I have no problem with that.Most people are mainly motivated by money. Not exclusively, but mainly.
If that politician is competent and pursues a rational policy that I am behind, then I have no problem whatsoever to vote on it.You may also not be able to buy it. I prefer a competent and rational politician who is primarily motivated by money than an idealistic incompetent idiot.
I have no doubt whether people in politics are merely ‘ for the money ‘.You can often earn as good or better in jobs where you get much less dredging over you. A certain idealism or a certain power lust seems to me to be necessary.
I join what Paul writes.
Politicians in the Netherlands don’t deserve that much.
EUR 7705,-Gross per month, there remains net a little less than half per month of the over.
Well, little is not it again, but you certainly don’t get rich from the profession politician.
These are two substantially different questions which also have a different answer.So I take them apart.
To what extent is it morally acceptable for a person to enter politics only for the money?
From the fact that virtually no politician makes sure that he or she is only doing it for the money, we can still say that they do not find a great motivation.If they thought that such a materialistic motive would be appreciated by a decent percentage of people, they would be proud to mention it.
But that is more about the question of whether it is morally priced. Not the question of whether it is acceptable.
Politics is about power and influence.The power to change, steer, improve. But also the power to make society so that this society becomes better.And if that does not succeed, then you can always try to use your influence, to monetize it, that you and your friends and girlfriends will get better.
All politicians, both those who really want to help society forward, and those who are alone out on their own benefit, claim the first.And it is therefore necessary to improve the education, health care, the establishment of our country, the environment, the way in which we divide work and prosperity.So then the actual question is: Is it morally defamable to assert the one and do the other?
In America They obviously do not think so.There is now someone in power who does just for money and power and that also proudly tells. Money is good and if you can amone more money, you are better than someone who has amdoned less money. His philosophy is so simple.
And all developments in that country, with some delay, also come to our side, that is true for the uncoated, dark blue cotton work mansbroek that you can just go to your office job and for the Gymps and undershirts instead of shirts that you contributes to this.This also applies to how politicians campaign and what is seen as socially desirable and acceptable.
For example, such a Henk Krol is simply a mini-Trumpje: A trace of bankruptcies, at the expense of suppliers, government and especially employees.He is also in politics through a Conservative party. Has made loud statements that are simply demonstrably lied and he uses media to bring himself into public attention. It has all become quite common. Be defamable, yes. Punishable? Apparently not, because lawyers have been able to keep him and his American example out of jail so far.
Would you vote for such a politician?
Never of his life.I still prefer to vote on Rutte than on that whole cabal to Surrogo-and ex-VVD’ers who even for the VVD are too wary of personal power and personal gain. Not only Krol, but also Wilders and Verdonk are rolled out of that litter. They started for themselves, because another she remained in the struggle for power in the VVD. Does that make them worse politicians? Not if you charge in seats and influence. Not if you charge in personal gain. But in the past, when people in the Netherlands still believed in parliamentary democracy, it would have been unintelligible for political parties to be fully dominated by one person. However, Trump, Wilders and Baudet have learned this from totalitarian regimes from the ultra-left and right corner.
I would have trouble with that.Such a person would be mainly concerned with re-elected and building connections in the business world.
I find it not necessarily immoral and would perhaps vote for him if IE is further competent and honest. Finally, it is much worse if IE is driven by power lust.
It is also a non-issue.In the Netherlands you are not a politician for the money.
Most people choose a profession that they can do well and therefore get satisfaction.That is hopefully also true for politicians.
Moral only goes something to the individual.It must/may itself judge the intentions for its acts, which is the moral judgement. Another cannot judge the intentions of another person, because they are simply not known.One cannot look at the head or heart of another person.
Not to be moral is therefore also not punishable.In this case, in so far as it is found to be defamable, there is a question of comparative questions. If you are a passionate teacher, you can also ask the morale to receive money for it. This, however, only weakes his own idea of objectability or provides it. Because all politicians receive money for their work, if you find that reprehensible, you must be consistent and boycott the elections. Or you should submit a relevant bill, which every Dutch citizen can. I do not suspect that it will be adopted, because then only wealthy people will go into politics.
It’s weird if your actions and words are in contradiction.
Is it morally acceptable if someone decides only for the money to become a scammer?Of course, someone is only accountable to themselves. If he does well and does not get caught, he only extorts admiration and respect.
A good politician can, apart from salares and expense allowance also accept (not material) gifts.Politics is a good career for people who would not get that far in the business world. It is very hard work. Waxes and waxes, all day but waxes. This is really very heavy and matting work.
The first step is often a municipal councillor, but you can also easily enter the second chamber as an employee, like Wilders for example.The politics itself, where everything hangs in the air but nothing happens, is of course also very interesting.
The meter will only really run when you are an alderman, but you can also use as a lobyist or for lighter money streams to your own advantage.’ Smoking is not that dangerous at all. That is a misunderstanding. We, as completely independent researchers, have discovered that smoking in combination with Coca Cola can have particularly beneficial effects on the body. ‘
This way you can be a principle of self-enrichment and at the same time you have a positive effect on society.I think that these heroes of democracy are more in Europe defending our interests than in the Netherlands. I estimate that around ten to thirty percent there are few principles, in Europe around sixty to eighty percent.
Lying and twisting should be able.
Would I vote for such a politician?Yes, but only because he takes me so well to the nose.
Interestingly, the Forum, as a strong growing party, now also attracts followers who are out of their own interest.Incidentally, you can easily make a switch between early and late members, but what if such a late member is also very capable?
Whether it is moral scceptabel or not, in my opinion, has been a passed station for a long time.
In my opinion, there are already politicians, who have entered politics for the money a future commissariat.
The idealism, which was still prevalent at the time of Van Agt, Wiegel and Den Uyl, seems to have disappeared almost since then.
Nowadays the ladies and gentlemen politicians are selected on other qualities.
In itself there is little to be wrong for a career politician.Politicians with a great ideal who want to “improve” the world have often proved disastrous.
Is this sometimes originally an American question?In the Netherlands you are not really wealthy of politician and it takes a lot of time.
In the top of business is much more money to be earned.