Originally posted by Sambo69I think such a model is based on some fundmental misconceptions.
I'm proposing that we regard the politicians world wide as a team who need to work together to find solutions rather than resort to violence, and giving that team an incentive.
To counter your concern, a bonus would be paid based on all deaths up to that date, rather than just deaths before their retirement.
Can we develop this model further ?
Not all politicians are equally responsible for the scale of war across the world.
There are clearly some nations whose policies are pro-war, and some whose policies are not. Why should these politicians be treated the same in such a model?
Equally, within any country, there will hopefully be a range of political views represented - some anti-war, some less so. Why should they be treated equally when they have made unequal contributions?
In Performance Related Pay systems, which I think is what you are trying to mirror, each employee's 'reward' is normally based on 2 components - the overall company or division performance and the individual's contribution to this - the employee's own performance.
At the end of the day, though, I'd be oppossed to this sort of system for politicians anyway, as it is ultimately undemocratic. Politicians are responsible to the people who elect them, not some global bonus scheme.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeI understand your concerns.
I think such a model is based on some fundmental misconceptions.
Not all politicians are equally responsible for the scale of war across the world.
There are clearly some nations whose policies are pro-war, and some whose policies are not. Why should these politicians be treated the same in such a model?
Equally, within any country, there will hopef c. Politicians are responsible to the people who elect them, not some global bonus scheme.
In my opening post, I noted that retired Australian politicians receive an ongoing pension regardless of any performance criteria.
Is this the case in your country and do you know about other countries ?
The idea is to incentivate politicians to share the responsibility for taking actions that lead to long term peace. One would expect that they'd work more closely together during their time in power (and beyond).
How can you regard the mutual pursuit of peace in this way as undemocratic and should the pursuit of peace be given a higher priority anyway ?
Simplistically, say there are 200 countries in the world, that the average political term of a political leader is 4 years, their average life expectancy after retirement is 40 years, that target levels of peace are achieved every year and they therefore receive a bonus of $0.5M every year.
The world need only budget $1B per year to strive towards peace.
(This would also reduce the amount needed to be budgeted on pensions in applicable countries).
I still claim that everyone wants peace. We need to make our political leaders work harder and change their corrupt priorities to achieve it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Sambo69Yes, Scottish and UK politicians get a juicy pension when they retire - indeed, one Scottish politician was caught red-handed with expenses fraud, but 'retired' while the investigation was ongoing. He'll still get a pension (though I think they eventually withheld a sum).
I understand your concerns.
In my opening post, I noted that retired Australian politicians receive an ongoing pension regardless of any performance criteria.
Is this the case in your country and do you know about other countries ?
The idea is to incentivate politicians to share the responsibility for taking actions that lead to long term peace. One in this way as undemocratic and should the pursuit of peace be given a higher priority anyway ?
You'll not be surprised to hear that I don't agree with this. I wouldn't object to a person's pension from their original job being funded while they were in parliament, I suppose. Don't know how practical this is.
Are you proposing that retired politicians be penalised for the actions of those still in office?
The problem is that different people have different ideas about how to bring about long term peace. Many in the US (and elsewhere) think their current war(s) are the best way to bring about peace. They'd differentiate between short-term and long-term peace.
Of course, I don't accept the idea that you can bomb your way to peace, but you can see that is can't be a simple as drawing a graph of casualties.
How do you adress my point about politicians having different levels of responsibility?
Edit. Also, the sad fact is that sometimes conflict is necessary - for example, in WW2 it was necessary to stand up to facism.
1 edit
Originally posted by Sambo69Edit - seems to have posted twice - 2nd one removed.
I understand your concerns.
In my opening post, I noted that retired Australian politicians receive an ongoing pension regardless of any performance criteria.
Is this the case in your country and do you know about other countries ?
The idea is to incentivate politicians to share the responsibility for taking actions that lead to long term peace. One in this way as undemocratic and should the pursuit of peace be given a higher priority anyway ?
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeSince the end of the Second World War in 1945 there have been over 250 major wars in which over 23 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved.
Yes, Scottish and UK politicians get a juicy pension when they retire - indeed, one Scottish politician was caught red-handed with expenses fraud, but 'retired' while the investigation was ongoing. He'll still get a pension (though I think they eventually withheld a sum).
You'll not be surprised to hear that I don't agree with this. I wouldn't object to a w do you adress my point about politicians having different levels of responsibility?
Current global military spending has reached $781 Billion annually.
I'm proposing something in the order of $1B per annum towards peace. My underlying claim is that everyone wants peace and that alternatives will be found to resolve disputes.
I welcome debate to develop my initially simplisic model.
I agree with your comments about receiving a "base salary" and a "bonus". I am proposing that retired politicians be partially penalised for the actions of those still in office as all politicians should be encouraged to take actions that help ensure that peace is sustainable beyond their own time in office.
I know that different people have different ideas about how to bring about peace. The problem is that they are currently skewed towards economics and power. Providing a financial incentive for peace WILL help.
The problem has been that issues have been complicated. This will help simplify things.
Politicians do have different levels (types) of responsibility. I'd claim that they are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their people and their own personal gain. The model I propose helps all politicians and their people.
Can you be more specific about your concerns with the model and we'll refine it accordingly.
Originally posted by Sambo69I don't think I made any comment about base salary.
Since the end of the Second World War in 1945 there have been over 250 major wars in which over 23 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved.
Current global military spending has reached $781 Billion annually.
I'm proposing something in the order of $1B per annum towards peace. My under ...[text shortened]... you be more specific about your concerns with the model and we'll refine it accordingly.
I honestly don't think this is a realistic option.
It starts from the a number of premises which are questionable:
There is a global desire for peace. All the evidence is contrary to this - your own stats on the number of wars in particular. All over the world there are groups of people intent on fighting for all sorts of causes. There are imperialist armies on every continent.
There is a global agreement on how to achieve peace. Notwithstanding my point above, there is no accepted view on how peace can be achieved and what peace would even look like. Who decides what the criteria are?
You can measure peace by counting casualties. This is just too simplistic - apart from the practical issues with actually counting casualties (we don't know the Iraqi death toll, for example), it isn't really a measure of how peaceful the world is. And, in any event, there are some wars which are necessary.
Apart from my issues with the basic premise, I have issues with how it would work in practise.
How is it right that an anti-war member of the Scottish Parliament be penalised the same as a rabid Republican senator, for example? They both have different influences on the global situation. One was in opposition in a small country, but vocal in their support for peace. The other was part of the government in the main imperialist war-mongering nation.
How is it right that a politician is rewarded for doing someting which might be contrary to the wishes of the people who elected them (whether we agree with these wishes or not). Politicians should be accountable to their electorate and their party - nobody else.
I really don't see, even if you could get this in place, how it would remotely help.
Originally posted by RedmikeI used the word "bonus" to summarise to your "performance payment system".
I really don't see, even if you could get this in place, how it would remotely help.
The cost would be less than 1/700th of the world's military spend.
It treats all politicians equally, as we would wish our people to be. It encourages politicians to work together.
It could be a bonus on top of their existing payments. No-one need lose anything.
Do you really believe this would amount to nothing compared to some other approach you believe to be better - What "vision" would you like to propose ?
Originally posted by Sambo69The fact that it would treat all politicians equally is one of the fundamental problems with it that you haven't addressed.
I used the word "bonus" to summarise to your "performance payment system".
The cost would be less than 1/700th of the world's military spend.
It treats all politicians equally, as we would wish our people to be. It encourages politicians to work together.
It could be a bonus on top of their existing payments. No-one need lose anything.
Do you rea ...[text shortened]... some other approach you believe to be better - What "vision" would you like to propose ?
Politicians aren't all equal - some have more power (and therefore responsibility) than others, depending on whether they are in power or in opposition, on the relative position of their country.
You cannot possibly think that the efforts towards peace of a Scottish politician have the same effect as the corresponding US politician.
I'm afraid I think this would have no effect.
In terms of what vision I have, then I think we need to stop viewing politicians as some abstract and distant creatures we cannot control.
If we control politicians, not by some kind of top-down global kill-o-meter which affects their pension, but by a bottom up democracy, where politicians can be held to account by the people they are supposed to represent, then we can make progress.
Then we have to make global peace a priority for enough people that they are willing (and able) to organise to make sure people who share their convictions are elected.
Currently, we have neither - politicians are not properly accountable, for all sorts of reasons and the peace movement globally is weak. I can only speak for Scotland, but we had hundreds of thousands on anti-war marches etc, as there were around the world - yet many of these people voted labour within a year. We need to build the peace movement so that more people support the idea of a peaceful world, and we need people to link their support for the peace movement with how they vote.
1. Many politicians are short sighted anyway and will go for short term gains if they can. Eg Zimbabwe where politicians have sacrificed the economy in exchange for short term gain.
2. It is a misconception that politicians are responsible for all wars. In many cases the people of the country support the politicians. (Democracy is ment to work that way). A lot of americans supported the Iraq war and it cannot by blammed entirely on politicians.
3. If war is neccessary sometimes you would be providing an incentive to avoid it even when it might be a good thing.
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Providing an incentive beyond a politician's term in office will help overcome short sightedness. It will take time for the full benefits to be achieved but long term peace is the aim of the proposal.
1. Many politicians are short sighted anyway and will go for short term gains if they can. Eg Zimbabwe where politicians have sacrificed the economy in exchange for short term gain.
2. It is a misconception that politicians are responsible for all wars. In many cases the people of the country support the politicians. (Democracy is ment to work that way). ...[text shortened]... ry sometimes you would be providing an incentive to avoid it even when it might be a good thing.
2. Politicians voice propaganda of war. In the case of Iraq, Bush's administration went so far to intentionally mislead the public. The proposal would have our leaders communicating the benefits of peace.
3. I'm proposing an incentive for people to work together to limit and resolve disputes before they build up into perceived need for war. This is more proactive than the current reactive situation.
Can you suggest a better vision and steps forward ?
Originally posted by RedmikeSorry Redmike. I missed your post. Will definitely reply tomorrow. It would be good if we could also get constructive input from other people.
Perhaps, if you responded to my previous post, we might get somewhere?
And I don't just think it should be little people who comment.