here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2004-05-27 17:04:44] - vinnie:  but will you be able to drive back (without endangering the lives of your passengers and your fellow man)?  ~a

[2004-05-27 17:04:17] - Paul: yes, the browser menu is extremely turned on my seductive mouse movements - travis

[2004-05-27 17:02:09] - Pierce: Heard what? -Paul

[2004-05-27 17:01:59] - Travis: Just trying to get it up? -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:59:53] - Paul: I heard that. - pierce

[2004-05-27 16:57:40] - i wasn't trying to win anything, just get up the browser menu - travis

[2004-05-27 16:56:01] - Travis: I'm lucky I haven't won that particular prize in the yahoo ads sweepstakes. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:54:32] - ugh, chronicles of riddick banner at the top of my yahoo mail page brought up a kinda big flash window whenever i moused over it and popup blocker couldn't kill it since it was flash - travis

[2004-05-27 16:51:01] - a: I can drive to the metro - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:42:22] - So what's going on Monday evening? -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:42:02] - Xpovos: With kids. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:41:43] - Ok, so just so everyone knows, the plan is to meet at the bowling alley at 1:30 on Saturday. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:41:07] - Could be worse... I could be married. -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:38:30] - Xpovos: Heh, I feel for you, man. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:37:28] - Paul: No doubt.  And I'm leaving 3/4 of it out. -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:36:47] - Xpovos: Ah, I can read the femspeak. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:36:02] - Paul: Because it's at Midnight, and I "wouldn't like it there." -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:35:45] - Travis: I'll be arriving ~5:30, 6PM.  If it's not too complicated, IM me some directions if I get lost I'll call. -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:33:57] - Travis: We'll have to see if he stays longer than Pierce. That will give us a good gauge of how whipped he is. > or < Lisa. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:32:53] - oh right, tim is escaping the missus to play with the boys - travis

[2004-05-27 16:32:50] - all:  in case nobody wants to drive, it costs $2.40 to take the bus to and from the metro.  ~a

[2004-05-27 16:32:34] - i think the alley is now the normal place - travis

[2004-05-27 16:32:33] - Vinnie: Yeah, I would guess just meet at the alley. No reason to meet at my house. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:32:05] - Travis: Tim might be there too. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:31:50] - Vinnie: Everyone but Travis. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:31:36] - what's the normal place? the alley or your house? i'd rather meet at the alley - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:31:26] - mig: all righty, just meet at the court, sam and paul should be there, pierce might be coming if he's not too late getting in town, and depending on when andrew gets in is when i'll get there - travis

[2004-05-27 16:30:53] - ok! draft saturday night or sunday, travis has to participate. everyone is happy - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:30:40] - Xpovos: why aren't you invited? -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:30:32] - Ok, so shall we meet at the normal place at, say, 1:30? -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:30:31] - xpovos: should i wait at my place tomorrow for you or can i leave to be at the basketball court by 6pm and you can call for directions? - travis

[2004-05-27 16:29:54] - on friday. - mig

[2004-05-27 16:29:50] - Paul: Precisely.  She's going clubbing Saturday night, and I am decidedly not invited. -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:29:37] - travis:  yes, i am available for basketball. - mig

[2004-05-27 16:28:50] - paul: seems to work out best to do bowling - travis

[2004-05-27 16:28:49] - Travis: Ha ha, forced into it. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:28:35] - So it's all agreed? Bowling? -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:28:11] - so i guess if we do draft saturday or sunday without paul i definitely have to play - travis

[2004-05-27 16:28:04] - Well, it seems to me that if you're trying to maximize time together, you would want to do the draft when Katie is busy. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:27:33] - I could always tell her to bugger off and we all have fun doing whatever we want. -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:27:02] - ok, it seems a lot easier to do bowling. let's do that - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:26:18] - Paul: Nothing is set in stone yet.  But I was trying to fit as much time as possible to you guys -and- her, and the easiest way to do that is doing stuff together.  And I had heard we were going bowling, not so much that it was a possibility -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:26:16] - so then it's decided we're bowling saturday afternoon? - travis

[2004-05-27 16:24:55] - Vinnie: Well, if Katie is doing stuff with us, then I think bowling is the clear choice, otherwise she would be bored. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:24:28] - paul: you get a vote too (to break this tie) - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:23:54] - Xpovos: Wait, so Katie is doing stuff with us on Saturday? -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:22:55] - Vinnie: Tough choice.  I like them both, but I know Katie was interested in going bowling.  So I guess I'll cast my 'vote' for bowling -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:22:03] - xpovos: the vote is whether we do the draft with 5 instead of bowling on saturday afternoon - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:21:10] - paul: i'm thinking one takes it. democracy at its finest - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:19:56] - Vinnie: I see, I mis-read your comment.  Sunday or Saturday evening would be best for me.  Saturday afternoon I heard there are plans for bowling, and then late afternoon I have to do stuff for Katie -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:19:19] - Hrmm, that was me. -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 16:19:12] - Travis: I'm not sure, just found out today that I have Monday off after-all.  So I can leave whenever is most convenient.

[2004-05-27 16:19:00] - I wonder if there will be any more votes? -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:14:45] - Vinnie: Or one week, depending on how you think about it. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:11:59] - isn't "one month" now like three weeks? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:08:45] - Vinnie: I suppose so. I'll let you all vote then I guess. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:08:11] - well, I don't know about other people but I'd rather draft with 5 people than go bowling if it's a choice between the two. really, we can do either without you - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:05:45] - I was trying to plan the draft for Saturday afternoon but I'm not sure we will have time for that AND bowling. I figured you could draft without me. -Paul

[2004-05-27 16:05:15] - aaron: yeah, that's basically how I am too. I'll probably just end up coming to your place as soon as I can and then we can all leave whenever - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:04:29] - xpovos: when are you leaving on sunday, btw? - travis

[2004-05-27 16:04:06] - mig: so are you coming to basketball? just trying to see if i have to wait for anyone since right now the few of us are just meeting at the court - travis

[2004-05-27 16:02:11] - vinnie: I'm not picky about opening bands. If it's a matter of convenience, I don't matter if we end up showing up to the concert a little late. - aaron

[2004-05-27 16:01:44] - xpovos: oh wait, nm, are you around saturday afternoon? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 16:00:59] - I'd prefer saturday afternoon because I think we'll get five people that way. paul was trying to plan it, I believe - vinnie

[2004-05-27 15:59:40] - xpovos: oh, yeah, sunday will work. I wasn't sure you'd be around then. basically the only day I'm busy is friday and the only other requirement is at least 4 people - vinnie

[2004-05-27 15:57:04] - vinnie:  no awk for me. - mig

[2004-05-27 15:56:05] - Vinne: So Sunday? -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 15:55:46] - xpovos: I can tell you it's not gonna be on friday. saturday afternoon or evening - vinnie

[2004-05-27 15:54:05] - Vinnie: What's the status on drafting this weekend? I've heard things but want concretes. -- Xpovos

[2004-05-27 15:16:43] - i haven't heard of any of them, so I don't care either way - vinnie

[2004-05-27 15:15:24] - as far as time, I dunno. doors open at 8 if we want to see the opening bands. I wasn't sure if you two wanted to - vinnie

[2004-05-27 15:14:20] - change = chance - vinnie

[2004-05-27 15:14:03] - a: how about your place? I think it's just me you and aaron (mig: now is your change to speak up) - vinnie

[2004-05-27 15:10:50] - all:  where are we meeting when for awk?  ~a

[2004-05-27 14:43:50] - Vinnie: Well, we wouldn't want that to happen. Better keep things the way they are then. -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:39:38] - yes. surprisingly! - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:38:38] - Vinnie: So they would be socialists? -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:37:49] - well, they might try to form written laws, for one - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:37:09] - Vinnie: Different how? -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:36:30] - no, I just mean, it wouldn't really be like heinlein described. it'd be something different - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:35:31] - Vinnie: And different is worse? -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:34:36] - more what I meant is that if you took today's people and put them in that society, they'd probably make a different society. this is getting very vague for me - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:32:32] - paul: right. I think it would take a lot for humanity to die out (which is really the only way a society can not "work" ) - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:30:31] - Vinnie: Well, I still think it would "work" in our society, it just wouldn't work how you like it. -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:28:26] - but it still sounds too far removed from our society to be considered an argument for anything. at least in most of the debates we have, society is considered the same as it is in reality (we quote real-world stats) - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:28:20] - Vinnie: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the one I pulled a lot of idea from. It's not a great book, IMHO, but it has some fun ideas in it. -paul

[2004-05-27 14:25:40] - yeah, I get the feeling I don't. maybe I'll try one of his books sometime - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:23:00] - Vinnie: I guess in a way. I don't know if you completely understand it, though. It's not that well structured. A lot of the time people took the "law" into their own hands. -paul

[2004-05-27 14:19:45] - oh. then heinlein's thing is mostly a matter of societal change. it would require most everyone to agree to something without it being explicit. we're a ways away from that I think - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:15:47] - Vinnie: Any sort of reduction in government services I think is going to require a litlte bit of drastic change. -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:14:43] - Vinnie: Not really, since there was nobody saying that's how they had to do it. It was also just as acceptable to throw somebody out the airlock to solve the disagreement. -paul

[2004-05-27 14:13:08] - and, offhand, heinlein is confusing me. isn't what you described a law in itself? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:11:38] - paul: from what I gathered, your plan was to suddenly stop paying government people, which I can see now is not exactly so - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:10:43] - well, no, but you have to spell out all the changes you want to make. then at least we can argue about whether it's feasible to try and make those changes all at once - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:08:40] - Vinnie: You want to keep the entire system intact? -paul

[2004-05-27 14:08:24] - or if you say something like "government people shouldn't be paid" you gotta tell me all the other changes that have to accompany it - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:08:23] - First, we shall cut the pie in two. Then, each man will receive.... Death... I'll eat the pie - third party

[2004-05-27 14:07:03] - ok, this is getting too far removed from our world. tell me why in our world we shouldn't pay judges - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:04:37] - Vinnie: No, that was kinda the point. There was no law. Two people bring their disagreement to a third party, both agree to abide by his ruling, he hears their sides, and makes a ruling. Done. -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:02:58] - was everyone familiar with the law in heinlein? if so, I can tell you the problem with its real-world applicability - vinnie

[2004-05-27 14:00:42] - Travis: Because you're their keeper. -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:00:29] - Vinnie: RtFB. Mainly, it was how I described it before, what with the volunteering to plead your case in front of some random third party. -Paul

[2004-05-27 14:00:21] - why the hell are you asking me? - travis

[2004-05-27 13:59:38] - Travis: I suppose. So, are they still a couple? -Paul

[2004-05-27 13:56:49] - paul: from what i understand, yes, don't you remember andrew's rant against clubbing? - travis

[2004-05-27 13:56:47] - in heinlein? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 13:56:41] - how did it work out of curiosity? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 13:55:04] - Vinnie: It worked fine in Heinlein. -Paul

[2004-05-27 13:52:21] - Aaron: Depends on how you define best. I know I won't be able to define a 'best' without Pierce coming down on me for daring to imply that one person's politics is better than another's, so I'm leaving that to you all. -Paul

[2004-05-27 13:48:18] - too inefficient. again, not something I can really prove to you, but I was hoping you'd agree - vinnie

[2004-05-27 13:48:04] - Paul: The question in my mind isn't, "will there be enough people willing to work for free", it's, "will the best people want to work for free" - aaron

[2004-05-27 13:43:49] - Travis: Wait, wait. Katie is going clubbing without Andrew? -Paul

[2004-05-27 13:35:16] - Vinnie: Sure, why not? -paul

[2004-05-27 13:34:36] - Aaron: There are a number of reasons. Primarily it's because it's the government paying it. Some is because of the tremendous power that they have. Probably the biggest reason is because in a free market, their salary would probably be zero (since I think there are more than enough people who would do the job for free). -Paul

[2004-05-27 13:31:14] - paul: even like judges and stuff? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 13:30:44] - paul: Why is that okay? It seems like having a doctor whose only motivation is money, or a broker whose only motivation is his commission, could be a lot more detrimental than government officials whose sources of outside income are (i think) pretty heavily monitored - aaron

[2004-05-27 13:26:25] - Aaron: Anything where the government isn't the employer? -paul

[2004-05-27 13:26:05] - Travis: So maybe the draft is a bad idea for Saturday? -Paul

[2004-05-27 13:26:03] - to answer for paul: I would guess yes. I think his major point of contention is that he thinks govt specifically can be done as a hobby - vinnie

[2004-05-27 13:23:08] - paul: yeah. available in the afternoon - vinnie

[2004-05-27 13:19:21] - paul: I don't know if you quite ever directly answered my/dave's question (or maybe i forgot ) but are there any jobs for which you think it's OK to pay someone? - aaron

[2004-05-27 13:12:33] - Paul: andrew said he's gonna be spending time with katie sometime during the day on saturday since she's going clubbing that night, so you and him just have totally conflicting schedules - travis

[2004-05-27 13:03:55] - Vinnie: I'll have to give it some thought then, but you are available in the afternoon? -Paul

[2004-05-27 13:01:21] - hmm, might be tricky. bowling usually takes about 2.5 hours I think including transit time - vinnie

[2004-05-27 13:00:08] - Vinnie: That might work out, trying to think if we can do bowling and a draft from 1-6 on Saturday. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:59:23] - paul: 2.5 hours maybe? you can always leave early if that's your concern - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:58:08] - Vinnie: How long do you think it would take? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:57:55] - yeah, saturday should be ok - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:57:16] - Vinnie: Sorry, I meant Saturday. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:57:08] - Dave: Like? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:57:00] - Dave: Fine, then I guess I don't understand what you're saying. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:56:54] - Paul: sorry, didn't mean to be condescending. Although you have certainly made your share of comments as well -dave

[2004-05-27 12:56:01] - paul: tomorrow? I don't think so. working at day, andrew wk at night - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:55:47] - Paul: it's also possible for you not understand what I'm saying -dave

[2004-05-27 12:55:35] - Dave: You know, some might mistake that for being a somewhat condescending attitude. You're lucky I'm not as sensitive as some. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:54:44] - Dave: It's possible to understand what you're talking about and still disagree you know. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:54:01] - Paul: which is why it is unproductive to keep this up, because no one is making progress -dave

[2004-05-27 12:53:57] - Vinnie: Are you free to do a magic draft tomorrow? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:53:39] - Paul: I don't think you do, which is the problem. I believe you think you do, but you're not seeing exactly what I'm saying (shrug) -dave

[2004-05-27 12:53:16] - I bid you ciao day - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:53:05] - Paul: fine, you can use semantics if you want to use that defense -dave

[2004-05-27 12:53:05] - Dave: btw, I will say that I understand your point, I just disagree with it. You always assume that I don't understand where you're coming from when in fact I do, I just don't tend to agree. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:52:26] - Dave: Ciao! -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:52:11] - Besides, Lawmakers also get a ton of perks that I think a lot of people don't realize. Their expenses are probably pretty damned low. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:51:39] - Paul: well, ok, I think our views are just too different and I'm not making much headway in making you understand my point. So I will say ciao -dave

[2004-05-27 12:50:58] - Dave: Isn't that what a bribe is also? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:50:35] - Paul: I'm saying it's not a bribe, it's paying them to do a job. -dave

[2004-05-27 12:50:00] - the govt would be "bribing" them (can we switch back to "paying"? ) - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:49:30] - Dave: And I think your perception of how much work legislators need to do is off. So we're even. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:48:48] - Dave: It was a play off words. We don't like it when our politicians are bribed unless it's the government that is bribing them. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:48:46] - Paul: No, I'm saying that I think your perception of how easy it is to live off of invemstments is a little off -dave

[2004-05-27 12:48:02] - Paul: because he is putting his three kids through ivy league schools -dave

[2004-05-27 12:47:52] - because his lifestyle was more expensive. he didn't plan on retiring early - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:47:48] - Dave: How so? You're saying people can't retire and live off investments? -paul

[2004-05-27 12:47:02] - Paul: you mean you think paying people to do a job isn't a good way to do things? -dave

[2004-05-27 12:47:01] - Vinnie: Why wouldn't he be able to afford it? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:46:39] - Paul: as an offhand comment, I think you have a very skewed perception of what it takes to retire / live off of just investments -dave

[2004-05-27 12:46:32] - Dave: Well, I still disagree. I think there will be plenty of people and I think that bribing people with money to get into politics isn't a great way to do it. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:46:17] - yeah, dave said it - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:46:04] - all I mean is that a great lawyer maybe spent his means and then decided later that govt was what he wanted to do. and he'd be good, but he can't afford to - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:45:06] - Paul: I agree there will be people who will do it, but I don't think there will be ENOUGH people. And I think these people who WILL do it aren't the BEST people to do it - that we get BETTER people doing it by paying them -dave

[2004-05-27 12:44:36] - Vinnie: But according to you, isn't that a good thing? Isn't the point of all this to get the most qualified people? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:43:59] - Vinnie: All I am saying is that there WILL be people who will do it, for whatever reason. And I think most reasons are better than "for the money". -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:43:47] - paul: under your system, it'd have to be! - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:43:24] - besides, that also means that you have to be wealthy enough to retire. if some great lawyer later in life decides to go into govt, maybe they won't be able to financially? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:43:22] - Vinnie: I'm not saying people are honorable and selfless at all. Who ever said politics was an honorable and selfless endeavor? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:42:50] - Dave: But according to Vinnie's comment, we don't want poor people to be elected because they don't have good qualifications. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:42:48] - not that it wouldn't be nice if they were that selfless. But if everyone was that selfless, communism would work much better -dave

[2004-05-27 12:42:14] - vinnie: amen to your last comment -dave

[2004-05-27 12:41:31] - paul: but what's the motivation? why won't the lawyer just keep doing law? I think what this agreement boils down to for me is: I don't think people are as honorable and selfless as you think - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:41:22] - Paul: The problem is, from your comment to vinnie, is that this excludes anyone who isn't rich? I would think you, of all people, would not want to do that -dave

[2004-05-27 12:40:58] - Dave: Actually, I'm still thinking that you don't pay them. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:39:19] - Vinnie: Right. So what I'm saying is that a lawyer, who is rich, should be able to take some time off to run for office if he wants to without going homeless. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:38:27] - Paul: yes, we're assuming they don't have enough time for a full time job. 3 months out of the year doesn't seem to qualify for enough time to work a full time position -dave

[2004-05-27 12:38:19] - paul: well, I don't want someone with no basis in law making laws for me, no. much more likely there will be some sort of error. lawyers tend to be rich because it's a tough profession - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:37:40] - Paul: because they are all rich enough to support themselves already? -dave

[2004-05-27 12:37:21] - Dave: I think you would be surprised by how little needs to be done. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:37:05] - Dave: So basically we're assuming that lawmakers can't have enough time to work another job? In that case, yes, it might be necessary to pay them. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:37:02] - Paul: and yes, currently, you'd be really surprised out how much legislation there is / needs to be done. -dave

[2004-05-27 12:36:20] - Dave: Right, and I am saying that in our current system we do not need to pay the lawmakers for a number of reasons. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:36:12] - Paul: what I'm saying is that your point is not relevant to what the original question is - whether we should pay them so much, for what they have to do at present -dave

[2004-05-27 12:35:52] - Vinnie: So you basically want a lawyer.... You do realize lawyers tend to be rich. -paul

[2004-05-27 12:35:17] - Dave: Right, and my point is that it doesn't have to be that way. I mean, really. Does each lawmaker need all that time coupled with all their staffers just to pass some legislation each year? It's mind boggling. Is there really that many new instances of stuff that needs legislation? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:33:46] - Paul: like I said, this discussion is not about whether we should have so much legislation, but whether we should pay our current ones what we do, given that they have to do what they have to now ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-27 12:33:02] - Paul: "could easily do a little legislating on the side" The problem is with our system right now, it's not just a little legislating, it's more like have a few months off to make enough money to support yourself for the year -dave

[2004-05-27 12:32:37] - ideally, just a good basis in law or business. realistically, someone that agrees with me and has those things - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:31:05] - Paul: well, if Jefferson went bankrupt, they sure didn't confiscate all his land or his house. -dave

[2004-05-27 12:29:59] - Vinnie: Ok then, let me ask you something. What makes a person qualified for office? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:29:53] - sorry for ze confusion, I see it now - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:29:26] - Vinnie: Ah, I thought you meant 'made' as in 'created', not 'forced'. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:26:53] - juries are forced to do what they do. not a volunteered thing - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:26:36] - how are the most hard-working people going to have time on the side? to me, the people who would have time for your system would be independentally wealthy people, which speaks absolutely nothing for qualifications - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:25:43] - Vinnie: "juries are basically made to do what they do" What the hell does that mean? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:25:12] - Dave: I'm not so sure it WAS really rich people. They were probably all land-owners, which put them in a higher class, but didn't Jefferson go bankrupt and wasn't Washington born poor? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:25:00] - paul: juries are basically made to do what they do. and obviously, volunteer fire stations work, just not optimally - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:24:10] - Vinnie: Again, I'm not so sure you do. The quality and talented individuals are not, 9 times out of 10, going to be poor homeless bums on the street. They're going to mostly be people who are successful and hard working and thus could easily do a little legislating on the side. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:22:52] - Vinnie: But using that rationale, you could say that a volunteer fire station wouldn't work, or that juries and voting doesn't work. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:21:36] - paul: well, in colonial days, it was only really rich people there -dave

[2004-05-27 12:21:30] - well, ok, some people will work for free, but I think you lose quality and talent - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:20:30] - paul: I agreed it was circular, but you can't simply eliminate a salary for the same reasons you can't expect anybody nowadays to suddenly work for free. I don't know how you can change society to think like that - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:19:53] - Dave: It wouldn't have to be confined to "really rich" people at all. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:17:08] - paul: well, in any case, I think that confining the legislature to really rich people like it was in colonial days, is a bad idea -dave

[2004-05-27 12:17:04] - Vinnie: Right, but I guess my point is that the perception has changed because it has changed itself. It used to be that these people would gather for a little bit of time and debate and maybe pass some laws. Now we pay them to pass laws, which puts more pressure on them to do it. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:15:21] - Dave: Pretty sure, because I seem to remember the founding fathers always had to go back to their farms to make a living. Besides, who would've paid them? -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:14:49] - paul: after they set it up, did they really not pay the president, congressmen, etc? -dave

[2004-05-27 12:14:29] - paul: I mean yeah they didn't get paid when they were making the constituation etc, but that's because we didn't have a country yet -dave

[2004-05-27 12:14:11] - paul: actually, are you sure they didn't get paid after they setup the initial govt? -dave

[2004-05-27 12:14:04] - also time, definitely - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:13:23] - same responsibility, but that's not my point. I think perception of positions can change. awhile back, science was really a hobby more than a profession. I think govt has become a little less honorable than it once was - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:13:13] - Paul: If nothing else, there's a lot more reading material - aaron

[2004-05-27 12:13:10] - Paul: Nope, we aren't trying to get the best people for the military -dave

[2004-05-27 12:12:07] - I don't think they legislate out of not having enough to do, but I agree it's circular. harder to undo changes to make them, at times - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:10:53] - Vinnie: I'm not entirely sure how times change anyway. Lawmakers seem to have about the same amount of responsibility as before. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:08:47] - Vinnie: I think it's somewhat circular. Lawmakers are busy because they always have to be doing something with their time otherwise they look lazy, and so they legislate. Make it so that they have to earn an income and I'll bet they find plenty of free time to work while still getting the essentials done. -Paul

[2004-05-27 12:07:04] - also, now that I've read it a bit I like it a lot more. the sunday strips of that comic are a lot worse than the dailys IMO - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:05:55] - vinnie: oh yeah, when rat was sent to comics camp or whatever.  i think i posted the get fuzzy one on here - travis

[2004-05-27 12:04:42] - plus, I definitely think it's more of a full-time thing now. as govt got more complicated it needed more people purely devoted to it. why did we start paying govt officials in the first place otherwise? - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:03:37] - paul: that doesn't really make sense. times change. I'd bet back then there were other "honorable" professions that people did for free that aren't done nearly as freely today. like a lot of science - vinnie

[2004-05-27 12:01:23] - Aaron: Well, my only point was that it worked fine for however many years so I don't see why we would suddenly see such a great drop-off in "talent" if we suddenly stopped paying politicians to rule over us. -Paul

[2004-05-27 11:57:41] - travis: I read the last month of pearls and there was a whole other week of references to other comics! I guess comics about comics haven't been done enough - vinnie

[2004-05-27 11:57:25] - I guess my point is I don't think it's fair to say a job should be un(der)paid now because it was un(der)paid in the past - aaron

[2004-05-27 11:55:29] - paul: I don't think rent in 1600 was quite as high as it is now - aaron

[2004-05-27 11:40:17] - Bah, there are too many points to respond to, actually, and I'm not even sure who is still around so I'll just say that the founding fathers were all part-time legislators that got paid nothing and they turned out to be possibly the best legislators we've ever had. -Paul

[2004-05-27 11:38:50] - Dave: So you're saying the military isn't trying to get the best people? -Paul

[2004-05-27 11:08:52] - http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/20cube.html process for solving a virtual 20x20x20 rubik's cube. Sounds like a wild time. - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:49:10] - oooh, man, everyone one of you needs to read my (finally completed) transmetropolitan collection, it covers so much stuff you talk about - travis

[2004-05-27 09:47:57] - vinnie: but if he's there for the money and doing a great job, then who cares? -dave

[2004-05-27 09:47:34] - vinnie: yeah, and the real sticking point is, if the person is just there for the money and doing a bad job, then don't elect him -dave

[2004-05-27 09:45:38] - Paul: Just for your information, an index fund investment will get you around 15% per year. So to make 100k a year from investments, you need around 670k invested. It takes a good long while to build that up -dave

[2004-05-27 09:44:33] - vinnie: I agree. And if it does happen to attract people who are "just in it for the money", then they'll most likely be outperformed by people who actually enjoy/excel at the job - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:41:21] - I really just see it as another job. the more money you pour into it up to a point, the more qualified you'll get - vinnie

[2004-05-27 09:39:18] - Paul: hmm, better phrased as, if your country needs people to fight, then you should be -dave

[2004-05-27 09:38:25] - paul: If someone likes to kill people, and they can either join the military out of "good will", or they can work at Staples for $30k a year + benefits, which will they choose? - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:38:24] - Paul: My draft point is different. Because it is from a perspective of, if you have to have people to fight, then you should be willing to be drafted. For legislators, you are trying to attract the best people, a very different situation -dave

[2004-05-27 09:36:59] - On that note, I'm off! -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:36:41] - Aaron: Right, and would you rather have people serving in the military who are there because they want college money and a free ride, or people who are there because they like to kill people? -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:35:47] - Anyway, sorry to pull a Pierce, but I gotta go attend a meeting. I'll try to clarify what I meant when I get back. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:35:31] - Paul: But our country's military doesn't survive because of the draft, it survives because of willing participants who are interested in paying for college, or having a cushy pension. Why do you think so many people quit the military after like, 20-21 years exactly? Do they suddenly lose interest in serving their country? - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:33:44] - Dave: Well, you know what I mean. I was trying to paraphrase. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:32:53] - Paul: First of all, my previous point was not "people should be drafted in order to serve their country." -dave

[2004-05-27 09:31:30] - Paul: To completely live off of your investments, you probably have to make  250k or more for 10 years -dave

[2004-05-27 09:31:27] - Dave: Ok, how about this, you were talking about people should be drafted in order to serve their country, well, think of being elected as being drafted. You should be willing to sacrifice to serve your country. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:30:44] - Aaron: Businesses are free to do whatever they want with their money in my mind. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:29:00] - Dave: They probably had some CEO job or something where a lot of their income was in stock options. I don't know. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:28:39] - paul: What jobs should money be an influence in? Athlete? Doctor? Engineer? It seems like money could attract unethical athletes, bad doctors, poor engineers... - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:28:30] - honestly, i don't think it matters how much you pay them.  the problem is not making them less open to abusing their power, it's the power they have to begin with is the problem. - mig

[2004-05-27 09:28:02] - Dave: I think it does, because it shows that people would be willing to quit their jobs and find a way to run no matter what, even if the chance of victory is slim. Meaning we don't have to pay lawmakers. -Paul

[2004-05-27 09:27:24] - paul: I didn't think politicians were allowed to have any kind of outside commercial income, because it creates a conflict of interest... like wasn't that a part of an episode of West Wing? - aaron

[2004-05-27 09:27:13] - Paul: Somewhat of a contradiction then on your part. They didn't make more 150k before they were elected, so how do they have all these investments to live on? -dave

[2004-05-27 09:27:03] - Aaron: I didn't explain that right. Basically I'm saying that money shouldn't be an influence in whether you want to run for office at all. And the higher you make the salary, the more money influences it. -Paul

prev <-> next