Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Politicians in Harm's Way

  1. Jun 6, 2005 #1
    This is an idea I've been entertaining this morning:

    With all the politicians drawing connections between themselves and our soldiers "in harm's way," the politicians themselves aren't risking anything and the soldiers who are risking their lives don't get much for it.

    What if every Congressman or higher politician was subjected to a random lottery of mortality, so that each politician at that level had a 10% chance of being honorably executed every year?

    I think we'd have more honest politicians. Mere power-grabbers wouldn't see it as a good deal, so they wouldn't run for office. Our politicians would have to really believe in their cause. The nation would respect its political leaders more, because each of them would be a potential martyr for their country.

    The downside is that 10% of our politicians at that level would be executed. But when you think that important politicians' decisions have impacts on millions of people, that might not be a bad trade.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 6, 2005 #2
    how bout let's not kill them randomly, and make them fight in wars instead, that way the tough ones survive.

    just a thought

  4. Jun 6, 2005 #3
    You can't physically fight in a war and be a good politician at the same time. Besides, why would you particularly want physically tough politicians?
  5. Jun 6, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What good is executing random people? And the skill set necessary to fight a war is radically different from running a nation. But of course as implied... the current skill set to be a politican is rather sickening to think of lol.
  6. Jun 6, 2005 #5
    Quite a few of our past presidents had been in the military.
  7. Jun 6, 2005 #6
    So they were risking their lives then--it's quite a different thing to be risking your life for your political station now.
  8. Jun 6, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah but military vs. war is a different thing mind you. Too bad we're pretty much 'out' of WW2 vets capable of running for office. Wouldn't mind hearing some story out of Iwo Jima as part of the state of the union address lol. "I got shot in the leg by a jap patrol boat and you people are *****ing about unemployment!"
  9. Jun 6, 2005 #8
    I have already argued what good executing people randomly might be, in post #1 of this thread, so why are you asking the question as if the point had not be proposed?
    I agree.
  10. Jun 6, 2005 #9
    They took more or less the same risk that any person who joined took. The only differance would be people who join during war then ofcourse the risk is all the more apearant and they have less reason to complain.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook