Originally posted by Sambo69I do not believe there is any way whatsoever to take money from taxpayers and funnel it to politicians and come out ahead. You are simply forcibly moving money from the basically honest to the basically dishonest.
They may share a commitment to peace but they have other factors to consider. Providing a financial incentive for peace changes the balance. Yes ?
Originally posted by Sambo69Well, apart from all the practical issues with your scheme, I want politicians who are motivated by what they believe in, not what gets them a few extra bucks.
Peace, etc VERSUS money, power, etc
changes to
Peace, money, etc VERSUS money, power, etc
As I've said before, I think politicians should be paid the average skilled wage of their country anyway, so I'm for paying them less.
Originally posted by RedmikeMy proposal attracts and rewards politicians who place prioirity on peace and strive for peace. The world currently appears geared the other way.
Well, apart from all the practical issues with your scheme, I want politicians who are motivated by what they believe in, not what gets them a few extra bucks.
As I've said before, I think politicians should be paid the average skilled wage of their country anyway, so I'm for paying them less.
I'm surprised that you wouldn't want to explore how the proposal could be refined to meet your concerns. You appear to be content simply being part of a peace movement who acts as a conscience but, unfortunately, gets few results in this greed driven world.
Originally posted by Sambo69I've outlined a number of principled and practical reasons why I don't think your scheme is viable, and I don't really think you've properly addressed these.
My proposal attracts and rewards politicians who place prioirity on peace and strive for peace. The world currently appears geared the other way.
I'm surprised that you wouldn't want to explore how the proposal could be refined to meet your concerns. You appear to be content simply being part of a peace movement who acts as a conscience but, unfortunately, gets few results in this greed driven world.
These are fundamental concerns with the basic ideas of your proposal, as well as smaller, practical issues. Because of these, I really don't see it as a proposal which can be tweaked to make it better.
I don't see the peace movement as just a conscience - amongst other things, the peace movement has an educational role. Once it is strong enough, it can organise electorally by advocating support for suitable candidates etc.
And I think it is wrong to say the peace movement gets few results. You've already told us many times about how a Government MP in Australia was booted thanks to the efforts of yourselves and others. Here, we've just prevented US planes taking missiles to the zionist war machine from using UK civil airports on their way. And there are lots of other examples, as I'm sure you are aware.
There is no quick fix to this, nor any alternative to hard, political work.
Originally posted by Sambo69If there isn't time, we're all toast.
Is there time ?
(I'll come back to the details).
But we have to try.
There is no point trying to shortcut this - you have to persuade the people of the planet that peaceful means of conflict resolution are the only viable means, and you have to reflect this is having by having a corresponding number of politicians who support this position.
Until you do this, it doesn't matter how we pay politicians or whether any other scheme is proposed.
Without political support for your ideas in the first place, the current destructive ways will continue.
Originally posted by RedmikeI agree with your plan but a multiple "war on violence" is necessary to avoid being "toast".
If there isn't time, we're all toast.
But we have to try.
There is no point trying to shortcut this - you have to persuade the people of the planet that peaceful means of conflict resolution are the only viable means, and you have to reflect this is having by having a corresponding number of politicians who support this position.
Until you do this, ...[text shortened]... itical support for your ideas in the first place, the current destructive ways will continue.
Why can't both our plans co-exist ?