Remedial unbribery

So, OK, quick review w/o any of the tangents that were apparently confusing to some:

1. Any given proposal -- tax-cut, tax-hike, public works, whatever -- must justly serve the public interest and promote the common good. Any politician advocating any kind of policy must demonstrate that the policy meets this test.

2. When politicians support proposals that result in immense financial benefit for themselves personally they have an even greater obligation to demonstrate that the proposal in question is truly in the interest of the entire public and not merely in their own interest. When you cash the check, you invite suspicion.

3. To consider off-limits any discussion of the personal financial benefits that politicians may have at stake in a particular policy debate paves the way for massive corruption.

4. Some policies that justly serve the public interest may also result in financial benefit for some politicians who support them. This is bound to occur. A lot. I have no problem with that, but in such cases the burden of proof lies with those politicians to demonstrate which way cause and effect is working.

5. If a politician advocates a policy that benefits him or her financially but on balance does not serve the public interest, then we can conclude that he or she is corrupt.

(I don't know if that's actually any clearer than the first three times I wrote it, but we'll see if the idea is again mangled beyond recognition in the comments thread.)

Comments

[Stephen]

Elected officials, IMO, have a very limited right to privacy. That's the price one pays for the privilege of making and implementing policy for the rest of one's citizens. That's what it means to be a Public Servant. And yes, it also means that there is a different standard for them than for me. I can support a policy that enriches me I don't need to answer to anyone about that. But I'm not in a position to craft that policy, introduce it to the legislative process or even vote on it (excluding of course citizen propositions placed on the ballot, but those need to meet a minimum level of support from other citizens to be there).

It is our duty to put politicians' finances, business transactions, even their health records and to a certain extent their relationships under the microscope, and their obligation to not only allow but facilitate the process. If a politician personally benefits from a proposal they are supporting, then we should scrutinize their motives. We should hound them about it. We should be immediately skeptical.

It is amazing how this nation has just accepted the idea that politicians are corrupt. That they seek office in order to wield power and enrich themselves. Now the idea of a true idealist in politics is laughable to almost everyone, Democrat, Republican or whatever. I know as well as anyone that human beings are corrupt and devious. But while we will never suffer a lack of crooks in Congress, there is no reason to merely roll over and take it.

[cjmr]

Of course it will be. The crowd here loves to follow the rabbit trails. And it's always fun to watch.

(Nice summary, though.)

[Robert Ramsdell]

#1 -4 are uncontroversial to me, and well put. I have to take issue with #5 though. Couldn't the politician just be wrong? Or disagree with you on some principal? Otherwise you are just saying that anyone who disagrees with you on an issue that they have an interest in is corrupt.

Remember the old adage: Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

[Scott]

If a politician advocates a policy that benefits him or her financially but on balance does not serve the public interest, then we can conclude that he or she is corrupt

On the assumption that the politics you support are those you believe to "serve the public interest", this is what takes you down the road of political double standards, where your opponents are more easily shown (or defined) to be corrupt than your allies.

[Scott]

I can support a policy that enriches me I don't need to answer to anyone about that.

OK, so no moral judging of anyone who votes for the GOP - they're just voters like you. If you can't be judged, then they can't be judged.

[Stephen]

OK, so no moral judging of anyone who votes for the GOP - they're just voters like you. If you can't be judged, then they can't be judged.

Very true. And besides considering anyone who votes for the GOP to be a complete idiot, I don't really judge them. I disagree, I try to convince, I get out and canvass, whatever. But I recognize the right for my fellow citizens to vote for people and platforms that I find morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. That is our obligation as fellow citizens; one that the Dobsonites would do well to remember.

[g]

I agree with Robert Ramsdell (as I said in one of the earlier threads) ... but I'll happily meet Fred half-way: If a politician advocates a policy that benefits him or her financially but on balance does not serve the public interest, then we can conclude that he or she is likely to be corrupt.

[Warning: mathematics ahead. Proceed at your own peril.]

How likely? If in the absence of corruption a politician is k times more likely to be right about the issue than wrong, then seeing that they chose the wrong policy only increases the probability that they're corrupt by a factor of at most k relative to whatever it was before. Less than that, if the level of corruption you're imagining isn't absolute (i.e., so much as to guarantee that someone infected with it will necessarily choose the option that benefits them).

In this instance, I reckon an honest, incorrupt Republican politician (assuming such people to exist, which I dare say they do) would be at least 1/10 as likely to support as to oppose the estate tax "reform". So if I thought beforehand that half of all Republican politicians are corrupt, I wouldn't be justified in adjusting that figure to more than 91% of those who want the estate tax abolished. If I thought beforehand that 9% of Republican politicians are corrupt, then I wouldn't be justified in adjusting my estimate to more than 50% for supporters of the abolition. If I thought beforehand that only 0.1% were corrupt, I'd be entitled to raise my estimate to at most 1%.

I decline to comment on which of those percentages I actually find most plausible :-).

[LL]

I haven't been reading the relevant threads, so not sure what people are confused about, but not surprised, either. My observation of taxation policy is that people who benefit from a tax cut think it's just fine and dandy, while those who don't get the benefit but often wind up paying more in some other tax/fee to offset the the tax "reduction" think it sucks, which of course it does, for them. People who receive some government entitlement think it's great, while the ones who merely pay for it are less enthusiastic. Not sure if any tax/spending policy would make many people happy in a nation of 300 million people who want all kinds of government services but expect someone else to pony up for it. As for the politicians, I pretty much work from the assumption that all of them are crooked as hell, bought and paid for by whatever special interest groups got them elected, unless they prove otherwise, which so far, none of them has.

[mds]

OK, so no moral judging of anyone who votes for the GOP - they're just voters like you.

...annnnnd off the rails we go again. Perhaps if Mr. Clark put the word "politicians" in capitalized bold and italic: POLITICIANS. Then, when someone follows up with a concurrence noting that most people are not public policymakers, and hence not subject to the same standards, perhaps someone else won't jump in yet again and squawk, "It's no different than voters benefiting!" That's right, voters supporting Social Security, or a new road in their district, is morally equivalent to Tom DeLay slipping $1.5 billion in giveaways to buddies in his district into a bill that had already left conference committee. So don't let Mr. Clark trip you up with his ongoing false dichotomies between the people who hold direct legislative power, wielded in the dead of night if need be, and those who hold no direct legislative power whatsoever.

[Scott]

Perhaps if Mr. Clark put the word "politicians" in capitalized bold and italic: POLITICIANS. Then, when someone follows up with a concurrence noting that most people are not public policymakers, and hence not subject to the same standards, perhaps someone else won't jump in yet again and squawk, "It's no different than voters benefiting!" That's right, voters supporting Social Security, ...

OK, if you insist, POLITICIANS bribing voters with Social Security, etc. to buy votes w/ someone else's money. Can I hold them, as POLITICIANS, accountable? Pretty please?

[cjmr]

Sure, Scott, hold the POLITICIANS responsible all you want.

[Scott]

Sure, Scott, hold the POLITICIANS responsible all you want.

And whenever someone holds those who vote for Bush, et al morally accountable for their actions, I can do the same to those who vote for Dems? The minute a progressive calls someone who opposes social programs (as a mere voter) selfish, the door is open to holding liberal voters responsible for selling their votes for govt checks?

[mds]

OK, if you insist, POLITICIANS bribing voters with Social Security, etc. to buy votes w/ someone else's money. Can I hold them, as POLITICIANS, accountable? Pretty please?

That's right, voters supporting Social Security, or a new road in their district, is morally equivalent to Tom DeLay slipping $1.5 billion in giveaways to buddies in his district into a bill that had already left conference committee. There is no difference whatsoever between keeping seniors out of poverty and giving taxpayer money to Texas oilmen by violating the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. It is exactly the same thing to offer voters something that they want, and to lie to them while transferring from the many to the very few. Hey, abandonment of actual moral values is easier than I thought.

So seriously, hold the politicians accountable. If your sense of morals leads you to support politicians who want to dismantle Social Security and who reject handing the contents of the Treasury exclusively to their large corporate donors, more power to you. Of course, the ones who want to dismantle Social Security (aka "the general welfare"), and are failing to adequately provide for our troops and veterans (aka "the common defense"), have no qualms about accepting large gifts from people like Jack Abramoff in exchange for legislation that benefits no one else, so you might be looking a long time. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Scott]

That's right, voters supporting Social Security, or a new road in their district, is morally equivalent to Tom DeLay slipping $1.5 billion in giveaways to buddies in his district into a bill that had already left conference committee. There is no difference whatsoever between keeping seniors out of poverty and giving taxpayer money to Texas oilmen by violating the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. It is exactly the same thing to offer voters something that they want, and to lie to them while transferring from the many to the very few. Hey, abandonment of actual moral values is easier than I thought.

Yep - your self interest is your self interest (particularly if one chooses not to accept your definition of social programs and acknowledges them as taking money from others w/ the threat of physical force - lethal force if necessary). No special moral bonus for being politically useful to the likes of you. You aren't that important.

[cjmr's husband]

Maybe its too early, but I really can't tell if that last comment is sarcasm or not.

[cjmr]

And whenever someone holds those who vote for Bush, et al morally accountable for their actions, I can do the same to those who vote for Dems?

Haven't we had this discussion before? Repeatedly?

The minute a progressive calls someone who opposes social programs (as a mere voter) selfish, the door is open to holding liberal voters responsible for selling their votes for govt checks?

I really don't think that B follows A in this case. I don't know of a single person who is a progressive that takes government assistance. I do know several people who are conservative who do.

(Aside to husband--two hours later, I couldn't figure out if it was sarcasm either)

[Scott]

I really don't think that B follows A in this case. I don't know of a single person who is a progressive that takes government assistance. I do know several people who are conservative who do.

That's not the point. Once a 'progressive' uses terms of moral judgement against how people vote, then they cannot, like some are doing here, say people voting themselves govt checks (whether you personally think they fit the defn of 'progressive' or not) are in a different category than the politicans who bribe them w/ govt money (or 'give' themselves tax breaks).

If conservatives can be condemned for financially benefiting from the things they push for, then voters can be condemned for financially benefitting from programs that leftists like.

A bribe is a bribe.

Besides, since taxation isn't theft because we tax ourselves, and BushCo won re-election, then how can you call what they do stealing? We chose to give them that tax break voluntarily, by collectively putting them in power. Did they lie? Kick out all politicans who lie (Dem or GOP) and you have an argument.

[Rebecca Borgstrom]

Yep - your self interest is your self interest (particularly if one chooses not to accept your definition of social programs and acknowledges them as taking money from others w/ the threat of physical force - lethal force if necessary).

The gun is not the only lurking spectre at the base of social discourse and conflict. There is also the game. The game is one of the few comparable material powers of which I am aware; for all the theory that backs the gun in conflict, the game seems to win at least as often.

The game is this: the ability to define and redefine terms and concepts and systems in a fashion that is compelling to other people. It is not just "the lie" although the lie is part of the game; it includes both the abstract and the specific manifestations of extremely useful concepts like money.

It is clear that you do not value the scraps of paper or the bits in the bank account. When you speak of social programs as taking these things from others you are not referring to paper or bits. You are not, I think, though here I cannot be as certain, referring to tangible wealth. You are referring to money as itself: money as the concept defined and backed by the power of the game.

Money is as commonly accepted a means for storing up the value of labor, but it is also more than that. It is combined and conflated with the fundamental structure of power. Money in the modern system is the ability to set prices for others' labor. It is both the outcome of Rand's "John Galt"'s labors and the outcome of her "Jim Taggart"'s pull. It is serving two functions and these two functions are subtly incompatible in a fashion that it is common to exploit.

It is essentially inherent in the system that people will use money to increase the value of their own labor. It is essentially inherent in the system that increasing the value of one's own labor via non-productive means is decreasing the value of everyone else's labor. It is essentially inherent in the system that left to its own devices the system will gradually deflate honest labor as compared to dishonesty, pull, greed, and inherited dominance, resulting in a situation where inheritance is essentially illegitimate because an equivalent amount of labor to the labor that created it no longer has value in the market.

If the government will not back the primacy of "money as a specific reward for labor"; if it will not ensure that labor remains both accessible and valuable as a means for earning wealth; if it will not maintain the ability of newcomers to compete in an established system by preventing the accumulation of a monopolistic aristocracy; if, in short, there is no governing body that can either protect the viability of competition and labor or provide the ability to all to homestead unoccupied land and natural resources; then I cannot see how inheritance is a valid or meaningful concept, and anything other than exploitation in the name and service of hypocrisy.

That said I do not have a solution; however, at its base, I request that you recognize that social programs are essentially a consequence of the definition of money in such a fashion as to require spending money on the necessary public good. If money is not defined in such a fashion as to ensure that everyone who is reasonably capable of labor is in a position to labor and obtain fair compensation for that labor's value---the core of "the public good", then the game is stealing on its face from those who are disadvantaged thereby. This is no better or worse than stealing by the gun, and just as corrosive to society. Redressing that directly through the reallocation of funds is a kludge but I am not sure that it is an avoidable one.

With apologies for rambling on; and with apologies to our host, who would probably have preferred a definition of public good that includes charity for those who are inherently unable to labor. (I think it does, actually, but I don't have the argument in a coherent form at present.)

Rebecca