Mario wrote on the question of diet increase: "It's very simple:
a) Earn politicians appropriate lot, they are less prone to corruption and lobbying
b) Earn. Politicians appropriate to decide executives place more in the policy in the economy going. "
Answer: Who "appropriate" to say, say what standards he has.
Some members of parliament believe that to 23 or 83 years old and what training whatsoever, can be compared with judges, other members of parliament believe that 83 or 23 years old and what training whatsoever, comparable to "senior managers" to can.
scale would be, however, that elected officials have to measure themselves by what the person represented in them.
So if the elected officials believe that they were three times as polluted as talented and work represented the average earner, then they should not certify it themselves, but can be confirmed by referendum, because if I by whomever and for whatever represent them, then I have a say about the price, unless I were incapacitated.
Mario wrote: "a) earn a lot of politicians are reasonable, they are less prone to corruption and lobbying."
Answer: That is a standard argument naive or corrupt people, for in truth, only move the dimensions.
corruption and lobbying will not listen to pampering, but only with transparency rules and actual penalties. As containing 22,000 euros richer than "punishment" is not if a business 100 000 did, but this only leads to even more to have such transactions.
But as long as the public want a say / not possible if the parliamentarians adopted "in its own affairs" inadequate regulations will change anything.
Mario wrote: "b) Earn politicians adequately resolve executives place more in the policy in the economy going."
Answer: too, is a standard argument of naïve or corrupt, because reality is that for people who "earn" 500,000, also are things that are too expensive for them, so that such "earner " very quickly in their new districts to be "discriminated against" if they would be forbidden to fill their pockets even more.
quality and responsibility can not pay alimony and did not "its price", but the agreed price, including liability - or are dictated. And so it is at that dictate its price, the representatives of the principal.
If the control direction reversed and the citizens would choose to earn what their representatives, it would not be forced, for no one would be forced to be people's representatives.
And if the representatives of the people already working with 3-Euro-40 "overpaid" seems likely, thus not prevail, since only total idealists have pleasure in sending their representatives to sackcloth and ashes on the world stage. The intellectual poverty is unsightly enough. So may be at least Suits. But exaggeration in the externals and pampering go well at the expense of performance as well as the under-supply. In between, the agreement would be, otherwise it has features of oligarchy and democracy.
why we need a referendum on all matters where decisions are the people's representatives "in their own affairs."
0 comments:
Post a Comment