Is There a Way to Prevent Corruption in Leaders?
Posted by deleted 1 year, 8 months ago to Philosophy
I had a silly idea how to prevent corruption. Silly because I'm sure anyone could poke holes in this scheme. Please point out where and why this wouldn't work.
Every public official who wishes to run for public office (and wins) has their identity, SSN, DOB, etc...published worldwide. Their face, their DNA, everything.
Their bank account(s) are published on the world wide web in real time.
They can't touch a dollar or a penny without everyone knowing. They can't ride in a vehicle without the VIN# being published. They can't own a piece of property without the price and address published.
I'm trying to imagine if we could shine a bright light on all the ways that they hide and steal money that ...
This is stupid. It will never work. I give up!!!
Let them eat lead.
Every public official who wishes to run for public office (and wins) has their identity, SSN, DOB, etc...published worldwide. Their face, their DNA, everything.
Their bank account(s) are published on the world wide web in real time.
They can't touch a dollar or a penny without everyone knowing. They can't ride in a vehicle without the VIN# being published. They can't own a piece of property without the price and address published.
I'm trying to imagine if we could shine a bright light on all the ways that they hide and steal money that ...
This is stupid. It will never work. I give up!!!
Let them eat lead.
all election funds at the end of those term limits are handed to pay down the nation debt they helped create
all stocks go to a blind trust while in office
retirement is social security
all laws they pass effect them also
I wholeheartedly agree. I've often wanted to run for public office on that concept as my one and only platform. In essence, to every piece of legislation that ever appeared in Congress I would add an amendment that "Expressly forbids Congress from EVER exempting themselves from any law ever passed."
Of course, long before being elected, anyone running on that platform would end up buried in an end zone, or thrown into a wood chipper, or found dead on a park bench, or taken for a ride in a convertible owned by the Kennedys.
Ultimately, people have to individually choose to accept a positive moral code to live by. Some will choose to do so and some will choose to eschew morals in favor of power, money, etc. So all one can do is try to hold politicians accountable for their actions. This is where structural measures such as separation of powers, veto, impeachment, etc. all have their day. It is veritably true that some are more effective than others. Here are a few of my comments on some structural reforms I believe could assist.
1. Repeal the Twelfth Amendment. Many have never even heard of it or understand its significance, but the Twelfth Amendment paved the way for political parties by putting the President and Vice President on the same ticket. I support repealing this Amendment to allow for multiple political parties to more closely align with voter blocs.
2. A lame duck clause which ends the term of any Congressman or Senator who loses their re-election bid no later than the Friday following the election (Tuesday) and barring any appeals. Once the people have spoken, they have spoken.
3. All costs, salaries, etc. for Senators and Congressmen shall be paid for by their respective States rather than from Federal Funds. Congress should NOT be allowed to control their own pay or benefits. Congress would still set the budgets for the other two branches of office as well as the maintenance/security of the Capitol building itself.
4. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. The individual States have been largely excised from any kind of control over the Federal government with the popular election of Senators. The States should be in charge of the Federal government and right now just the opposite is true. In order to do that, the States have to have their role in the Federal Government reinstated: Senators should be elected by their respective State governments. (The People themselves would maintain their participation through direct election of Representatives.)
5. Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. The personal income tax is oppressive in several ways and should be repealed immediately. First, it divorces government income in large part from the economic base upon which it should be responsive. When government can tax its own people for their commercial intercourse, it only gives incentive to grow its power through greater and greater tyranny. Government revenues should primarily originate from international trade tariffs and import duties. These also have a potent feedback mechanism as a result of international diplomacy and provides a potent check on both pure isolationism as well as unfettered grants of Most Favored Nation status.
The second - and potentially even more problematic - issue is that the implementation of a personal income tax - and its extension as corporate income taxes - has an inherently chilling effect on Free Speech. Any time speech is suborned through the permission of a government agency - especially one as potent as the IRS - you are introducing and tolerating the very tyranny the Founders revolted over.
6. Automatic review of federal appellate judges whose rulings get overturned by the Supreme Court. We have a real problem with the Federal Judiciary being more ideological than judicial. The Founders originally anticipated that Impeachment and Conviction could serve as a reasonable check on such behavior. Unfortunately, the history of Impeachment of judicial positions shows that it is almost completely ineffective, allowing Federal judges - especially appellate judges - to be appointed and rule from an increasingly ideological perspective. I would propose a second check: that Federal judges who are repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court (I'm looking at the Ninth District especially) would be immediately subject to review and reconfirmation by the Senate.
7. An Amendment which directs the Judicial Branch to use a "strict scrutiny" standard when adjudicating whether or not an action taken by the government is Constitutional. Deference to the judgement calls of bureaucrats ends forever.
8. An Amendment clarifying that any Executive agency enacted by Congress must get Congressional approval to issue ANY rules. The Constitution delegates specifically to Congress the power to pass laws and this has been largely bypassed by the enactment of agencies with rule-making authority.
9. An Amendment dictating that Congress may not allocate in its Budget any more than the actual Revenue brought in the second year prior to that being budgeted. No more unlimited spending. Priority goes to paying down debt. The rest Congress gets to fight over to allocate. But it is a fixed amount.
Anyway, that's a starter list.
2. Great idea -I would expand to the executive branch as well, also I would disallow pardons after the incumbent lost.
5. Concerned with unintended consequences – an amendment that forces equal application of laws - Congress would be forbidden from passing laws that give one state, industry, business, person an advantage or burden that others do not receive or pay. Would force a flat tax as well as remove the incentive for corruption. Laws couldn’t be passed bestowing favorable teams one corporation, no reason for the corporation to pay the congressman for their vote.
6. This is a great idea, have not hear of this before.
7. Can you elaborate?
8. Agreed, regulatory bodies shouldn’t be able enforce regulations on people. I would deny regulatory rules completely, any regulatory rule would have to be a law passed by congress before it could be enforced.
9. I think this could have some major problems and will be overturned in the future. Think about war, how would we increase spending in the face of a threat? First, we fire/layoff most federal employees. It would cheaper with them on welfare and we wouldn’t have to deal with the poor decisions they make. We would privatize most functions that were deemed necessary. The BLM, once disbanded, has tons of resources owned by the people, these should be privatized, the profits utilized to pay our federal operating costs. We would start again with a budget of zero, any increase must be paid for and voted on by congress. The source or the funds must be in the bill, and how the law is dissolved if funds become unavailable. Each and every bill would have to contain a life cycle of the law.
A second idea is that which is already employed in many states: that the FULL text of any bill must be read in the presence of a quorum before debate may begin. If that were instituted in the House or Senate, you could kiss these "omnibus" bills goodbye.
The third would be to outlaw "reconciliation" bills. If the Senate passes a bill, the House has to vote on that bill as written. Same the other way. None of this nonsense where a committee gets to change the text of a bill and then only a slim majority are needed to pass it.
#5 Tariffs and taxes are always going to be somewhat problematic in regard to equality of application. In fact, it can be argued that there is no such thing as equal application in such. What metric could be universally applied to all transactions? At least with tariffs there is a direct feedback mechanism outside of Congress' ability to skirt the system.
#7 Currently, when any particular agency of the Federal government is challenged on its interpretation of statute or its rule-making authority, the agency is given broad leeway or discretion in its application because of a couple of Supreme Court rulings, the most notable being Chevron (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.). Thus, the precedent established by that ruling was called "Chevron Deference." It is one of the primary reasons for the expansion and growth of Federal bureaucracies' power because the precedent basically says that the burden of proof regarding a given agency's authority to interpret statute lies with the plaintiff rather than with the agency. In other words, given Chevron deference, an agency only has to argue that their interpretation is reasonably aligned with the authority delegated to it by Congress. In contrast, a "strict scrutiny" standard 1) places the onus back on the government agency to prove that its interpretation falls within the authority delegated by Congress, 2) that there is no other way to accomplish the task of the agency, and 3) that the means chosen by the agency must be the least impactful when conflicting with other civil liberties.
For example, right now, the EPA and Department of the Interior egregiously violate the property rights of land owners in their interpretation of the Waters of the United States Act by declaring any source of running water to impact the water system. Thus they can tell people what they can and can't do with their own land, not to mention what they put in the water (fertilizer runoff from farmers, etc.). A "strict scrutiny" standard would likely negate this encroachment.
#9. The point about war has not been lost on me. But turn the question on its head: do you want Congress to simply bypass this requirement by ALWAYS existing in a state of War? I think not. The other thing to consider is that this is a direct feedback method to Congress: if they enact policies which cripple the economy, they'll have to deal with revenue shortfalls until they rescind their disastrous policies. The other point I didn't bring up was that this system would automatically disallow funding programs for more than one or two years at a time. They would constantly be on the chopping block, ensuring that there was real competition for those funds.
I agree that we have too many federal employees. I would fire probably 80% of them if I were Emperor for a Day as I don't believe many of them serve a Constitutional purpose - let alone a useful one.
Historically speaking, of course, you are correct. The Federal Congress was never meant to be a full-time body nor was it meant to be comprised of "professional" politicians. I am in support of term limits for Congress.
We get corrupt leaders because the people who elect them are corrupt. They believe in something for nothing and willingly vote for people who are prepared to rob others. So what
else can be expected?
All the other amendments are hidden agenda actions to enslave.
No power, no corruption.
The founders gave us the power. We let the corrupt take it from us.
We are the peaceful American colonists.
They are the redcoats representing the "empire of lies'" tyrants.
In their plans, we are just mud on their jackboots.
Download of that interesting story here:
https://archive.org/download/TheRevol...
One of my favorite novelettes that has a similar plot is Heinlein's Lost Legacy (also called Lost Legion.)
http://www.sfsfss.com/stories/Robert_A.Heinlein-_Lost_Legacy.pdf
http://www.sfsfss.com/stories/Robert_...
Here's the original Amazing Stories magazine with the Pedestrians story. You click the pages and they turn.
https://archive.org/details/AmazingSt...
I have imagined this is one possible way humans will evolve into their own demise. Too much brains, not enough brawn. It seems like the smarter we get, the weaker we get. There is a balance at work in the physics of the Universe and Life and we cannot tip it. Smart phones have made us stupid users.
I guess the San Francisco site took the Lost Legacy page down since I downloaded it yesterday. San Francisco residents seem to be able to ruin everything they touch lately.
You know that Liberals Ruin Everything They Touch.
Kind of like the Midas touch. But everything they touch turns Gold into Excrement.
www dot sfsfss dot com/stories/Robert_A.underscoreHeinleinunderscore-_Lost_Legacy.pdf
If that doesn't work, maybe this will:
http://www.sfsfss.com/stories/Heinlei...
I think there have been lessons learned about the effects of those amendments. Clearly suffrage and rights of all homo sapiens must be addressed.
My objection to the 13th, 14th , and 15th is that they were passed without representation of the southern states, and that is unconstitutional itself.
The 16th was arguably never ratified either. The 12th and 17th are converting the republican form into a democracy, which Franklin among others warned against.
The 22nd should be expanded to affect the congress.
There is need for an amendment that further restrict expansion of the central government using the commerce clause and other phrases.
The amendments that were added after the 10th should be seriously considered based on government actions in the past 200 years.
Coined be Abraham Lincoln, but arguably the root of all visions of America, our government is to be "of... by... and for the people." Subjecting our elected officials to different lifestyles than what the rest of us live will only exacerbate the differences between us and them. Additionally, these conditions would lead only to a need for career politicians and not term limits, a concept which has been brought up numerous times in this chat.
Greed carries a connotation many don't like in the world. Another term for it, one we should all be more familiar with on this sight, is self-interest. It is the same thing. Two individuals engaging in a transaction with one another are subject to risk. However, if both pursue their personal interests to the fullest of their abilities, especially through regular transactions with one another, then the two will benefit better than under any other system. When one tries to give something unearned, or similarly take something unearned, than there is a discrepancy known as unfairness. The idea that elected leaders are angels on a divine mission with utter disregard for personal interest or desires subconsciously perverts many individual's thoughts. This very ideology is what drives people to regulation and legislation to correct issues rather than to reason. The truth is no human is not human. That is, A does not equal non-A.
If we can embrace that they pursue personal interests, and ensure a world exists where they live lives as similar as possible to the rest of us, then all the power rests within the voter to vote for the representative with the most aligned interests. That is how corruption is overcome. At the risk of oversimplifying, corruption is merely just a disagreement. In the context we are discussing, corruption is a disagreement between the corrupt and objective value/morality.
It looks like the psychopaths are the social climbers who run for office. There is a distinction between Conservatism, and Republican Politicians. Same for the Liberals, and Destructocrat Politicians. Voting just doesn't bridge the gap. We are perpetually voting for corrupt people, no?
A ≠ ~A or, A does not equal not A, is just the inverse. Blue does not equal Yellow. Yellow is not Blue.
I remember now. My symbolic logic professor used to use politically charged premises to trick the students into getting the wrong answer. Logic is about logic. He'd pose a bunch of political statements that were absolutely stupid, but perfectly logical. Some students would follow their views and common sense and fail the exams. That's why many people don't like logic. It's really hard to separate logic from feelings and common sense.
Besides making millions on the side to buy stuff like mansions encircled by walls, a raise is always a wonderful hedge against the rising cost of living. Oh, how they DO deserve that. Um-hum!
Bitches and bastards everyone. (As a child, me an old dino very early on was taught the polite if not chivalrous concept of "ladies first.")
This would remove the incentive for corruption and force a flat tax.
In the same amendment, I would severely limit the executive branches use of executive actions in the same vein as above or just limit it to the implementation of existing law. I would also deny regulatory rules completely, any regulatory rule would have to be a law passed by congress. We need to make those sorry ass-wipes do their job and do it in the best interest of the country.
100% open books for public officials (and SES people). If you are in government, all your financial information is open to all, and all communications are open to the public.
http://thesocietyproject.org/
But seriously, TERM LIMITS!
I think corruption goes hand in hand with over regulation. As in regulation equals law. Actually it doesn't.
I agree with the oft quoted AR passage about passing laws for the sole purpose of having good people break them.
Men are human, and humans are greedy by design. The only way to eliminate corruption is to eliminate men, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
Corruption, while motivated by greed, normally culminates in theft, which is not the same as earning something. It's our self respect and love for ourselves that protects us from corruption. The corrupt have no such feelings.
First, publishing identifiers such as SSNs, bank account numbers, and VINs makes it easy for others to impersonate the individual, or the owner of the bank account or vehicle. I don't think it would help to enable that.
Second, crooked or even just sneaky operations such as transferring funds to allies or to shady vendors such as Mr. Epstein is frequently done through family members or other trusted "dummies." Think of outfits like Obama's ACORN and OFA or Soros's foundations, each of which uses hundreds of front organizations to hide their actions. To even try to make this scheme work we would have to expose to public view every person or entity that has ever received money or favors from a politician, no matter how indirectly, including before he or she sought public office. And expose everything all those people and companies do as well, and THEIR beneficiaries.
The IRS has tried on multiple occasions to similarly investigate the opponents of powerful politicians. Presidents FDR, Nixon, Obama, and now Biden have set the IRS on their "enemies lists" this way, and it hasn't worked very well. I doubt if any civilian can assemble an auditing team more thorough than the IRS.
Corruption is in human nature; no one is worthy of ultimate trust. The only solution to it is a combination of unending skepticism and vigilance, plus an overriding constitutional principle that no one is above the law. If the constitution (either as written or as enforced in the real world) does not work this way, then it's time to scrap it and form one that does.
And what is "corruption"? An animal to survive may resort to any form of aggression, by camouflage or outright force, with sly hunter's tricks or laying traps. Deception is nature's most sophisticated tool of conquest. But what creature devours its own kind? Yet that is what humans do with their wars, crimes, and collusions. So why do we call them corrupt when they simply operate according to their natural modus operandi for survival by acquisition? Everyone would operate the same way if they had the skill and opportunity.
Humans are still deeply under the influence of their original algorithms of seek, find, take. They are no different from the millions of other species that co-exist with or co-consume what is available on the earth. It is easy to accuse other humans of "corrupt" practices when all they do is follow the original program of seek-find-take. Ah, but what other lifeform destroys its own kind? A major glitch in the human software lets humans turn against their own kind, defrauding and destroying instead of cooperating for mutual benefit.
So the question should be how to eliminate the whole concept of leaders and followers, rulers and serfs. Hire administrators, don’t empower commanders. How can humans cooperate for mutual benefit, not for cancerous mutual destruction? How can respect for each individual’s unalienable rights be the prime directive?
And yet, what do we find at the end of this fatiguingly long discourse by the august thinkers of the Gulch? The most barbaric proposal to kill in the most ghoulish ways anyone they can accuse of serving their self-interest, along with all the relatives in their bloodline. Care to rethink this?
Term limits can stop a lot of the former, but given the people being elected by the “woke” portion of the electorate, term limits may be able to do little about the latter.
It’s just that simple.
Load more comments...