Politicans Do Not Deserve Any Privacy In Office

Well, I know there is no perfect idea as to how a country should be run. Ideally it would be a republic governed under law to which everybody abides. However they've turned the US into a democracy which is corrupt to the core because we have politicians running around making all these back door "deals" with companies and their ilk.

Here's a great way to solve that problem.

You become elected, you now work for the people, you have taken a great responsibility and a great honor. With those things, also comes some sacrifices. That sacrifice is your privacy.

Everything you do, and everything you say should be recorded and televised for all to see, so that you CANNOT represent anybody but the body you were chosen to represent.

Your calls, your conversations with other politicians and business leaders all monitored and available to the public live and streaming via the internet. You fail to uphold your part of the bargain and you are immediatly removed from your post and depending on the infraction, subject to the applicable laws.

Now this concept is a litlte invasive even I would say, however when it comes to our government and the way they've mistreated and mislead us for the last 100 years I think it is imperative that people once again gain control of their elected officials.

No more closed door meetings, no more secret phone calls and meetings to discuss useless partisan plans to take over from other parties and the like. Each politican would be in charge of representing a certain area and the public would be constantly involved with what kind of issues are being presented.

The politican chosen has to forgo his own beliefs and demands in order to meet those of the greater general public. There is no need for personnal opinions on subjects, only the opinion of the Tax Payer as they are what make the country work properly.

The collective mind of thousands of people is far better than 10 guys in a locked room making all the decisions. In this system you end the manipulation and are able to immediatly deal with those who would attempt to cheat the system.

Bribes and gift payments would not be done to individual politicians but to community as a whole. Let's say a big company would like to set up shop in a town, this company produces a moderate ammount of pollution and the townspeople vote on whether or not the buisness is allowed to be constructed.

The buisness would like to win over some voters, instead of bribing individuals they give a big donation and build a park for children in area or open a anti-pollution campaign involving the local community.

This kind of system is possible and those who would not want to take part in it, and I mean the current policitians, should be and would be removed immediatley.

So what do you think ATS?

~Keeper

I agree, complete transparency is needed. And all personal phone calls, and communication devices need to be tapped and examined by the groups of citizens to determine whether they are terrorists and menaces to democracy as well. The shoe should be on the other foot.

reply to post by mystiq


And the beautiful part is that you really don't need to change the political or justice system at all. Small tweaks are made initially but it's a better alternative to the way things are being done now.

No new laws would need to be enacted because we already have laws for politicians who break the rules, this way there would be no incentive to cheat, as the only thing it would give you, is a jail sentence.

Not to mention a fery embarrasion public lynching of sorts in the community you are suppose to represent.

~Keeper

Well if you do not mind droping the politically correct speech, and can turn a blind eye to certain private activities of the politicians, I would agree fully. Personally, I say fire them all, hire people who worked for min wage, or has been laid off to run the country, with the understanding, no private meetings or taking any funds or letting the lobbiest through the door, and I am all for it. Time to look at the common man, not the well school lawyers, to run the country, for the country and main street, not wall street.

I understand, and agree to an extent. However, I think that ALL people have a right to the same level of privacy.

Here's an example: A politician, sports figure, actor or musician are in public. If someone forces themselves into their space, is obnoxious [paparazzi] that is the same intrusive assault for them as it is for the rest of us. If, on the other hand, people approach respectfully, that public figure OWES them a moment of time. It is those same little people who made the public figure a public figure.

If it is illegal to wiretap me without a warrant, the same standard should apply. Outside of the bounds GUARANTEED U.S. citizens by the Constitution, the public figure's activities and life should be open to scrutinization. That -- as the OP said -- is part of the price of fame.

I disagree. Everything you do in office should have transparency, and all business dealings should be transparent. However, EVERYONE has a right to privacy. Until the official description of public office is "Sacrifice of your entire life", privacy is everyone's right.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree kind of completely, but I think it would cause some problems. Even the president uses profanity, might gossip about some of the cabinet members, whatever.

Some things are private to families and should remain as such.

But all political issues, yeah, put it right out in the open.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


No, my friend.

Politicians have the most important job in the world as far as I am concerned, the proper and ethical running of our society.

In today's day and age we can't trust individuals to act in accordance with the laws and regulations built into the system. For this reason it requires a level of COMPLETE transparancy.

And I don't mean in their home lifes, but as soon as you walk out that door in the morning and you start your "work" day, you're on Tax Payer's time, they deserve to know every facet of what you are doing.

At home is a different environment. I agree that everybody disserves some level of privacy, but as far as the job goes, no they aboslutely do not.
_____________________________________________________________
Reply To Raven

Ohh and that's fine, were not going to fire people for speaking badly about other politicans and not agreeing with their values, but it's not a personnal game with this system, it's a public game.

There would be no bigotry and hatred between politicans because they aren't trying to push their own agenda in this system, they are pushing the people's agenda of the individual places they represent.

~Keeper

[edit on 5/18/2009 by tothetenthpower]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

No, my friend.

Politicians have the most important job in the world as far as I am concerned, the proper and ethical running of our society.

In today's day and age we can't trust individuals to act in accordance with the laws and regulations built into the system. For this reason it requires a level of COMPLETE transparancy.

And I don't mean in their home lifes, but as soon as you walk out that door in the morning and you start your "work" day, you're on Tax Payer's time, they deserve to know every facet of what you are doing.

At home is a different environment. I agree that everybody disserves some level of privacy, but as far as the job goes, no they aboslutely do not.


[edit on 5/18/2009 by tothetenthpower]

Politicians do have VERY important jobs. However, the most importnat job in the world is that of the civilian-to keep an eye on those politicians. It is a job that America as a whole has either fallen down on, or is to lazy to participate in.

If you hold politicians to this standard, where do you draw the line? Should EVERYTHING that soldiers do be visible to the public(I actually think so, but you get my point-i hope). Afterall, they are in a public office as well.

There are, also, as much as I hate it, those things that are of a sensative nature that CANNOT get into public view.

I agree though, that there needs to be MUCH more oversight.

I'm glad to see you draw the line with home lives. You may want to consider changing your title though, as just by reading the title I came in under the assumption that you meant homelife as well.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree. If you decide to run for office and become elected then you are volunteering to completely give up any privacy, and since if you are an elected official do you really have a day off where running the Country wouldn't be a priority?

I also believe if you decide to lets say, run for President while you are an active member of Congress then you should be forced to immediately resign that position since you are obviously not doing the people's work while out on the campaign trail.

oh yeah, and if you have a net worth over $500,000 then you should also be disqualified.

Serving your Country should be a privilege as well as a sacrifice, not a means to grab power, money and try to create a legacy for yourself.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Anjin]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


Good point, and I draw the line of transparancy at the people who make decisions and conduct themselves seemingly for the benefit of the people.

The army also an extension of the people, doesnt' need to disclose all of it's activities, but when people become untrustworthy or thought there was to be an investigation, it would not be up to the politicians to make that decision, it would be up to the people as whole.

My goal is to take power AWAY from the insitutions who govern us and give it back to our citizens.

~Keeper

reply to post by Anjin


I don't think money is a factor, because since you have a regional representative, the people will pick only those they think can run the place and represent them properly.

It really would not matter how much money they made as any outside influence other than that of the specific place the politician is representing would constitute an act of treason.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

Good point, and I draw the line of transparancy at the people who make decisions and conduct themselves seemingly for the benefit of the people.

The army also an extension of the people, doesnt' need to disclose all of it's activities, but when people become untrustworthy or thought there was to be an investigation, it would not be up to the politicians to make that decision, it would be up to the people as whole.

My goal is to take power AWAY from the insitutions who govern us and give it back to our citizens.

~Keeper

I hope I'm not coming across as oppositional here, as I am actually with you in sentiment. I just worry that a blanket statement such as "no privacy" could open a nasty can of worms.

But, again, I beleive it is first and foremost on the civilian to oversee their government. That is the foundation of a republic(which is what this country was founded as). Thomas Payne explained it very well in "Common Sense" and "Rights of Man".

That we have let these usurpers get to this point is nobodies fault but our own. Nobody can be blamed but all of us.

No reason for any of them to give up privacy.
All that's needed is public review of any legislation and then 2/3 of the constituent's approval with a minimum of 3/4 of the constituents participating. Less than 3/4 turnout of the constituents results in abstention from the voting process by the representative.
Presidential acceptance of a law is the summary of the national public's opinion held to the same 2/3 public opinion & 3/4 turnout requirement to sign / approve and any less than 3/4 turnout requires the public to review the legislation a second time, and anything less than 2/3 positive public opinion is a veto. If after two aggregate / national public reviews there is still less than a 3/4 turnout, it's a veto.

Voting on every issue like that at the federal level isn't practical for the every day person.

Sure, it works great for cities, but not for small towns and places with a small amount of population.

In order to have this kind of system you require a lot more representation in various places.

Transparency is the only way to insure that things get done properly.

~Keeper

There are quite a few rules pertaining to being a politician and privacy.

1 . Privacy is a myth. Everything you do, everything you say is subjected to scrutiny or questioning.
2. Everything you say or do is open to discussion and debate.
3. You agreed to become who you are and have to give up privacy.
4. If you do not want every little facet of your life from being put out there or are a private person, politics, actor/actress, socialite or musician is not the profession you should be seeking. Get a cozy 9-5 office job where you can be yourself and not have to worry about if you mess up it won't appear on the cover of your local paper.

If you think that politics is for you then be prepared to forfiet any claim to privacy as you made your bed and now you have to lie in it.

Need I remind everyone on one thing, they work for us, we pay thier salary and we require that they maintain an open disclosure to every aspect of thier life. Even in the remote chance they can hide something, the the majority of the populous it will be seen as having a hidden, alterior or nefarious agenda. I know how much we all hate politicians with skeleton's in thier closet. The only exemption to the rule are all minor children of any politician.

In example, I decide to run for office to represent you, I better damn well expect that everything I've ever done in my adult life is like an open book for you to read and examine as for me to be your leader I must prove to you I am worth of the title.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by TheImmaculateD1]

[edit on 1-6-2009 by TheImmaculateD1]