Originally posted by DelmerIt should be part of their job to work towards sustainable peace and I'm proposing measurable performance criteria be established with a financial link.
Sambo96, paying politicians not to commit war seems a lot like paying criminals not to commit crimes.
Originally posted by RedmikeI fully agree with the need for the bottom up approach. However, as you note, this by itself has not been working and I fear that the world doesn't have time for it to take effect. For example, we are breeding more terrorists at a faster rate, the balance of power is being tipped and resources are running thin.
The fact that it would treat all politicians equally is one of the fundamental problems with it that you haven't addressed.
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 ...[text shortened]... ul world, and we need people to link their support for the peace movement with how they vote.
I'm proposing a combination of the bottom up and top down approach.
Bear with me for the time being.
The proposal has an initially simple model where all politicians are treated equally.
The solution needs to be and can be simple.
However, would you propose that the financial incentive for a given politician be relative to the size of their "base" salary or the size of their economy or some other ?
I'm not proposing that the financial incentive be their largest source of income and it could therefore be the same across all politicians.
Originally posted by Sambo69And who will enforce it? You certainly can't leave it in the hands of the politicians. It will require another level of bureaucrats who will also have to be evaluated and constantly monitored ... and paid.
It should be part of their job to work towards sustainable peace and I'm proposing measurable performance criteria be established with a financial link.
Originally posted by DelmerWhat I'm proposing will be less than 1/700th of the world's annual military spend.
And who will enforce it? You certainly can't leave it in the hands of the politicians. It will require another level of bureaucrats who will also have to be evaluated and constantly monitored ... and paid.
There is nothing to "enforce". Just to measure and reward.
Originally posted by Sambo69I think your scheme has a fundamental deficiency, and a number of practical issues, some of which I've already outlined.
RedMike and others, where is your vision ?
The fundamental deficiency is that, currently, not all politicians accept your basic premise that reduction in war, as measured by the number of casualties. If they did, this in itself would be a major step on the road to removing war as a means of reslving conflicts.
Given that they don't accept this basic premise, your plan, in any form has no real chance of getting off the ground.
You would need to convince politicians that peace is a good thing, or replace them with politicians who do.
Once you've done that, your scheme is redundant. If all politicians (not just some, or most, but you'd need all nations to sign up to your scheme) agree that peaceful means are the best way to resolve disputes, you've practically achieved you aim.
A kind of chicken and egg problem.
In terms of practical issues if you ever got it off the ground:
As I've already said, why should all politicians be penalised/rewarded to the same extent? Why should anti-war members of the Scottish Parliament who go to prison for their protests and set an example for the rest of the world, be treated the same as some rabid US republican?
Who would set the targets? Would this be a new layer of UN beauracracy? What would happen if a nation didn't accept this?
Who would count the casualties? We've already seen the US simply refuse to measure Iraqi civilian casualties, and if your scheme were in operation, military operations would not be reported, there would be an incentive to wipe out everyone so that there are no winesses and the kill-o-meter doesn't record the operation.
Exactly which deaths would you count? Would it just be those killed in direct military operations, or would you record those killed by land mines and depleted uranium?
I'm sorry, but this is just a daft idea - to campaign for it would be a diversion from the main issue, and it would be impractical to run.
Originally posted by RedmikeNo need to be sorry and I'll come back to the practicalities you list.
I think your scheme has a fundamental deficiency, and a number of practical issues, some of which I've already outlined.
The fundamental deficiency is that, currently, not all politicians accept your basic premise that reduction in war, as measured by the number of casualties. If they did, this in itself would be a major step on the road to removing war a ...[text shortened]... n for it would be a diversion from the main issue, and it would be impractical to run.
Does it concern you how few people are prepared to enter a debate that explores an incentive for peace. It seems that people find deaths more exciting ?.
I don't agree about the "fundamental deficiency". People go to work with the certain objectives. Some get paid additional incentives yet they still work. I'd expect the same of politicians.
I'm not suggesting that this is the best approach. It is a better approach when combined with your recommendation for the public to get organised to promote peace to politicians.
Can we combine our approaches ?
Originally posted by Sambo69I do not think politicians should work with an eye on any sort of financial bonus. Their only motivator should be to act on behalf of those they represent, and the carrot here is their re-election. I'd be unhappy with politicians being accountable to anybody but those who selected/elected them. Whether this is through genuine support for peace, or less altruistic concern for keeping their own job doesn't really matter (I'd prefer the first, of course).
No need to be sorry and I'll come back to the practicalities you list.
Does it concern you how few people are prepared to enter a debate that explores an incentive for peace. It seems that people find deaths more exciting ?.
I don't agree about the "fundamental deficiency". People go to work with the certain objectives. Some get paid additional incenti ...[text shortened]... ublic to get organised to promote peace to politicians.
Can we combine our approaches ?
As I said, I think you have a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem with this idea. If you were able to persuade politicians to adopt this idea, this would assume you have a world-wide commitment to peace in the first place. I think we should just concentrate on getting that world-wide commitment to peace, and not worry too much about how we police it when we have it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think my approach has to come first.
Originally posted by RedmikeI agree that your approach needs to come first but suggest that it be combined with a new vision.
I do not think politicians should work with an eye on any sort of financial bonus. Their only motivator should be to act on behalf of those they represent, and the carrot here is their re-election. I'd be unhappy with politicians being accountable to anybody but those who selected/elected them. Whether this is through genuine support for peace, or less altru ...[text shortened]... t when we have it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think my approach has to come first.
Politicians are only human. While they should be accoutnable to the public, they are also accountable to their partners and children, expectations of the parents and friends, and their own ambitions (including greed).
Originally posted by Sambo69Well, if we had a global commitment to peace, then the world would be a whole lot different from what we currently have.
I agree that your approach needs to come first but suggest that it be combined with a new vision.
Politicians are only human. While they should be accoutnable to the public, they are also accountable to their partners and children, expectations of the parents and friends, and their own ambitions (including greed).
I'd imagine, to get that world-wide commitment, we'd also have a different kind of politician in place around the world.
I'm in favour of politicians only getting paid the average salary of a skilled worker in their part of the world. Because of this, I'm uncomfortable with any sort of 'performance bonus'.
I'm also unhappy with politicians being accountable to anyone other than those they represent. While they might be accountable to their family etc, this is a different sort of accountability. Their constituents can sack them. Their partners etc can merely divorce them 🙂
Like I say though, if we had the global commitment to peace, the world would be a whole different place.
Maybe if we used the funds your scheme would generate to pay for arms factories and the like to convert to peaceful production, so that peace could be made more secure, it would be money well spent.
Originally posted by RedmikeI'm sure politicians' partners, children, parents, friends, personal ambitions, etc would receive some satisfaction from the financial incentive.
Well, if we had a global commitment to peace, then the world would be a whole lot different from what we currently have.
I'd imagine, to get that world-wide commitment, we'd also have a different kind of politician in place around the world.
I'm in favour of politicians only getting paid the average salary of a skilled worker in their part of the world ...[text shortened]... aceful production, so that peace could be made more secure, it would be money well spent.
Would you pay me when or after I declared I'm opening a munitions factory ?
Originally posted by Sambo69I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm sure politicians' partners, children, parents, friends, personal ambitions, etc would receive some satisfaction from the financial incentive.
Would you pay me when or after I declared I'm opening a munitions factory ?
If we had the required global commitment to peace, nobody would be opening munitions factories, presumably.
But if your scheme were in place, and all the global targets were met, then all politicians would be getting a financial bonus, including the one who was opening a munitions factory.
Originally posted by RedmikeYou were suggesting paying munitions factories to convert to peaceful production. I was joking about whether you would pay me if I threatened to start a munitions factory.
I'm not sure what you mean.
If we had the required global commitment to peace, nobody would be opening munitions factories, presumably.
But if your scheme were in place, and all the global targets were met, then all politicians would be getting a financial bonus, including the one who was opening a munitions factory.
I don't understand your chicken before the egg concern.
The incentive would bridge the current situation and eventual peace.
Originally posted by Sambo69My chicken and egg concern is that for your scheme to work, it will require politicians from every nation to accept it.
You were suggesting paying munitions factories to convert to peaceful production. I was joking about whether you would pay me if I threatened to start a munitions factory.
I don't understand your chicken before the egg concern.
The incentive would bridge the current situation and eventual peace.
They are only going to do this if they share a commitment to peace.
If they share this commitment, then we should have achieved the objective of your scheme.
Hence, your scheme will only ever be agreed on when it is no longer required.
Originally posted by RedmikeThey may share a commitment to peace but they have other factors to consider. Providing a financial incentive for peace changes the balance. Yes ?
My chicken and egg concern is that for your scheme to work, it will require politicians from every nation to accept it.
They are only going to do this if they share a commitment to peace.
If they share this commitment, then we should have achieved the objective of your scheme.
Hence, your scheme will only ever be agreed on when it is no longer required.