What incentive is there to be ethical and fair ?

Liam Byrne

Watching the various crises unfold over the past while have gotten me thinking....what incentive or drive is there to be ethical and fair ?

Yes, it's something that my parents embedded in me, but given the actions of powerful people and the resulting mayhem, where people who aren't ethical and fair get away with murder, I'm wondering whether political will has lost its way completely ..... that is, of course, assuming that it ever did have ethics and fairness in mind.

The church has caused people to questions its view of ethics and fairness and accountability, and if that's representing a God then it's a sad day

The government bailed out said church and avoided prosecuting it for harbouring known abusers

The government also bailed out greedy and corrupt bankers and developers, getting the public to foot the bill

Banks who - as commercial entities - made bad decisions are getting the public to fit the bill, through additional interest rates and charges

The government also continues to condone incompetence, denying responsibility, and claiming expenses and wages that they're not entitled to, again with the public fitting the bill

Yes, some Irish people got greedy, but those in power seem to want to tar everyone with the same brush, including those who didn't get greedy, over-borrow, or over-spend

People who charged fair wages for work are now under pressure because of not having a reserve built up by overcharging, while those who ripped people off with excessive fees and charges have enough put by to ride the storm

So the message coming through is that if you're decent, ethical and lived within your means, you get punished anyway

So where's the incentive to be ethical, decent and fair ? Am I naive to wish that society was completely and utterly different ?

Is the only way to get on in life to be a prick, break the rules, screw people at every opportunity, claim stuff you're not entitled to, and deny all responsibility even when caught rotten ?

liammur

I would agree.
The Irish have traditionally liked the 'cute-hoor', and the haughey type, 'ah shur he can get away with anything, more power to him'. Very rarely are there any resignations. Desperately low standards are tolerated.

Hopefully the seriousness of these crises will raise our expectations and standards.

Nemi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So the message coming through is that if you're decent, ethical and lived within your means, you get punished anyway

So where's the incentive to be ethical, decent and fair ? Am I naive to wish that society was completely and utterly different ?

Its not a naive question, but it is a searching question. I actually think it has as much to do with philosophy or religion as politics. Because, ultimately, the reward for doing the right thing is simply to know that you are doing the right thing.

I go with Aristotle. Doing right just has to do with being able to look at yourself in the mirror.

But that's not to say you have to be a pushover. Just that you may, absolutely, see other thrive by doing the wrong thing.

Nijmegen

Name me the country that doesn't have corruption of any sort. Relying on men to be infallible does not work.

Instead, you need strong controls and - more than anything - transparency.

Ireland is probably one of the least transparent democracies in the world.

Almost all information known to, about and from government should be available to the people, instantly, freely and without restriction.

Sadly in Ireland we work on the "Yes, minister" basis that 'You can have government, or you can have transparency. Never both at once.'

Brussels Sprout

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So where's the incentive to be ethical, decent and fair ? Am I naive to wish that society was completely and utterly different ?

The only incentive I believe is so that you can respect yourself.

This is something that I have thought about a lot. I've come to the conclusion that the way that you act is entirely due to your own moral code and set of values. Basically we all have different standards and what one person considers immoral another person wouldn't even blink at. However almost everyone thinks themselves that they have good morals and live ethically.

For example the developer who got the dodgy loan and the banker who facilitated it both believe that they didn't really do anything wrong. They just "cut out a bit of red tape". The same goes for the welfare fraudster who says to himself that 'he'd be stupid not to do it, especially when the bankers and politicians are creaming millions'. They'll both go home and sleep soundly as they'll focus on some other area of their lives where they did something good (like donating to charity or being kind to someone who needed help)

If you have a high set of standards then you can make sure that you live to your own set of standards so that you can respect yourself. Unfortunately it's next to impossible to affect other people's standards.


I personally believe that ethical standards in Ireland are lower than they are elsewhere. At the root of it is the admiration for cheating the system. Nobody ever stops to think that the system is usually everyone else in society.

One story that a friend told me: He was working in a factory in Denmark where they had a staff canteen. In the canteen it was a self service payment system. You picked up your food and then you entered it all on a computer system. You swiped a prepaid card which subtracted then had that amount subtracted from it. It issued you with an itemised receipt which theoretically could be checked to ensure you were being honest but in reality everyone put them into a bin next to the payment machine.
My friend remarked to his Danish hosts that a system such as this probably wouldn't work very well in Ireland because people would probably only enter in certain items that they were actually getting or else enter in cheaper items since they would know that there would be no way of anyone checking it out. The Danes were shocked and appalled. "You mean that they would steal the food?". My friend replied to them "Well you see the thing is they wouldn't really see it as stealing....."

I believe he was right and I think this is a huge problem.

demonspawn

In fairness to the Irish, I believe this mentality is borne out of 700 years of oppression. When the British were running the show, the young lad down the road that had a knack for poaching salmon was probably considered a vital asset to the community. It also didn't hurt if he was a good liar, in case he was caught by the local bailiff. In this context it's understandable why these traits are still admired today. That's not to say that it's still acceptable.

oppenheimer1

Nijmegen wrote: »

Name me the country that doesn't have corruption of any sort. Relying on men to be infallible does not work.

Instead, you need strong controls and - more than anything - transparency.

Ireland is probably one of the least transparent democracies in the world.

Almost all information known to, about and from government should be available to the people, instantly, freely and without restriction.

Sadly in Ireland we work on the "Yes, minister" basis that 'You can have government, or you can have transparency. Never both at once.'

I have to take issue with this. Ireland is one of the most transparent democracies in the world. This is based on research conducted by Transparency International which gives Ireland a score of 8.0/10 in terms of its corruption perception index. Humankind has not produced the perfect society in its history and Irish society has many problems and is far far away from that ideal. However compared to our peers we compare quite favourably. The stratification of classes in Irish society is far less pronounced than our near neighbours and the ability for social mobility is far greater.

Advocating an entirely open government would be abused. How could the government ever get the best price for a contract if it always had to release all information instantly and without restriction?
In the case of emergency preparation, everybody knowing everything would expose weaknesses to those that might want to take advantage of them.


Complete openness has its dangers, and its very naive to think otherwise.

As to the OPs points. Before one can make a judgement on whether Ireland is fair and ethical, one must define what those two terms mean. For me, Ireland is a place, that no matter where you come from, you will be supported to achieve your potential. Of course some have it easier than others, some have parental support while others have to make their own way from an early age. I know people from both sides, ones who had their future handed to them, and others who worked their asses off to make it. For the latter although the put in a monumental personal effort, their achievement wouldn't have been possible without state supports, in terms of grants. For these young adults, despite disparity in their backgrounds they have ended up equal.

As for the morality and ethics of society, I would argue that Ireland has become a more ethical place to live since we opened ourselves to exposure from foreign entities. The treatment of children in Irish society, where in the past that one in four was abused is our nations greatest shame. This is thankfully changing, that said things aren't perfect yet. The lack of a consensus among political parties on the wording of changes to the constitution regarding childrens rights is disgraceful and as an issue of such national importance should be a priority. These young people are our greatest resource. But these really are larger questions than you are asking.


OP, Reading your post it is an attack on government not a discussion in fairness. I see you point out where the rich and powerful have used their positions of authority to protect themselves from the institutions of justice and fairness which they themselves created. Reading that one could easily argue if government is so fundamentally evil than why bother with it at all? In straightened times its easy to focus on these negatives all the while forgetting the positives which belonging to Ireland brings.

As for the incentive to be moral and fair, this used to be in the past derived from a fear of a higher power. In a more secular society this fear no longer exists, fairness is now a personal choice and the old adage being nice gets you nowhere has never rung truer. If the powerful control the institutions of fairness and no longer find themselves answerable to God but to themselves then the future of the fair society cannot exist, unless the existing hierarchy of powers are fundamentally changed.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

OP, Reading your post it is an attack on government not a discussion in fairness.

It's not an "attack", it's a statement of fact. And I'm not hiding the fact that it's related to the Government actions, otherwise I would have posted it in Humanities and not Politics.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I see you point out where the rich and powerful have used their positions of authority to protect themselves from the institutions of justice and fairness which they themselves created. Reading that one could easily argue if government is so fundamentally evil than why bother with it at all?

Good question, considering that those who make the rules hide behind them.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

As for the incentive to be moral and fair, this used to be in the past derived from a fear of a higher power.

I don't believe that it did, TBH......at least not in my world. I don't act the way I do out of fear of being punished, I act that way because I don't believe in unfairness and greed.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In a more secular society this fear no longer exists, fairness is now a personal choice and the old adage being nice gets you nowhere has never rung truer.

Unfortunately that's precisely the point that prompted the original post.....whether that mentality had completely taken over, and whether - by being fair and ethical - you were making a choice that precluded you from getting anywhere in life.....it certainly seems so.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If the powerful control the institutions of fairness and no longer find themselves answerable to God but to themselves then the future of the fair society cannot exist, unless the existing hierarchy of powers are fundamentally changed.

God should have nothing to do with it. But as I said in the original post, it does seem to be the case that you (I) feel naive for thinking that people should be able to - as another poster put it - look at themselves in the mirror.

The reason this crops up is down to the calls to "pull together" in this time of crisis; precisely what Government and powerful interests refuse point blank to do by their own actions.

Was this always the case, with good people taking it up the ass and reassuring themselves that the rats would get their just desserts come "judgement day" ? I don't know.

I don't want to depress myself by thinking about it further, but it certainly seems that if you're a normal person you'll never get to see €27,000,000; while if you're rich and powerful you'll get it as a pension for doing SFA.

But the way society is going - with the low-lifes and the high-lifes getting everything under the sun, while those in the middle get ridden - the Mayan prediction for 2012 doesn't sound so bad after all......

JonathanAnon

It's something I've been thinking about as well Liam tbh.. I would be similar, brought up to be ethical, obey the law, be honest in your dealings, do an honest day's work for honest day's pay, AND dont pay for something unless you can afford it.. .... etc etc

But why would you bother?.. Everybody who tried to be practical about things during the boom (i.e. not buying the yacht on tick) was treated like some sort of new working class, as those who did indulge proceeded to recite tales of sailing trips off Bantry Bay, while puffing on a cigar and telling us about the latest property that was added to the portfolio. Of course, implied in their rhetoric, I was idiot I was for not subscribing.

It wasnt modest people who have the state where it is, it is the greedy/arrogant (and possibly insecure) people. I didn't indulge, didn't go on foreign holidays, didn't take the loan for the car/house/magic beans that were on offer during the boom..... I don't expect anybody to pay off my debts. I, alone, am responsible for those ....

So, I'm fuked if I'm gonna pay for the party when I didn't attend. All the decent people in Ireland who were modest in their aspirations are now paying for those who wanted to lord it over us, and it's just WRONG. I'll never take the dole, but I will do my best to never put a cent back in to this country for the Government to cover the indulgences of others.

djpbarry

demonspawn wrote: »

In fairness to the Irish, I believe this mentality is borne out of 700 years of oppression.

Oppression is hardly something that is unique to Irish history.

hinault

When I was growing up, I assumed that those who got to the top of business life and political life did so based on being ethical and moral/fair.

As I got older I realised that the majority of people who get to the top of the greasy pole are anything but ethical/fair.

Which led me to the tought that the vast majority of those who do get to the top were educated in fee paying Roman Catholic schools.
Obviously the ethos of fairness and ethics in RC teaching/dogma did not get passed on to these bright young things in school.

Which then led me to think about the response of the RC church to the toleration and coverup of crimes committed against the most vulnerable in our society.
And thinking of the excuses and language used such as "mental reservation".
I say all this as a practicsing RC (before anyone chimes in).

Food for thought.
How does a country which had a RC ethos until fairly recently end up with the biggest shower of unethical/duplicitous/cheating/lying SOB's at the top?

There's got to be a question in there somewhere.

demonspawn

djpbarry wrote: »

Oppression is hardly something that is unique to Irish history.

Never said it was, my friend.

Look at the black folks (not all of them obviously) in the U.S. One could say they are quite like the Irish with their glorification of the "gangsta" lifestyle. Get Rich or Die Trying. I imagine you'd find this attitude/mentality in many colonial countries or anywhere there's a history of oppression.

Everyone loves Robin Hood because he stuck it to the man. Its just odd that people in this country cheer when the man sticks it to us.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for replying to my entire post instead of just one sentence that doesn't really mean much on it's own. Oh wait...

demonspawn

JonathanAnon wrote: »

It's something I've been thinking about as well Liam tbh.. I would be similar, brought up to be ethical, obey the law, be honest in your dealings, do an honest day's work for honest day's pay, AND dont pay for something unless you can afford it.. .... etc etc

But why would you bother?.. Everybody who tried to be practical about things during the boom (i.e. not buying the yacht on tick) was treated like some sort of new working class, as those who did indulge proceeded to recite tales of sailing trips off Bantry Bay, while puffing on a cigar and telling us about the latest property that was added to the portfolio. Of course, implied in their rhetoric, I was idiot I was for not subscribing.

It wasnt modest people who have the state where it is, it is the greedy/arrogant (and possibly insecure) people. I didn't indulge, didn't go on foreign holidays, didn't take the loan for the car/house/magic beans that were on offer during the boom..... I don't expect anybody to pay off my debts. I, alone, am responsible for those ....

So, I'm fuked if I'm gonna pay for the party when I didn't attend. All the decent people in Ireland who were modest in their aspirations are now paying for those who wanted to lord it over us, and it's just WRONG. I'll never take the dole, but I will do my best to never put a cent back in to this country for the Government to cover the indulgences of others.

I feel the exact same way man. I've never owned a credit card and never will. The only money I've ever owed was rent, and I refused to pay that out of principal. The shower in my last place broke and took landlord 2 months to replace so I just didn't pay him for 2 months.

Anyway, I agree with you 100%.

southsiderosie

To speak to the original point, I think the incentive for the general population to be ethical and fair has to come from some kind of strong guiding social norms (as in the Danish case). Maybe these are cultural or religious, but I think the only way the state would be able to enforce this among the general population would be through unacceptably overbearing laws. However, when it comes to politicians, I think ethical behavior can really only be assured through strong legal institutions that promote transparency, and an active and informed citizenry that acts as a watchdog over public servants, and is willing to punish them (via elections) when they go astray. The fact that Irish voters seem unwilling to punish miscreants is part of the reason why there is little incentive to be ethical in public life: they know they can get away with it.

simplistic2 wrote: »

I think that this is important here. Political systems have always been established to dominate and control so it is only natural to assume corrupt people will be drawn to this position...

This seems to be a long argument for some form of communitarian anarchy. I'll take the Hobbesean position: if men are generally bad, and life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short, then giving up some liberty in exchange for protection (and a less nasty, brutish and short existence) is a logical response. And if we, as Locke points out, enter this social contract whereby we give up some liberty in exchange for protection and we reserve the right to withdraw our support should the state overstep its bounds, then I would see this as the optimal stable arrangement for ordering society at a macro scale. But this is spinning away from the OP a bit.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Ireland is one of the most transparent democracies in the world...

Advocating an entirely open government would be abused. How could the government ever get the best price for a contract if it always had to release all information instantly and without restriction? Complete openness has its dangers, and its very naive to think otherwise.

I completely disagree. Government contracts are bids with public money. All bids should be public information once a decision was made - taxpayers should be able to see where their money is going. All discussions about public business in a democracy should be public - hence "Sunshine Laws" and such. Obviously issues of national security should be treated differently, but paving contracts and the like should absolutely be open and transparent. If the government is going to give a big infrastructure contract to the golfing buddy of the local TD, then we damn well better be able to see that it's because he submitted the best bid, not because he worked it out on the back nine.

As for the Transparency index. I tried to look at the sources and methodology for Ireland and couldn't download the file. I'll say this: one of the biggest problems I see in Irish politics as it relates to ethics is that there are no strong perjury laws, and almost no prosecution of white collar crime. Even in the US, which fares worse on the transparency index, perjury is taken very seriously - that's actually how most politicians and many white collar criminals end up in jail, because what they did might be bad, but lying about it (especially in federal cases) is worse. The lack of perjury and white collar crime enforcement in Ireland contributes to the perception that there are two sets of laws, one for the plebs and one for everyone else (the wealthy, the politicians, and the church).

hinault wrote: »

Food for thought.
How does a country which had a RC ethos until fairly recently end up with the biggest shower of unethical/duplicitous/cheating/lying SOB's at the top?

There's got to be a question in there somewhere.

Actually there is a long history of Catholic countries being more corrupt than their Protestant counterparts, mainly because they are more clientelistic. Generally this is attributed to the fact that the RCC itself is very hierarchical, and these hierarchical patron-client relationships get replicated across society, in both economic and political life. This is one of the core dynamics that Weber explores in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

djpbarry

demonspawn wrote: »

Look at the black folks (not all of them obviously) in the U.S. One could say they are quite like the Irish with their glorification of the "gangsta" lifestyle. Get Rich or Die Trying. I imagine you'd find this attitude/mentality in many colonial countries or anywhere there's a history of oppression.

I think that's over-simplifying things a bit - being a chancer and being a murderous gangsta are not exactly the same thing. Besides, neither of these characters appears to exist in any great numbers in Finland, for example.

demonspawn wrote: »

Everyone loves Robin Hood because he stuck it to the man. Its just odd that people in this country cheer when the man sticks it to us.

We stick it to ourselves. I seem to be saying this a lot lately, but Ireland has been a basket case for most of its short history, yet Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael still dominate politics in this country. We only have ourselves to blame.

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: Oh, and thanks for replying to my entire post instead of just one sentence that doesn't really mean much on it's own. Oh wait...

Your “whole” post (all 3-4 lines of it) was based on that one sentiment.

Nijmegen

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I have to take issue with this. Ireland is one of the most transparent democracies in the world. This is based on research conducted by Transparency International which gives Ireland a score of 8.0/10 in terms of its corruption perception index. Humankind has not produced the perfect society in its history and Irish society has many problems and is far far away from that ideal. However compared to our peers we compare quite favourably. The stratification of classes in Irish society is far less pronounced than our near neighbours and the ability for social mobility is far greater.

Advocating an entirely open government would be abused. How could the government ever get the best price for a contract if it always had to release all information instantly and without restriction?
In the case of emergency preparation, everybody knowing everything would expose weaknesses to those that might want to take advantage of them.


Complete openness has its dangers, and its very naive to think otherwise.

You're right, some stuff should remain secret. But we're not the USA with a nuclear force and global agenda.

I deal with the public service every day of the week, and they are some of the most closed off beggers in the world, hate you asking questions.

Similarly, Freedom of Information requests - I know from a colleague - are some of the most convoluted and strung out things you can engage in in Ireland today.

Let's keep the Garda patrol routes and the army weapons movements out of the public eye. But for most everything else, make it public. Have an independant ombudsman to look at whatever they want to keep secret with public guidelines as to why some things are kept under lock and key.

Corruption is easy under a veil of official secrecy. So too is inefficiency.

Scofflaw

simplistic2, please don't post entire pages from blogs without any attribution. chompy, please keep the conspiracy theories for the CT forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

View

There is an old saying that in a democracy, people get the politicians they deserve. The point of it is that if people vote for corrupt politicians and they get corrupt politicians, they have only themselves to blame. Equally well, if they vote for "honest politicians" (an oxymoron -"less obviously corrupt" might be more accurate), they have themselves to thank.

As such, when voting, if you want to nudge the system in the direction of being more ethical than it is, you need to vote for parties who advocate measures that would reduce the room for corruption to flourish.

At the moment, the larger political parties - FF & FG - derive their funding largely from private donations (with a smaller amount of state funding). As such, they are open to corruption and being influenced by vested interests.

Smaller political parties - and I mean Labour and the Greens here - favour state funding of political parties with private donations either being reduced or eliminated completely(I won't even include SF in a discussion about ethics).

It should be pointed out that the larger political parties go to enormous lengths to ensure that private donations to them remain hidden. That is extremely worrying - after all, bona fide supporters of parties, shouldn't be that embarrassed to be identified as supporters of their parties!

Lastly, it should be pointed out - that given where we start from - it will take a long period of pushing for slow but steady reform to change the current system (The larger parties aren't going to readily abandon one that works in their favour). No politician who sets out to reform the current system will do so, without getting "covered in mud" in the process. Such is the price, they must pay to gain the necessary support to push through reform. That means voters must be prepared to forgive the potential reformers a lot of transgressions (As the supporters of the current system will not - given a free choice - reform it if they can help it).

Presuming you'd like to see the current system reformed, choose which parties you vote for carefully in each and every election and vote accordingly.

thebaldsoprano

Liam Byrne wrote: »

People who charged fair wages for work are now under pressure because of not having a reserve built up by overcharging, while those who ripped people off with excessive fees and charges have enough put by to ride the storm

This is one instance where there may well be an incentive to be fair - the people who charged a reasonable rate for a job well done are more likely to still have some work coming in. Their customers will have recommended them to their friends. A brickie charging two Euro a brick mightn't be faring so well and is probably regretting splashing out on that 2007 BMW X5.

Scofflaw

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

This is one instance where there may well be an incentive to be fair - the people who charged a reasonable rate for a job well done are more likely to still have some work coming in. Their customers will have recommended them to their friends. A brickie charging two Euro a brick mightn't be faring so well and is probably regretting splashing out on that 2007 BMW X5.

That's the general incentive to be ethical, fair, honest etc - the long term.

The internet boom was quite interesting from that point of view - I've watched quite a lot of people go through being in business for themselves during the last 15 years, and the ones that are still in business are those that behave honestly, charge reasonable prices, do good work etc. The others - a couple of them that I can think of did do quite well, but the majority have gone out of business and are back working for someone else - and those that did well didn't do well enough to retire out of the game. A few are on their severalth business, but those I've had dealings with have certainly become more fair and honest.

I think a lot of people who go into business for themselves think that gouging and cutting corners is the way to do business - the "sure, doesn't everyone do it that way?" is often quite genuinely meant.

In construction there was also the issue that there was more work than there were companies to do it. Under those circumstances, charging very high prices is the rational and correct market response - you're not pricing the work, you're pricing your time. In turn, there were too few workers, particularly the skilled workers, so the guys who ran the companies were often paying over most of the high price they'd charged the customer to their workers - or hiring people who were less than skilled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MementoMori

hinault wrote: »

When I was growing up, I assumed that those who got to the top of business life and political life did so based on being ethical and moral/fair.

As I got older I realised that the majority of people who get to the top of the greasy pole are anything but ethical/fair.

Which led me to the tought that the vast majority of those who do get to the top were educated in fee paying Roman Catholic schools.
Obviously the ethos of fairness and ethics in RC teaching/dogma did not get passed on to these bright young things in school.

Which then led me to think about the response of the RC church to the toleration and coverup of crimes committed against the most vulnerable in our society.
And thinking of the excuses and language used such as "mental reservation".
I say all this as a practicsing RC (before anyone chimes in).

Food for thought.
How does a country which had a RC ethos until fairly recently end up with the biggest shower of unethical/duplicitous/cheating/lying SOB's at the top?

There's got to be a question in there somewhere.

Part of the problem is that the Catholic church preaches to the vast majority of the population from childhood and indoctrinates them in the schools that you can pretty much do anything bad but if you go through confession afterward the slate is wiped clean.

People have adopted this into an cultural attitude, whereby if you do anything bad and then show some miniscule level of remorse (a weasly mouthed apology that in a lot of cases seem to be more a sorry I was caught) then the slate is wiped clean. Look at the number of politicans who get second chances/ are "forgiven" in Ireland for a lack of moral integrity compared to other countries.

I think as well that part of the problem is that in the vast majority of schools children are instruced to follow rules that aren't based on fairness or logic but rather on a 2000 year old book.

As a child you don't really look into the reasoning/logic underwriting these rules but accept them. When childen grow up they tend to see the flaws with some of these rules (why is sex before marriage wrong, why is homosexuality a bad thing, why can't women be priests etc.) and tend to throw out the vast majority of these rules even the good ones (do unto others etc) along with the bad.

Also the current chilren in schools are being instructed in morality under the tenets of an organisation that the overwhelming majority of the country would view as having serious problems with it's own intergrity. Is it any wonder that there is an issue with ethics/morality in the country?

These are just some of the aspects why there is very little benefit on a societal scale to act in a fair and just manner - the poor state of the justice system in this country means that even if you do get caught and successfully prosecuted chances are that you punishment will be relatively lenient. Can anyone ever recall hearing of any criminal gettig punished where the general opinion was that they were harshly treated? We seem to constantly hear of situations where there is inadequate or light sentenancing but hardly ever (or never) the opposite.

Given the state of the nation's economy I would surely have thought that the government could have boosted their popularity by saying
"from now on we've multiplying all criminal fines by a factor of five. If some crime had a fine of €100 before now it's €500." Some might argue that it would be harsh but I would imagine that the vast majority of the country who are law-abiding citizens would be over-joyed. In addition to punishing those who continue to break the law (and presuming driving crime down some bit) it would add extra money to the coffers and would possible mean that important services like health and education could be retained.

Removing religion from school and replacing it with instruction on morality and ethics on a more philosophical basis completely apart from the whole religion side of things would be a huge step forward imo.

Denerick

Talk about incentivisation is redundant as the people who go into politics have no desire to be ethical or fair. With a few honourable exceptions, they are all ambitious, ruthless and hateful swine. The only way to combat this would be for genuinely virtuous people to enter politics. This does happen occasionally, but unfortunately the voters tend to not elect these people, and instead elect the local parish pump gombeens. Until the Irish people learn to be virtuous, I don't understand how our political system can or should be.

As I've said so often before, we get the government we deserve.

MementoMori

Nijmegen wrote: »

You're right, some stuff should remain secret. But we're not the USA with a nuclear force and global agenda.

I deal with the public service every day of the week, and they are some of the most closed off beggers in the world, hate you asking questions.

Similarly, Freedom of Information requests - I know from a colleague - are some of the most convoluted and strung out things you can engage in in Ireland today.

Let's keep the Garda patrol routes and the army weapons movements out of the public eye. But for most everything else, make it public. Have an independant ombudsman to look at whatever they want to keep secret with public guidelines as to why some things are kept under lock and key.

Corruption is easy under a veil of official secrecy. So too is inefficiency.

I'd agree with this. The starting point should be that all of the government's information is available to everyone as freely and easily as possible and then work from there on stuff that needs to be kept restricted (for security and practical reasons like protecting people's privacy) as opposed to the current situation where there is an automatic assumption that everything the government do should be secret and only be made available to people who go through with restrictive and costly FOI requests.

In this day and age you would imagine, it would be relatively easy to have access to most of the workings of the various state organisations, but there is a culture of secrecy and close-mindedness in place in relation to the government which makes things far easier for those who wish to pull a stroke or use personal connections to sort things out.

MementoMori

Denerick wrote: »

Talk about incentivisation is redundant as the people who go into politics have no desire to be ethical or fair. With a few honourable exceptions, they are all ambitious, ruthless and hateful swine. The only way to combat this would be for genuinely virtuous people to enter politics. This does happen occasionally, but unfortunately the voters tend to not elect these people, and instead elect the local parish pump gombeens. Until the Irish people learn to be virtuous, I don't understand how our political system can or should be.

As I've said so often before, we get the government we deserve.

That's why I think the notion of politican's pay is such a disgrace - the whole we have to pay the most to attract the best is just self-serving guff.
If tomorrow all 166 TDs in the Dail were replaced with a random selection of 166 people off the streets, how adversely affected would the country be if you could discount the difference in the sitting TDs levels of experience?

Sure chances are you would get some numpties and some eedjits, but would it be a signifcantly higher number to compared to what we have at present? Chances are you would get a fair amount of people who would make a fair fist of running the country and I wouldn't be suprised it the overall level of integrity and morality improved quite a bit.

Personally I wouldn't be all that concerned if it happened and would imagine that there would be very little noticeable difference in the state of the country.

If you had a system where a politican's pay was pitched at the same general level as a teacher's or a nurse's, chances are it would not really affect the overall intellectual calibre of those individuals going into politics as a career. However I would imagine that it would do a pretty good job of removing an number of individuals for whom the pay and perks and pensions seem to be a significant part of their reason for getting and staying in the job.

Ash.J.Williams

This should be the decade of balls. Politicians who are proven to have balls should be elected. Especially Female politicians with balls. Politicians since the foundation of the state lack balls. I like balls.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with the broad thrust of your reasoning, but that is simply ideological.

Ireland cannot allow her banks to fail, unilaterally, without some kind of international consensus. We'd be the equivilent of Zimbabwe within a week if we allowed that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland cannot allow her banks to fail, unilaterally, without some kind of international consensus. We'd be the equivilent of Zimbabwe within a week if we allowed that.

"Her" banks ?

They only became "her" / "our" banks AFTER they stopped raking in cash and made a complete mess.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately, they are nationalised now.....now that they're worthless; actually, worse than worthless - a massive millstone of a liability.

Denerick

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"Her" banks ?

They only became "her" / "our" banks AFTER they stopped raking in cash and made a complete mess.

Who owned them before that? Chuck Norris?

The banks traded and operated in Ireland hence they were our banks. They effectivelly controlled the supply of money in the country so they are our (Collective) banks.

djpbarry

MementoMori wrote: »

Given the state of the nation's economy I would surely have thought that the government could have boosted their popularity by saying
"from now on we've multiplying all criminal fines by a factor of five. If some crime had a fine of €100 before now it's €500." Some might argue that it would be harsh but I would imagine that the vast majority of the country who are law-abiding citizens would be over-joyed. In addition to punishing those who continue to break the law (and presuming driving crime down some bit) it would add extra money to the coffers and would possible mean that important services like health and education could be retained.

That assumes that those being fined are capable of paying the fine. It also assumes that they would be willing to pay the fine without appeal. Sticking with the general theme of the thread, (generally speaking) Irish people won’t pay fines if they can get away with it. Hence the need for enforcement measures such as wheel clamps.

MementoMori wrote: »

If tomorrow all 166 TDs in the Dail were replaced with a random selection of 166 people off the streets, how adversely affected would the country be if you could discount the difference in the sitting TDs levels of experience?

Let’s say, for arguments sake, that the majority of TD’s are in some way corrupt. What does that say about the people (off the streets) who elected them?

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

Who owned them before that? Chuck Norris?

The banks traded and operated in Ireland hence they were our banks. They effectivelly controlled the supply of money in the country so they are our (Collective) banks.

There's that old "Collective" showing up again........

Funny how it never showed up when some people were making massive profits.....and still doesn't show up when people get €27,000,000 pensions and rake in unwarranted expenses.

It's gas, really......the same people on here who use the "collective" get-out clause (as in "we were all greedy / spent too much", etc) are the very ones who baulk at the thoughts of judging all of FF on the basis of Callely, Ahern, Burke, O'Dea, O'Donoghue, Haughey and Cooper-Flynn.

Does "collective" only work one way ?

Denerick

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's that old "Collective" showing up again........

Funny how it never showed up when some people were making massive profits.....and still doesn't show up when people get €27,000,000 pensions and rake in unwarranted expenses.

It's gas, really......the same people on here who use the "collective" get-out clause (as in "we were all greedy / spent too much", etc) are the very ones who baulk at the thoughts of judging all of FF on the basis of Callely, Ahern, Burke, O'Dea, O'Donoghue, Haughey and Cooper-Flynn.

Does "collective" only work one way ?

I really haven't the faintist idea what you are on about. I suspect its a reaffirmation of 'Fianna Fáil are the original incarnation of evil, obviously' narrative.

Essexboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the general incentive to be ethical, fair, honest etc - the long term.

The internet boom was quite interesting from that point of view - I've watched quite a lot of people go through being in business for themselves during the last 15 years, and the ones that are still in business are those that behave honestly, charge reasonable prices, do good work etc. The others - a couple of them that I can think of did do quite well, but the majority have gone out of business and are back working for someone else - and those that did well didn't do well enough to retire out of the game. A few are on their severalth business, but those I've had dealings with have certainly become more fair and honest.

I think a lot of people who go into business for themselves think that gouging and cutting corners is the way to do business - the "sure, doesn't everyone do it that way?" is often quite genuinely meant.

In construction there was also the issue that there was more work than there were companies to do it. Under those circumstances, charging very high prices is the rational and correct market response - you're not pricing the work, you're pricing your time. In turn, there were too few workers, particularly the skilled workers, so the guys who ran the companies were often paying over most of the high price they'd charged the customer to their workers - or hiring people who were less than skilled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Under those circumstances, charging very high prices is the rational and correct market response
This sounds like the Irish hoteliers school of thought! Now that there is a surplus of workers presumably you agree that their earnings should drop significantly?

Liam Byrne

Denerick wrote: »

I really haven't the faintist idea what you are on about. I suspect its a reaffirmation of 'Fianna Fáil are the original incarnation of evil, obviously' narrative.

I doubt it, because I've never claimed that "Fianna Fail are the original incarnation of evil, obviously", let alone reaffirmed it.

It's pretty clear what I was pointing out. That "we" are expected to take the blame when "some of (collective) us" are greedy and stupid, however FF can't possibly be blamed - collectively - when some of them are greedy and stupid and corrupt.

Oh - and to clarify - FF are evil and destructive alright, but they didn't offer Adam the apple.

But don't let that stop you using hyperbole to attempt to discredit a valid point.

Denerick

I'm taking a break from the politics forum for at least a month. For the sake of my sanity, if not for Liam's.

Scofflaw

Essexboy wrote: »

Under those circumstances, charging very high prices is the rational and correct market response
This sounds like the Irish hoteliers school of thought! Now that there is a surplus of workers presumably you agree that their earnings should drop significantly?

I wasn't really talking about earnings but prices - still, the response to there being a surplus of workers is indeed that their earnings should fall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brussels Sprout

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland cannot allow her banks to fail, unilaterally, without some kind of international consensus. We'd be the equivilent of Zimbabwe within a week if we allowed that.

And yet we're doing everything the bond holders want and still the yields are increasing so instead of being like Zimbabwe in a week and accepting it and then rebuilding instead we'll be like them in 2 years instead(obviously I don't think we'll ever be like Zimbabwe-I'm just continuing your comparison).

thebaldsoprano

Denerick wrote: »

Who owned them before that? Chuck Norris?

Their shareholders, which probably wouldn't have included Chuck Norris because when Chuck buys shares...

Denerick wrote: »

The banks traded and operated in Ireland hence they were our banks. They effectivelly controlled the supply of money in the country so they are our (Collective) banks.

That's funny, because I don't remember getting my share of our (collective) profits. I'm guessing that's because they went to the legal owners rather than any notional ones convenient to the Government, as the dividends payed out would seem to confirm.

The Raven.

Denerick wrote: »

...the people who go into politics have no desire to be ethical or fair. With a few honourable exceptions, they are all ambitious, ruthless and hateful swine. The only way to combat this would be for genuinely virtuous people to enter politics. This does happen occasionally, but unfortunately the voters tend to not elect these people, and instead elect the local parish pump gombeens. Until the Irish people learn to be virtuous, I don't understand how our political system can or should be.

Sadly, this is more often the case.

As I've said so often before, we get the government we deserve.

And, as I have often said before, 'we' did not all vote for this government. I have never voted for Fianna Fail and never will. Every day there is new evidence of corruption on the part of FF ministers, unprecedented with any other party, at the expense of the taxpayer. Do I, and many others who didn't vote for them, deserve this government? I think not!

mikemac

The Raven. wrote: »

And, as I have often said before, 'we' did not all vote for this government. I have never voted for Fianna Fail and never will. Every day there is new evidence of corruption on the part of FF ministers, unprecedented with any other party, at the expense of the taxpayer. Do I, and many others who didn't vote for them, deserve this government? I think not!

It doesn't matter I'm afraid.
You are part of the electorate and your vote is worth the same as everybody else.
It's a pity your preferred candidates didn't get in to government but you have to go with the majority.

Unless you know a better way to control elections.

mikemac

MementoMori wrote: »

That's why I think the notion of politican's pay is such a disgrace - the whole we have to pay the most to attract the best is just self-serving guff.
If tomorrow all 166 TDs in the Dail were replaced with a random selection of 166 people off the streets, how adversely affected would the country be if you could discount the difference in the sitting TDs levels of experience?

We would still have 15 cabinet members making the important decisions and everyone else pretty much powerless.
The only other people with power are party leaders and their party whip.

A backbencher can do very little.

Liam Byrne

feelingstressed wrote: »

We would still have 15 cabinet members making the important decisions and everyone else pretty much powerless.
The only other people with power are party leaders and their party whip.

A backbencher can do very little.

Then why are we paying backbenchers a fortune - or at all ?

Sleepy

feelingstressed wrote: »

It doesn't matter I'm afraid.
You are part of the electorate and your vote is worth the same as everybody else.
It's a pity your preferred candidates didn't get in to government but you have to go with the majority.

Unless you know a better way to control elections.

A good start would be to ensure that the entire electorate are afforded the privilege of the vote by holding elections at a weekend rather than during the business week when the majority of the workforce have other commitments (I've missed elections twice due to being in the UK for the day, know many students who didn't get to vote as their vote was still registered 'at home' rather than in their place of study etc.)

The Raven.

feelingstressed wrote: »

It doesn't matter I'm afraid.

I beg your pardon! What doesn’t matter? It certainly matters to those of us who didn’t vote for this government, yet we are being blamed for the stupidity of those who did!

You are part of the electorate and your vote is worth the same as everybody else.

What a patronising load of tautology! Your comment totally misses the point.

It's a pity your preferred candidates didn't get in to government but you have to go with the majority.

Unless you know a better way to control elections.

This silly argument again, plagiarised from another thread where it has already been exposed for what it is! :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

The Raven. wrote: »

And, as I have often said before, 'we' did not all vote for this government. I have never voted for Fianna Fail and never will. Every day there is new evidence of corruption on the part of FF ministers, unprecedented with any other party, at the expense of the taxpayer. Do I, and many others who didn't vote for them, deserve this government? I think not!

There's an argument the other way, but only to the extent that someone didn't do their utmost to ensure that Fianna Fáil didn't get in. Simply turning up and voting is pretty much a bare minimum - someone who didn't vote at all could also claim not to have voted for the current government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Raven.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's an argument the other way, but only to the extent that someone didn't do their utmost to ensure that Fianna Fáil didn't get in. Simply turning up and voting is pretty much a bare minimum - someone who didn't vote at all could also claim not to have voted for the current government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Firstly, let me assure you that I did vote, and it wasn't for Fianna Fail, as did many others. These are the people I was referring to. It is regrettable that a large percentage of people don't bother to vote, but it is impossible to know which way they would have voted. Yes indeed they could claim not to have voted for the current government but, if they didn't want this government, they haven't made the effort to vote them out. Consequently, they have facilitated the election of this government. I am not talking here about people, who through no fault of their own, were unable to vote.

So, let me re-phrase my question: Do I and many others who voted, but not for Fianna Fail, deserve this government?

southsiderosie

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's an argument the other way, but only to the extent that someone didn't do their utmost to ensure that Fianna Fáil didn't get in. Simply turning up and voting is pretty much a bare minimum - someone who didn't vote at all could also claim not to have voted for the current government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is what gets me, especially considering Ireland's voting system. I honestly do not understand why there is not more pressure on some TDs to pull out of government and more public mobilization against government policies. Look at the Tea Party movement in the US: I don't agree with their aims, and frankly I think a lot of them are lunatics, but you can't say that they haven't shaken up the Republican party big time, especially in key swing states like Florida.

I really do not understand the apathy of the voting public in Ireland. And please, spare me the "800 years" or "well what difference would it make" or "only nutters do it" arguments. You live in a democracy - and one with extremely flexible political institutions - so you can change the behavior of political parties.

Does the general public deserve the government they have right now? A year ago I would have answered differently, but today all I can say is yes.

/rant

(and, no scofflaw, this is not aimed at you specifically, it's just a general rant)

mikemac

The Raven. wrote: »

This silly argument again, plagiarised from another thread where it has already been exposed for what it is! :rolleyes:

Realy, there are hundreds of threads in this forum over the last few months pretty much the same as this one.
Posters don't go around plagiarizing other people's posts.

And within a week, another poster will have the same opinions as you but they aren't copying your posts or ideas

southsiderosie wrote: »

(and, no Sharpshooter, this is not aimed at you specifically, it's just a general rant)

Sharpshooter is mainly in After Hours and hasn't posted on this thread

Scofflaw

The Raven. wrote: »

Firstly, let me assure you that I did vote, and it wasn't for Fianna Fail, as did many others. These are the people I was referring to. It is regrettable that a large percentage of people don't bother to vote, but it is impossible to know which way they would have voted. Yes indeed they could claim not to have voted for the current government but, if they didn't want this government, they haven't made the effort to vote them out. Consequently, they have facilitated the election of this government. I am not talking here about people, who through no fault of their own, were unable to vote.

So, let me re-phrase my question: Do I and many others who voted, but not for Fianna Fail, deserve this government?

Assuming you didn't actively canvass for another party, then by voting you've done, as I said, the bare minimum to avoid it.

Looking at it another way, I find it even harder to exempt anyone from deserving this government, at least at the general and collective level. For most of the decade, both the government and opposition parties have promised voters essentially the same things. To me, that says that the majority of voters wanted the same things - and that means that we deserve the current government.

After all, it's not as if the current government is raising taxes simply because they're big meanies - they're raising taxes because of the unsustainable spending and tax base changes of the last decade. As far as I can see, those would have happened whichever party was in government, because they're what the voting public wanted across the board. So, yes, we all (or nearly all) wanted to get drunk and party, and now we all have hangovers and have to clean up. We may not deserve having this particular government in power, but clearly we deserve a government that does roughly what this one is doing - and Fianna Fáil themselves certainly deserve to be in power right now, rather than leaving the clean-up to someone else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nemi

southsiderosie wrote: »

Does the general public deserve the government they have right now? A year ago I would have answered differently, but today all I can say is yes.

I have to agree. Fianna Fail are skillful at brokering interests that matter in Irish society. What you see at present, IMHO, is the outcome of that brokering.

And its not as if the rest of the Dáil fills you with enormous confidence. Yet, its filled with people who won their seats through an electoral system that is very effective in empowering voters. You not only have a choice of party, but even a choice what exact candidate you wish to support. You wouldn't have that in a list system.

So, the Irish people have ample opportunity to signal that they like (for example) Willie O'Dea so much that they want to give him two seats, and transfer their votes to his running mate because unfortunately the rules don't allow that.

Every society has to find some way of organising itself and resolving conflicts. This is ours. What you see before you is the best available consensus that we're capable of achieving.

Scary, eh?