Ron Paul for President of the USA

[raw-al]

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/money-madness/25-craziest-things-the-us-government-spends-money-on-.html

[TylerDurden]

PP, in an anarcho-libertarian society, the leaders would have almost no power, anyway, so this is irrelevant. Granted, in an authoritarian society with enlightened despots, we would need further safeguards, like the ones I already mentioned. For example, if a particular royal family had, say, 150 people eligible for the throne, at least one out of those, the best one, could be elected to power by those eligible to vote(only the best being allowed to vote, of course). Plus, if we had a system whereby royals who turned out, unfortunately, to be incompetent, were removed, then Nicholas II etc. would never happen. Bear in mind that it took a very long time for the Russian Revolution to happen, so measures taken well beforehand would have sorted things out.

And, no, I am no particular fan of the Tsars, it's just that there are several examples of enlightened despots among them. Nor am I a fan of HRE, I just cited them as the emperor of the HRE   got himself elected to power, not just gaining the throne by right of birth.

As regards testing politicians, that's not a problem. If one had private investigators checking all aspects of a politician's life, skulduggery would be difficult to keep hidden. Plus, in an anarcho-libertarian society, the individual would have most of the control, so that bureaucracy would be unnecessary. This is going to be much easier as technology advances. Take for example the fact that bacteria are being produced which feed on sewage. Imagine a future in which one can buy bacteria dirt-cheap which can break down any rubbish, even metal. Then one wouldn't need council rubbish-collectors any more, and so on and on.....

[PaleoPhil]

PP, in an anarcho-libertarian society, the leaders would have almost no power, anyway, so this is irrelevant.

Except that I was under the impression that we were talking about your other alternative of enlightened despots, who would have lots of power. After all, didn't you say the problem with the Holy Roman Empire was that the monarchs didn't have enough power? I'm so confused. 

Granted, in an authoritarian society with enlightened despots, we would need further safeguards, like the ones I already mentioned. For example, if a particular royal family had, say, 150 people eligible for the throne, at least one out of those, the best one, could be elected to power by those eligible to vote(only the best being allowed to vote, of course).

Right, and what would the morals and competency exams test? I can imagine the competency exams might be about reading ability and IQ, but the morals test is more of a mystery to me.

Plus, if we had a system whereby royals who turned out, unfortunately, to be incompetent, were removed, then Nicholas II etc. would never happen. Bear in mind that it took a very long time for the Russian Revolution to happen, so measures taken well beforehand would have sorted things out.

What measures?

And, no, I am no particular fan of the Tsars, it's just that there are several examples of enlightened despots among them. Nor am I a fan of HRE, I just cited them as the emperor of the HRE   got himself elected to power, not just gaining the throne by right of birth.

What is your favorite, or least loathed government in history, if you can think of any? It's a difficult question and I haven't really thought through or researched myself. Granted, what's good for one nation or region may not be good for another, so I guess I mean is what current or past government would you prefer to live under and assume that it would work as well wherever you choose to live as it does in that government's home territory?

[TylerDurden]

I suppose certain healthier periods in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia would be my favourites.

As regards measures, it would be simple to have a regulatory body of people(all selected to be the best) to vet the king every few years.

A morals test would be simple, just have PIs check the past life of any royal or royal advisor/official and get rid of those who weren't of the highest calibre.

[PaleoPhil]

I suppose certain healthier periods in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia would be my favourites.

OK, that makes sense, given your preference for a voting elite similar to the voting restrictions in Rome to male citizens who were property owners, etc.

As regards measures, it would be simple to have a regulatory body of people(all selected to be the best) to vet the king every few years.

OK, so they would have the power to remove the king, yes? How would they be selected?

A morals test would be simple, just have PIs check the past life of any royal or royal advisor/official and get rid of those who weren't of the highest calibre.

I meant the morals test for the voters.

[TylerDurden]

Well, I am not in favour of allowing only male citizens to vote if they own a property. But I do think that society as a whole would benefit considerably if only those who were well-educated, reasonably intelligent and reasonably moral were allowed to vote or be elected.


As regards  selection of officials, I already mentioned the use of PIs to investigate peoples' backgrounds as being a possibility. One could also enforce laws so that it becomes almost impossible for politicians to gain money via corruption of any kind. For example, in order to become Minister of Defence a person would have to not only have full financial transparency to prevent bribes(plus PIs checking his standard of living etc.), plus they would have to accept that they could never work for companies within the arms-industry, and would not be allowed to have had prior experience in such companies either.

As for the voters, an IQ test,  an education test and a morals test would suffice. The morals test would involve a financial background check, plus perhaps a check on marital infidelity(I think if someone cheats on his wife, he is far more likely to deceive others in other matters) - oh, and full integrity might be required for one's field of expertise(for example, someone like Jared Diamond, who was accused of fraud, would not be eligible).
If there was a public referendum regarding the economy, then people who were ever in debt for more than a very short period would be rightfully excluded from voting in that one instance, and so on.

Just the education test alone would suffice to exclude the majority of the world's population. I was disgusted to find that most of the American politicians had no clue as to simple geography, yet were willing to go invade countries with guns blasting, for no good reason. So simple questions such as "what is the Iraqi PM's name?" or "what is the sea called, north of Turkey?" would be sufficient. To get the best, though, would require perhaps knowledge/education up to postgraduate standard. I mean if a referendum is being considered which mainly affects the field of archaeology(say a restriction on the sale of certain ancient objects), then only those involved directly or indirectly with archaeology would be allowed to vote.

[raw-al]

Tyler,

I never know when to take you seriously. I think you are serious and then I read the above speech and then I think you are just carrying on.

It's hilarious because it is so Politically Incorrect. I feel very strongly that being PI should be encouraged and proliferated. I feel being PC is the scourge of society that must be eradicated whenever it rears it's ugly post pubescent female head.

[TylerDurden]

I am quite serious, though I suppose I was being a bit too overly  optimistic re some of the extreme methods I suggested as regards morals. I mean banning people from voting or being elected due to their marital infidelity is, admittedly, overdoing it.

That said, my points re a need for education and a lack of corruption are perfectly valid. I mean, if someone wants to become Foreign Policy Minister, say, then they should prove, via tests, that they, at the very least, have a good grasp of world geography plus some grasp of world history, in particular their own country's history. And so on and on.

The Chinese Empire, as I recall, was one of the first to introduce exams that its bureaucrats had to pass in order to get promoted. Seems quite reasonable a system to me.

I guess what I am saying is that the true evil of today's world is the concept of entitlement. I would far rather people earned their rights rather than getting them for free, as the latter option just means that people routinely take advantage and abuse the system constantly. I believe in a meritocracy.

[raw-al]

Using a test to discover if someone is a cheat is like screwing a woman to see if she is a virgin.

Tests invite cheating. People who lie can easily pass tests. I read of one guy who hired an actor to apply for a job as a very high level financial officer. Then he coached him in some clever things to say and how to dress and act. The guy was offered the job.

I used to fly with this guy at one time who was a very new co-pilot. He was an incredibly cool guy, very collected, dressed well, really looked the part. One day we were doing an approach into an airport in a valley, in cloud, (very treacherous spot).

At one point I took my eyes off the gauges for a very brief period to look at an approach plate and when I looked back up everything looked weird. I had to take a second to figure out that this clown had flown through the approach path and we were close to a mountain so I pulled up (vigorously.) I had a brief glance at some rock just under us as we climbed out.

Governments are full of airheads who look the part ie distinguished/fatherly/well-spoken who are crooked as the rest of us. LOL

People are inherently greedy. Ron Paul is arguably greedy as his desire is to keep all of his money. At least he is consistant and seems to be fair and hasn't changed his tune. He also spells out exactly what he believes and then sticks to his guns. Obama lied AFAIAC.

You can argue for and against everyone in the world.

The current system allows a group of people to vet the leader. That's what is going on in the US now.

[TylerDurden]

Just because people lie does not mean one cannot come up with reliable tests that people will find very difficult to get round. I seriously doubt someone willing to get elected could withstand the intense scrutiny of some government agency like the Secret Service.  Sure, some might be able to bribe the necessary agents here and there and get away with it temporarily, but it would be difficult to keep up the charade for long.  I noticed, for example, that numerous US politicians got caught out when they were asked random questions about the  world  by the media; Rick Perry couldn't remember the 3rd department he wanted to  cut, I vaguely recall that George Bush couldn't remember the Iraqi PM's name when asked by a journalist, and so on...

So, what I mean is that random testing to see whether a person has some basic knowledge of geography or history or whatever would catch out most cheats.

[raw-al]

Just because people lie does not mean one cannot come up with reliable tests that people will find very difficult to get round. I seriously doubt someone willing to get elected could withstand the intense scrutiny of some government agency like the Secret Service.  Sure, some might be able to bribe the necessary agents here and there and get away with it temporarily, but it would be difficult to keep up the charade for long.  I noticed, for example, that numerous US politicians got caught out when they were asked random questions about the  world  by the media; Rick Perry couldn't remember the 3rd department he wanted to  cut, I vaguely recall that George Bush couldn't remember the Iraqi PM's name when asked by a journalist, and so on...

So, what I mean is that random testing to see whether a person has some basic knowledge of geography or history or whatever would catch out most cheats.

I know what you are saying and I know it makes sense but who gets to run the secret service? What random tests would be administered? It gets bogged down in the details of administering of these ideas.
If the secret service do not like a politician they are sunk. Suddenly the SS has all the power. So would Ron Paul be selected by the same SS that he wants to dismantle... and who gets to choose the SS? Some politically correct idiot in an employment agency who can barely count and is more interested in the colour of the carpet in their office?
I remember one interview I went to where the lifer in the Human Resources department asked me why I wanted to work for the company. At that point the person who ended up being my boss jumped in and said : that's a retarded question, come on let's be serious, then the lifer later asked how long I planned to stay with the company to which my to be boss jumped in and said what kind of a question is that... who knows?

Nowadays HR people all  come from the same school where they are taught to ask the same inane questions..

Why do you want to work for us... Because I am hungry, the children and wife are screaming and I need money you idiot.

What do you see as the challenges for our corp....... Putting up with dildos like you...

What is your worst habit........ sociopathic malcontent

OK so I am on a rant..... sosumi (That's actually the name of one of the sounds in your computer, Tyler.
Apple Logo/System Preferences/Sound, look down list of alert sounds built in. 

[TylerDurden]

If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well...Plus, like I said, random testing every few months or so would get round careful, prepared cheating. I mean, if a politician didn't know the name of Germany's Chancellor and so on, if asked randomly, they could get fired etc.

[raw-al]

I mean, if a politician didn't know the name of Germany's Chancellor and so on, if asked randomly, they could get fired etc.

LOL

[PaleoPhil]

someone like Jared Diamond, who was accused of fraud, would not be eligible).

Don't forget the crime of promoting narrative fallacies.

I was disgusted to find that most of the American politicians had no clue as to simple geography, yet were willing to go invade countries with guns blasting, for no good reason.

Yeah, it was extremely embarassing when Rick Perry said that one of the USA's longtime allies and helper in the "war on terror" and provider of airbase use for our regional operations and even some of our nukes, Turkey, is ruled by Islamic terrorists! Anyone that ignorant should not be allowed anywhere near the presidency. Luckily, even American voters were able to perceive his ignorance and ineptitude. On the other hand, if he attracted intelligent advisers it might not matter much.

To the Turkish government's credit, they knew Perry better than he knew Turkey and they brushed off the insult from an unimportant ignoramus and in return expressed nothing but positive sentiments about the USA.

So simple questions such as "what is the Iraqi PM's name?" or "what is the sea called, north of Turkey?" would be sufficient.

Yeah, and they shouldn't be allowed to butcher the names of prominent foreign leaders any more despite journalists and foreign leaders correctly pronouncing the names correctly to them. It makes the US government an international embarrassment.

Ignorance is unfortunately embraced by many as a virtue in this nation--it seems to be seen as a sort of angelic innocence, as though ignoramuses must have good hearts. Reminds me of the past Republican political slogan, "You know in your HEART he's right" (but in your brain you know he's wrong, so don't use your brain).

I am quite serious, though I suppose I was being a bit too overly  optimistic re some of the extreme methods I suggested as regards morals. I mean banning people from voting or being elected due to their marital infidelity is, admittedly, overdoing it.

Indeed, trying to track every potential voter's marital fidelity, if it were to be more than hand waving, would require a domestic spy service more massive than the KGB.
 

The Chinese Empire, as I recall, was one of the first to introduce exams that its bureaucrats had to pass in order to get promoted. Seems quite reasonable a system to me.

Yeah, it does seem to have its merits. It produced a rather well educated culture.

I guess what I am saying is that the true evil of today's world is the concept of entitlement. I would far rather people earned their rights rather than getting them for free, as the latter option just means that people routinely take advantage and abuse the system constantly. I believe in a meritocracy.

OK, thanks for the explanation.

If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well...

LOL Rather Panglossian. And then everyone held hands and lived happily ever after.

[raw-al]

This is a simple mathematical exercise that can identify your favorite movie.
Don't know how it works, but it works every time!
Don't look at the movie list below till you have done the math!
This math quiz can likely predict which of 18 movies you would enjoy the most..

Movie Quiz:
1. Pick a number from 1-9.
2. Multiply by 3.
3. Add 3.
4. Multiply by 3 again.
5. Now add the two digits of your answer together to find out your favorite movie in the list of 18 movies below:






Movie

  List:
1. Gone With the Wind
2. E.T.
3. Blazing Saddles
4. Star Wars
5. Forrest Gump
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
7. Jaws
8. Grease
9. The Ron Paul Presidential Inauguration Speech 2012
10. Casablanca
11. Jurassic Park
12. Shrek
13. Pirates of the Caribbean
14. Titanic
15. Raiders of the Lost Ark
16. Home Alone
17. Mrs. Doubtfire

[raw-al]

Quote
The Chinese Empire, as I recall, was one of the first to introduce exams that its bureaucrats had to pass in order to get promoted. Seems quite reasonable a system to me.
[/quote]
"Yeah, it does seem to have its merits. It produced a rather well educated culture.

Also a culture of woozes who had very little entrepreneurial spirit to the point where they were becoming world travellers with their navigational and ship building prowess when the Emperor shut down the whole works and destroyed the shipyards etc. They had an incredible technology developed in a wide range of things but no one did anything with it.

The rest of the world made something of the inventions. (Then destroyed the rest of the world with conquests.)

[goodsamaritan]

BREAKING NEWS - Judge Napolitano fired from fox news for speaking out ABOUT THIS!

Napolitano doing a Ron Paul... Got FIRED! See Video.
Oh man, this guy got infected by TRUTH, and got fired.
This is the problem with truth realizations, you can't help but say it straight from the heart.

[TylerDurden]

LOL Rather Panglossian. And then everyone held hands and lived happily ever after.

I actually view this world as being "the worst of all possible worlds", not the best. As a result, I am not  a foolish believer in the supposed innate "goodness" of human nature, and would therefore like to enact laws which automatically assume that humans will usually be corrupt when in power or assume that most humans are too stupid to be capable of voting  in a way that is beneficial for the population as a whole.

I really don't see why a politician shouldn't be able to be fired if they demonstrate that they are too ignorant or too incompetent to do their job. I mean, people in other kinds of jobs can be fired. There's no need to wait several years for the voters to finally ditch their politicians.

[PaleoPhil]

I was just referring to the statement that "If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well..." Perhaps better wording would be overly optimistic. It didn't seem to fit with your usual attitude, exemplified by your "worst of all possible worlds" comment.

[CitrusHigh]

Oh my fucking lord GS, thanks for posting this. Napolitano fucking nailed it so concisely!!!!!! And on that piece of shit fox news no less!!!! How did this make it on the air?!?!?!!

That motherfucker ate the RED PILL!!! Viva Napolitano!

[TylerDurden]

I was just referring to the statement that "If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well..." Perhaps better wording would be overly optimistic. It didn't seem to fit with your usual attitude, exemplified by your "worst of all possible worlds" comment.

  I was assuming that all humans were corruptible so that everyone needed to be vetted. Certain simple random tests such as educational ones based on world geography would get rid of so many useless people that more stringent tests wouldn't really be needed.We may live in the worst of all possible worlds, but there's no reason not to protect ourselves against that.

[raw-al]

Establishment Pundit Left Speechless by Ron Paul Smackdown

[PaleoPhil]

  I was assuming that all humans were corruptible ...

Sure, but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to "then all is well...", but no matter.

[raw-al]

LOGIC 101
 
An interesting  letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine
this week, which I  quote:
 
"If you consider that there has been an average of  160,000
troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past  22
months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm
death rate of  60 per 100,000 soldiers.
 
The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is  80.6 per
100,000 for the same period.
 
That means you are about 25 per  cent more likely to be shot
and killed in the US capital, which has some of  the strictest
gun  control laws in the U.S. , than you are in  Iraq."
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington .

[TylerDurden]

The UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper is bizarrely pro-US, pro-NeoCon in its outlook, despite the fact that most of its readership loathe war etc. In a recent article, though, they admit that neither Santorum or Romney have the slightest chance against Obama and that the GOP are considering a 3rd candidate. Needless to say, no one mentions Ron Paul in the article:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9102031/US-election-2012-GOP-hunt-for-mystery-third-man-who-could-beat-Obama.html