The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I hear you

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I also believe that even (see in situ)

Cyril's picture

I hear you

I certainly ... can't disagree with this :

"You can scream and rant and debate about how you are objectively right and correct, but ultimately, what are you going to do to change their minds ? Disregarding their opinion as illegitimate does nothing."

One suggestion, though, which isn't even U.S.-specific, but applies to other so-called republics as well (e.g., France, for one I come from) :

I've always found rather odd that the people's representatives would somehow "necessarily" need to be paid by public funds, i.e., at the end of the day - tax payers (directly or indirectly) - for their mere involvement in politics and the debating of public affairs, and of important texts - such as laws.

For instance, I've been delighted from day one I heard about Ron Paul and his denouncing so seriously (in writings as much as in speeches) the various forms of moral hazard that rent seeking can generate in a society. Without so much of a stretch, I can even think quite easily of legitimate generalization of it to broader and broader classes throughout the people itself, btw, e.g., thru the wealth redistribution schemes built upon welfarism.

But I digress; so, back to the people's representatives and guardians of the texts :

Why should the people of republics feel so unquestionably compelled, every time, to remunerate their congressmen, or senators, or supreme court judges, and other servants, for their services ?

I get the idea for the postman or civil engineers ... but how can we be so sure that the stakes and benefits re: the source of compensations are comparable for lawmakers, representatives, and such ?

Where does the phrase "public servants" so necessarily implies "remunerations from the public", as well - for EVERY SINGLE public function (or so deemed), across the board ?

By the mere common presence of the adjective "public" ? Really ?

Couldn't a mechanics, or doctor, or engineer, or farmer, or etc, be already self-reliant enough, in their respective businesses, to voluntarily donate from his/her extra time to the people without having to take a penny from them, whatever the depth of his/her political involvement is ?

Also, allocated time and effort-wise : in this information age, does the people REALLY need full time public servants to flood them with hundreds of thousands pages of new laws and regulations every year, that nobody (or almost, but the interested lobbyists) really has the material time to even read thoroughly enough ?

Or wouldn't it precisely be a principal cause for another set of very unfortunate side-effects, such as, e.g., "The Law Perverted" ?

Analogy. Am I not a software engineer BUT ALSO a father, husband, and head of household, like most of us (well, the married men anyway) ? Why would I expect my spouse and kids to "compensate me" (in money) for these additional responsibilities ? That would be eerie, wouldn't it ?

What am I missing ? Is this idiotic "thinking-out-of-a-chimeric box" from me ?

But I am very naive politically, anyway. Granted.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius