A 'Test' for Politians?

[aguy2]

Well, I guess I've always envisioned it with a direct democracy. Legislators become prioritizers and handle the logistics of passing bills while the public votes on them. In that case, you're not so valuable to lobbyists and the like any longer. And the public would have to vote to abolish the system that is allowing them to make the vote to abolish it, if you still try to abolish it.

The 24/7 threat of 'the tyranny of the temporary 51%'. Plus such goodies as emotionally stampeded 'fad laws' every few months! Didn't we learn anything from Socrates!

aguy2

[ParanoiA]

The 24/7 threat of 'the tyranny of the temporary 51%'. Plus such goodies as emotionally stampeded 'fad laws' every few months! Didn't we learn anything from Socrates!

aguy2

 

Why don't we have those now? There's nothing stopping our congressmen and senators from doing this now. And it's the tyranny of the minor majority that lead me to the "weighted" vote. So, neither the people nor the office holder can run away with the government.

 

And Socrates? You're listening to a guy who would have us run by an elitist philosophical circle jerk?

[aguy2]

Why don't we have those now? There's nothing stopping our congressmen and senators from doing this now. And it's the tyranny of the minor majority that lead me to the "weighted" vote. So, neither the people nor the office holder can run away with the government.

 

And Socrates? You're listening to a guy who would have us run by an elitist philosophical circle jerk?

 

The 'elitist philosophical circle jerk' idea can be laid to the feet of Plato not Socrates. My only substantive critque of the 'weighted vote', as a potential solution, is that it would require extensive and time consuming constitutional tweeking.

 

Humbly requesting that our potential elected officials present the electorate with a fairly clean bill of mental health can be accomplished before 11/7/06.

aguy2

[D H]

Humbly requesting that our potential elected officials present the electorate with a fairly clean bill of mental health can be accomplished before 11/7/06.

 

On what constitutional grounds would you justify requiring a candidate to do so? Should your humble proposal take wings, I for one would donate money to a constitutional challenge to such a requirement.

[ParanoiA]

It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world that only the wise man can understand" making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. According to Plato's account, Socrates was in no way subtle about his particular beliefs on government. He openly objected to the democracy that ran Athens during his adult life. It was not only Athenian democracy: Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers (Solomon 49), and Athenian government was far from that.

 

Here's the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

 

I'll lay the 'elitist philosophical circle jerk' idea to both of their feet.

 

I don't like the mental test because it can be corrupted and influenced, for instance to a political party or ideology. Or any number of other ways.

 

Maybe if you could do it like a lie detector test. Something other than written examination. Something that can be proven not to have any bias other than this trait we don't like.

[aguy2]

Maybe if you could do it like a lie detector test. Something other than written examination. Something that can be proven not to have any bias other than this trait we don't like.

 

Well, that is what I was proposing. A polygraph test could prove to be very effective in detecting a total lack of guilt, due to a total lack of a conscious.

aguy2(amen)

[aguy2]

On what constitutional grounds would you justify requiring a candidate to do so? Should your humble proposal take wings, I for one would donate money to a constitutional challenge to such a requirement.

 

I in no way implied "The Test" should be required. Reasonably honest men who know they aren't sociopathic opportunists will want to do so voluntarily. Of course not volunteering might be seen the same way the law sees not 'volunteering' for a breath-o-lizer test, except for not presuming the non-tester to be 'guilty', but presuming the non-tester to be incapable of feeling guilt at all.

aguy2(amen)

[ParanoiA]

I in no way implied "The Test" should be required. Reasonably honest men who know they aren't sociopathic opportunists will want to do so voluntarily. Of course not volunteering might be seen the same way the law sees not 'volunteering' for a breath-o-lizer test, except for not presuming the non-tester to be 'guilty', but presuming the non-tester to be incapable of feeling guilt at all.

aguy2(amen)

 

You know I'm really starting to dig this idea. I can see candidates using that as ammo in their commercials. And it's perfect being a socially pressured accomodation rather than a legal obligation.

[D H]

There is nothing to stop you from convincing one of the major parties to adopt a sociopathic opportunist litmus test, or should such attempts fail, from forming an anti-sociopathic opportunist party. Good luck. Should you succeed, I will vote against any candidate who claims membership in said party.

 

This, like many other utopian panaceas, is a dumb idea.

 

There is a big difference between testing for driving while intoxicated and "sociopathic opportunism". One difference is the difference between rights and privileges. Driving is a privilege; it is not a right. Drunk drivers are something almost all reasonable people want to stop. We collectively as a people have agreed to a reduction in our freedoms (driving drunk) to reduce this scourge on society. Running for office is much closer to being a right than a privilege. Any infringements on our rights should be viewed with much more scrutiny than infringements privileges.

 

An even bigger problem is that a fairly objective standard can be established for "driving while intoxicated". That is not the case with being a "sociopathic opportunist". The latter term is highly loaded and highly subjective. I asked for a definition of the term in a previous post; no definition has been forthcoming. What is a "sociopathic opportunist"? What makes them undesirable? What makes any test qualified to judge whether some candidate is one?

 

I don't particularly like liberals and I think they have done a lot of harm to this country. That does not mean that I espouse a test that excludes "wacko liberals" (an equally loaded term from the right) from running for office.

[aguy2]

There is nothing to stop you from convincing one of the major parties to adopt a sociopathic opportunist litmus test, or should such attempts fail, from forming an anti-sociopathic opportunist party. Good luck. Should you succeed, I will vote against any candidate who claims membership in said party.

 

This, like many other utopian panaceas, is a dumb idea.

 

There is a big difference between testing for driving while intoxicated and "sociopathic opportunism". One difference is the difference between rights and privileges. Driving is a privilege; it is not a right. Drunk drivers are something almost all reasonable people want to stop. We collectively as a people have agreed to a reduction in our freedoms (driving drunk) to reduce this scourge on society. Running for office is much closer to being a right than a privilege. Any infringements on our rights should be viewed with much more scrutiny than infringements privileges.

 

Are the poilitians to be the only ones left with any freedoms. The Constitional freedoms we plebes once held have all but been completely rescinded. Have you heard the story of the Canadian engineer of Syrian origin being pulled from a plane in transit through JFK, wisked off to Syria to be tortured for ten months before they figurered out that, "Oops, wrong fella"? They wouldn't even give him plane fare home, and our courts say that according to the new laws, he is shit out of luck and doesn't even get an apology.

 

Enpowered technology has led to the possibility of monitoring every telephone call and email in the country, but would you want to make any bets of the politicians having access to secure communications?

 

I would think that freedom and power are exchangable commodities. If one wants to wield power, one should be willing to give up some of your freedoms (like psycholgical medical records) in exchange for the opportunity to wield power.

 

I would agree that if "The Test" where legally manditory it would be wide open for eventual abuse. My contention is that only the creeps we want to keep out of public life would not volunteer.

aguy2(amen)

[D H]

My contention is that only the creeps we want to keep out of public life would not volunteer.

 

Please define what you mean by "sociopathic opportunist". From a few minutes of googling, this term appears to be loaded term used by the fringe left. I do not want the fringe left (or the fringe right, for that matter) deciding who can or cannot run for office.

 

By using the kingly "we" in "the creeps we want to keep out of public life", it looks like you might well be such a sociopathic opportunist. It appears to ne that this test for sociopathic opportunists is really just a scheme by sociopathic opportunists on the left to get rid of their opponents on the right.

[ParanoiA]

Please define what you mean by "sociopathic opportunist". From a few minutes of googling, this term appears to be loaded term used by the fringe left. I do not want the fringe left (or the fringe right, for that matter) deciding who can or cannot run for office.

 

By using the kingly "we" in "the creeps we want to keep out of public life", it looks like you might well be such a sociopathic opportunist. It appears to ne that this test for sociopathic opportunists is really just a scheme by sociopathic opportunists on the left to get rid of their opponents on the right.

 

Ok, this is getting flat out ridiculous. The point is simple. Regardless of right or left wing philosophies, a non-mandatory test to weed out liars and thieves is a good idea. Period.

 

I don't think that makes "aguy2" a liar or thief, himself, because he supports not having liars and thieves in office.

 

Sounds like you might be listening to a bit too much Rush...

[Sisyphus]

Slightly off-topic, but the "elitist philosophical circle jerk" in question was not meant to be taken literally as a suggestion. It's a metaphor. And, arguably, an explanation of how such a thing wouldn't work.

 

And in any case, we can at least learn from Athens itself. As a direct democracy, what did they do? Exile their greatest citizens (for fear they would gain too much power and undermine the democracy), put others, including Socrates, to death in kangaroo mob courts, launch a series of increasingly foolish and aggressive military campaigns in waves of patriotism and hubris (subjugating resentful "allies"), each of which was counciled against by the most knowledgable but supported by demagogues, and, last but not least, happily put de facto tyrants in place on multiple occasions (but not for long - no government lasted more than a few years). Now, a representative democracy is hardly immune from such things, but, for whatever reason, it seems more resistant to them.

[ParanoiA]

Slightly off-topic, but the "elitist philosophical circle jerk" in question was not meant to be taken literally as a suggestion. It's a metaphor. And, arguably, an explanation of how such a thing wouldn't work.

 

And in any case, we can at least learn from Athens itself. As a direct democracy, what did they do? Exile their greatest citizens (for fear they would gain too much power and undermine the democracy), put others, including Socrates, to death in kangaroo mob courts, launch a series of increasingly foolish and aggressive military campaigns in waves of patriotism and hubris (subjugating resentful "allies"), each of which was counciled against by the most knowledgable but supported by demagogues, and, last but not least, happily put de facto tyrants in place on multiple occasions (but not for long - no government lasted more than a few years). Now, a representative democracy is hardly immune from such things, but, for whatever reason, it seems more resistant to them.

 

Good point, and hard to argue around it. Direct democracy in the current mindset of Americans would be dangerous internationally.

 

But Athens did prosper quickly and enviously under that government, and was a noble attempt, even though it ended badly.

[aguy2]

Slightly off-topic, but the "elitist philosophical circle jerk" in question was not meant to be taken literally as a suggestion. It's a metaphor. And, arguably, an explanation of how such a thing wouldn't work.

 

And in any case, we can at least learn from Athens itself. As a direct democracy, what did they do? Exile their greatest citizens (for fear they would gain too much power and undermine the democracy), put others, including Socrates, to death in kangaroo mob courts, launch a series of increasingly foolish and aggressive military campaigns in waves of patriotism and hubris (subjugating resentful "allies"), each of which was counciled against by the most knowledgable but supported by demagogues, and, last but not least, happily put de facto tyrants in place on multiple occasions (but not for long - no government lasted more than a few years). Now, a representative democracy is hardly immune from such things, but, for whatever reason, it seems more resistant to them.

 

This is a pretty good historical analysis. It was something like this I was refering to when I asked ParanioA, "Didn't we learn anything from Socrates!" I probably should have made it clearer that I wasn't refering directly to Plato's 'take' on his thought.

aguy2(amen)

[Technocrat]

That is what I thought.

 

No way do I want such a test. That term (corporate sociopath) is a left wing catch phrase. The only people who would pass your test are the fellow travelers on the left.

 

 

Well actually, it's not just a "left-wing" catchphrase. However, a test would likely be useless anyway, since sociopathis are known to manipulate psychiatrists AND psychologists into thinking they really are not sociopaths.

 

I think the sociopath would know what you are doing and simply lie. Their goals are to win.

 

However, as for the concept of "corporate" attatched to it, that's not left-wing either. Business is usually a favourable field for socipaths because the skills necessary to survive are usually those socipaths happen to excell in.

 

 

There ought to be some form of testing for both voting and office placement based on meritocratic (technocratic) standards. Do we have a form of evaluation today? Sure. Voting and electing, someone mentioned. It's not a very good one, however, and is dumbed down insofar as it's merely a test of who can superficially capture the attention of the nation's most moronic group of people who caught his candidate's soundbyte on Fauxnews.