What dictates president's pay?

Financing government in a free society is an interesting topic to me. Ayn Rand didn't say that much on this matter, but the broadly libertarian tradition (notably our dear Tibor Machan) seems to have taken up this task.

I have yet to read anything on what how much a society should pay its government servicemen. The Objectivist stance as I understand it demands that they are paid, maybe even paid well (to avoid altruistic service), but it reject "the market" as a proper mechanism for deciding their pay. Objectivism is also hostile to legally prescriptive wages, such as minimum wage laws.

What's a free society to do?

If you are borrowing someone's answer please provide a source. I'd like to know who the pioneers are in this area.

Post 1

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 6:24pm

"Altruistic service?"

Seriously? As if liberty is such a horrible burden. LOL! Crack me up.

What has (over-)paid-for-service gotten us? A bunch of totalitarian wannabe dictators, that's what. Great idea, huh?

You can blame the Constitution for the idea. Article II, Section I

Post 2

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 8:08pm

Hmm, I thought I remembered reading an article by Ted Keer that said something to the effect that government services must be compensated. Can't find it.

Teresa, I understand your laughter. In a right society, being a congressmen would take less time than reading the morning paper. But consider police officers and judges (in a lesser way military personnel). To ask of them free service would ask of them altruism.

These service positions (which Objectivism deems ought to be government functions) are rightly full time occupations (well, not military perhaps). What should dictate their payment? Surely they can't pocket the fines they dish out or live off plunder. That would be built in conflicts of interest.

Post 3

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 8:20pm

This isn't about Objectivism. When any organization hires to fill a position (police, judges, military), there are best business practices that involve balancing the savings of not paying more than needed while getting the best personnel for the open positions. That isn't metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, or political philosophy. That is just business 101.

Post 4

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 8:42pm

I reposted the blog entry for you, Doug: Payment in Kind.

Steve is right, this is not technically a philosophical issue. Indeed, I almost posted the same earlier.

But I would point out the British tradition of entrusting important commissions to nobles of independent means. Having money, they were seen as resistant to the temptation of bribery, and as noblemen protective of their honor.

Post 5

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 11:52pm

Thanks Ted, that link was exactly what I look for.

Steve and Ted,

What up with you guys tonight?

I'm not complaining that Objectivism doesn't have all the answers. Perhaps I should have put "broadly libertarian tradition" in bold. I've learned that libertarianism applies to much more than philosophy. It's so diverse it ought to be considered a cultural heritage.

Rand went so far as to suggest a revision to the constitution. Political science is not strictly in the providence of philosophy. So what? Philosophy served as a guide post for the drafters of the constitution. Are we not supposed to discuss applied philosophy on RoR?

The Constitution outlined payment plans for the president. The president is elected, not hired. The office of president probably couldn't be other than a full time task. Who decides what salary would get the best pres? Supreme court justices aren't hired like cashiers. Should the president decide how much they earn?

Can you see what i'm driving at?

Ted, your mention of the British tradition is appreciated. Do you expect that it plays out in real life? Politicians are generally well to do. Do bribe-accepting politicians tend to have only made their fortunes through bribery?
(Edited by Doug Fischer on 2/18, 11:52pm)

Post 6

Friday, February 19, 2010 - 9:59am