Political Policies: Should the State Serve or Reject?

[Adam]

Should anyone entering public service, in any capacity, renounce and sever all religious affiliations? (The idea being that they go into it with the desire to serve the state, rather than a desire to serve their religion.)

Should politicians' complete financial records be available to the public to scrutinise? The idea being that they go into the job to serve the state rather than to get rich.

Should the guardians of a state (the military, if used more decently than they often are these days) be looked after quite well by the state, as Plato suggests? Give them a nice house, concubines (male or female, depends on the soldier's gender and/or sexual preference), no taxes, nice food and such, et cetera?

Should those who ignore the commonly accepted standards of the state and harm the people of that state for their own gain (ie. criminals) gain any comfort or succor at all from the state they damaged? Does their rejection of the state mean the state has no obligation to look after them? Or does the state have the responsibility to look after such people no matter how much harm they inflict?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
Should anyone entering public service, in any capacity, renounce and sever all religious affiliations? (The idea being that they go into it with the desire to serve the state, rather than a desire to serve their religion.)

Politicians should certainly shut up about their religion...and if their religion does not allow them to serve the state, and follow the law, they have no business running for office.

Should politicians' complete financial records be available to the public to scrutinise? The idea being that they go into the job to serve the state rather than to get rich.

I don't see why not. Money is the easiest way to corrupt a politician.

Should the guardians of a state (the military, if used more decently than they often are these days) be looked after quite well by the state, as Plato suggests? Give them a nice house, concubines (male or female, depends on the soldier's gender and/or sexual preference), no taxes, nice food and such, et cetera?

I wouldn't go that far...but I sure think that veterans should have a better retirement program than politicians.

Should those who ignore the commonly accepted standards of the state and harm the people of that state for their own gain (ie. criminals) gain any comfort or succor at all from the state they damaged? Does their rejection of the state mean the state has no obligation to look after them? Or does the state have the responsibility to look after such people no matter how much harm they inflict? QUOTE]
Hmmmm...tough one. We should certainly attempt rehabilitation of criminals, before giving up on them. Since we simply store criminals for a few years before letting them back out, who can say that we haven't ALREADY rejected them?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Adam
Should anyone entering public service, in any capacity, renounce and sever all religious affiliations? (The idea being that they go into it with the desire to serve the state, rather than a desire to serve their religion.)

I, as much as anyone, would like to see religion disappear, but requiring that public servants renounce religious affiliations seems like a violation of the 1st Amendment to me.

Should politicians' complete financial records be available to the public to scrutinise? The idea being that they go into the job to serve the state rather than to get rich.

Definitely. Don't politicians already have to disclose certain financial information?

Should the guardians of a state (the military, if used more decently than they often are these days) be looked after quite well by the state, as Plato suggests? Give them a nice house, concubines (male or female, depends on the soldier's gender and/or sexual preference), no taxes, nice food and such, et cetera?

While they are serving? Definitely not. You don't want soldiers who are used to a lavish lifestyles. Afterwards? I'll second Zero's statement.

Should those who ignore the commonly accepted standards of the state and harm the people of that state for their own gain (ie. criminals) gain any comfort or succor at all from the state they damaged? Does their rejection of the state mean the state has no obligation to look after them? Or does the state have the responsibility to look after such people no matter how much harm they inflict?

I think that we should try to help people as much as it makes sense to, regardless of their past actions. Now, if a person's continued protection is a threat to the safety of others, then obviously you need to consider not looking after that person.