Monday, March 2, 2009
Begging the Question
Quoting from Barry Belmont's response in the letter previously posted regarding an all volunteer senate and the implications of such a government:
"Many brought up the exact same points (only the rich can run...) and I can see and understand this position. However, as you mentioned a good senator should work say at least 10 hours a week. Well for the 16 weeks of the semester (let's call it 15 for the sake of argument) that totals 150 hours worked for $400. Or roughly a wage of $2.70 an hour. It can be said that our senators are working for peanuts already and with this budget crisis it seems more pressing than ever to save ever last penny."
Today we learn about the wonderful logical construct of petitio principii or begging the question. This logical fallacy is one in which a logically unsound premise is used to suggest a proof.
Mr. Belmont and START claim the low pay senators already receive should be proof enough that the senators shouldn't require any pay. However, this argument ignores the possibility of the existence of those who would run but cannot afford to run at the current pay and therefore do not run. What if the low pay already excludes a significant number of potential candidates?
Arguably, reducing the pay even more could further reduce the size of the pool of possible candidates, making ASUN a less democratic body (i.e., more elite).
Posts
Wow, let's be glad you didn't quote the rest of his email...you know the part where he clarifies his position:
ReplyDelete"What better way to show that we (senators) stand with the students than in refusing our pay to help them just that little bit more. I agree, the amount is minuscule, but it is such a simple and powerful gesture towards those we serve that the START members agreed that refusing the pay or using it as a means to give money back to students was the best idea. Obviously it might be hard to achieve and we certainly couldn't (wouldn't) force other senators to refuse their pay, but the option for senators to refuse their pay should be on the table.
Or...and this was also part of the debate...we should pay the senators what a normal job would pay...that way it would be more of a real job and not just some hobby for some people. But from looking at the attendance records, legislation passed, and overall performance of previous senates, it does not appear that the senators even deserve to be paid that much. I'm sorry to be blunt, but in all honesty it doesn't appear that most of them have earned what a minimum wage job would pay. We in START didn't think that throwing more money at senate would solve this problem (it hasn't solved many other of their problems) so we once again leaned on the side of volunteerism."
Funny how things make sense in context...
I guess it was too hard to look at the immediately preceding post to find the full e-mail reprinted.
ReplyDeleteFrom the letter, "We in START didn't think that throwing more money at senate would solve this problem (it hasn't solved many other of their problems) so we once again leaned on the side of volunteerism."
ReplyDeleteAnonymous I, the issues in my post concerning equity and justice and a representative democratic process are not addressed in the paragraph you quote. Please don't speak if you don't have anything useful to say.
START is saying because $2.70/hour doesn't work therefore fuck the other issues.
Finally. Someone understands my position. Thank you.
ReplyDelete