Forum Post: Is OWS a collectivist or libertarian movement?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 11:01 p.m. EST by OldDucker
(23)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We all want to replace the system. The question is, with what? I look forward to the comments and to avoid skewing the commetns will refrain from offering my own viewpoint, for now.
We don't all want to replace the system. I don't want to replace the system. I absolutely love my country and have no doubt that I am blessed to have been born here and to live here. But 150 years of time passing has revealed the weak spots of our government, particularly as a player in this increasingly globalized arena. So there are certain changes I'd like to see. An important one, in my opinion, is the way our representatives campaign for election, as well as the way they are paid. I think between Congress and the House (not to mention all the other various government officials) we should have fewer officials. These fewer officials would be paid differently however, with their pay continuing even after leaving office. There should also be rules regarding any acceptance of money from any source other than their paycheck, as well as rules regarding where these people can continue work once they leave off.
^Very vague ideas; all kinds of problems with that, but maybe the core concept could be expanded upon.
Expanding thoughts: Once a person becomes an elected government representative, be it a House rep, a senator, the President, it should be similar to signing up for the military. They are now ours for a period of say... 20 years. They may not always serve at the same post, but they are always a paid government official serving under specific rules. For example, let's say the President serves two terms (8 years). Let's also say the President was a senator for 6 years before that. When he leaves office, he will still have six years remaining as a public official and is not allowed to go to work for any corporation or receive any money from them. He will continue to receive a government paycheck, paid by our tax dollars.
I think there is a lot of merit to this suggestion. High level government officials should be expected to live on their salaries/pensions and not take any other money from any other source-even if that means raising those salaries/pensions significantly.
Yes. I think the salaries should be fitting for person of such stature and service, but not so high that it is a high motivation for seeking the office. Public officials should seek office ideally because they want to serve their country. Of course, there will also be the motivations of comfortable pay and the respectability of stature that comes with being elected to such a high position. Once a person leaves a certain office, if that office is definitively temporary, that person will continue to serve as a government official in a different function but will continue to be a paid government employee.
What Singapore does is index the salary of their ministers(equivalent of our senators) to the upper 20% of attorneys and accountants in their country.
What I'm personally more concerned about than the salaries is the stuff like the book deals and corporate contracts that often come after someone has held high office. George H.W. Bush made 3 speeches in Latin America for Rev. Moon at $1 Million each. That just strikes me as sleazy.
This whole thing is epidemic in DC. US Senators spend most of their time raising money for re-election. They are surrounded by staffers/aides. Those folks make relatively little money-and many are angling from the moment they get their jobs on just how they can cash out as a lobbyist or something similar. This all creates a climate that is absolutely sick.
For the highest level positions, I don't want these officials to worry at all about basic security-I want them really focused on the public's business.
This is why I think that once a person is elected to any public office, they should be held as a public employee for a determined time frame. My previous suggestion would be 20 years. That way, even after they leave a specific office, until that 20 year time period is up, there are no book deals, no high-paying jobs for pharmaceutical companies, no nothing. Even further, there could be laws limiting what a public official is allowed to do once their 20 year service is up.
I'm supportive of the basic idea. However for the very high level positions, I think we might want to just make the term of service life-like we have for Supreme court justices. If someone lost an election, they could be provided some other government employment.
I think this is ridiculous. The only way to get money out of politics and corporations out of congress is to make the returns from investing in the private economy more attractive than bribing congressmen. The only way to do that is to reduce their power to confer favor on specific individuals or entities.
As long as there is a way to reasonably bribe congressman, the money holders always will. The only way to stop it is to make it so that they can't. A big problem with your solution of making the returns from investing in the private economy higher is that it assumes that the reason for bribing congressmen is always for monetary gain. While this is no doubt true with in many, if not most, situations, there are those with a lot of money and a lot of power who bribe public officials in order to manipulate the government to fit their ideological agenda.
"While this is no doubt true with in many, if not most, situations, there are those with a lot of money and a lot of power who bribe public officials in order to manipulate the government to fit their ideological agenda."
Granted. On social issues this is often true. But in the end it comes down to power. Reduce the power and the money flows elsewhere.
Fixing it would be sufficient. Ask the Egyptians how easy it is to start from a clean sheet of paper and with the Army's Kalashnikov looking over your shoulder.
It is collectivist with a dash of Liberty and a hint of mint. See below.
Right now, it's just a movement of people who know there's something wrong with America; who know that it's no longer fair. Different people have different personal experiences of that unfairness but they all know it's wrong. They don't have any solutions yet and they don't need to. It's their "Job" to protest, it's the job of the politicians to figure out how to solve it.
What 'system' are you referring to? Sometimes these posts are just too general for me...
Simply put, is the answer to corporatism more government or less?