegate representing Ann Arbor Township at the county caucus and state convention. The state GOP convention was about as bad as you might expect with questionable vote counts and a pre-determined outcome. But that is the downside to politics.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/14, 5:55am)

Post 13

Wednesday, May 14 - 7:57am

Link

Edit

Sadly that darn village green is growing by leaps and bounds--next your haircut will be part of it. What these folks would like more than anything is to be in charge of everything. Oh, yes, they are sincere and hard working, just as have been most dictators. They are convinced that your life isn't yours at all but the collective's, not to mention your property. They want the best for both--but what's best is going to be for them to decide!

Post 14

Wednesday, May 14 - 8:08am

Link

Edit

Merlin, Jeff, et alia, a few clarifications.

First, I would still pay the politicians a reasonable stipend while they are in office.

Second, their after-term bonus would be linked to the growth in the "private sector" GDP, not the total GDP.

One could, and of course would have to discount all government spending such as salaries for government employees. I am not so sure about how you would handle such things as the profits of arms dealers. I don't know about how you would handle the profits of those who develop bombers and missiles and so forth. One could argue that there is a lot of pork. But the problem now is that people like Trent Lott tried to get that money targeted to production in their own states. (recall that Lott blocked the FTC from forcing MCI into liquidation after the Worldcom fraud was discovered, causing the telecom sector to tank and AT&T essentially to go bankrupt because they had to shoulder the costs of WorldCom's frauds. Worldcom was based in Mississippi and was Lott's biggest campaign donor.) Since the formula would be nationalized, their would not be so strong an impetus to have spending be local and padded.

I think that the genius of my system is that we would be cutting out the waste that goes to lobbyists and their clients. The politicians would still get their "bribes" but in an official manner. The politicians would make much more than they ever did from kickbacks. And the amount of waste avoided would be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of the bonuses paid to the politicians.

Limiting the politicians to one lengthened term would allow them to focus on legitimate concerns rather than electioneering and developing "contacts" for their own future careers as lobbyists.

One other good idea would be raising the minimum age for office by ten or twenty years. People should have a private life and career before they nuzzle their way into the public trough.

My experiment could also be tried on a state by state basis. Look at the economy of upstate New York and the other rust-belt states.

There would have to be a lot of thought. Would you adjust the bonus downward to counter-effect the results of immigration and population growth? Or are those things to be encouraged.

Just imagine if this, rather than taxing and regulating the internet were a prime concern of our "representative" democracy.

Post 15

Wednesday, May 14 - 9:32am

Link

Edit

Term limits in a free society are problematic: by what authority may anyone's running for office the second, third or fourth time be banned? They are free to seek office no matter how often they have held one. If it is a legitimate job, seeking it may not be forbidden.

Post 16

Wednesday, May 14 - 10:01am

Link

Edit

The sad fact is that we always have "politicians" in all spheres of life where it takes more than three people to agree on something. Sometimes, they are good folks that know just what to say at the right time. Unfortunately, their voices get drowned out by the upright walking porcine that are also politicians with their own shrills of "GIMME GIMME GIMME! GIMME IT NOW!" And no matter how hard folks try to eject them from the system, they always find a way back in. I don't know why, personally, but I simply suspect they're good "actors" (read as con-men). One can hope others acknowledge this problem and attempt to rectify it in ways other than simply voting for what the parties want us to vote for (since 48 of the 50 states offer write-in ballots, which are legally valid as any of the printed ones). Ultimately, I simply believe that the best policy is this one: don't forge governments where they are assumed to be needed, public or private, and don't live with the assumption that an aetheric thing called government is ever necessary for anything unless it is proven. Maybe if people thought that way, then maybe if there is to be governments, they would be far too small to be significant targets for the corrupt.

-- Brede
(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 5/14, 10:04am)

Post 17

Wednesday, May 14 - 10:57am

Link

Edit

Political Office is not a Free-Market Job.

There is no right to political office, to exercise the use of force. Does residing in a free country give one the freedom to ignore the law? Violate the Constitution? Do foreigners or resident aliens have a right to run for office? Do children or outlaws have a right to run for office? Need I continue?

One can certainly make arguments for and against the advisability of term limits. Fifty states allow fifty laboratories in which to test such theories.

But a "right" to run for office is not the way to make this argument.

Post 18

Wednesday, May 14 - 12:53pm

Link

Edit

In a free society politicians are hired to secure everyone's rights (see Declaration of Independence re: the institution of government). And evereyone has the right to apply for that job--it isn't coercive if properly carried out! One's right to liberty may be exercised by running for peace officer and such.

Post 19

Wednesday, May 14 - 3:31pm

Link

Edit

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called "competing governments." Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists - who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business - the proponents of "competing governments" take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government.

- Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government" [emphasis mine]

(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/14, 9:10pm)