Quote: Original post by ManaStone
It would just be a job requirement for office. I don't know the election laws in the U.K., but in the U.S. elected officials might have to be forced to report gifts from lobbyists valued over a certain amount. In order to get on the ballot candidates are forced to get a certain amount of signatures. Do you think any of those requirements infringe on liberty?

Yes, they infringe on the liberty of the officials and the candidates respectively.

Officials can choose not to accept the gifts, if they think that public disclosure of the gift would threaten their political standing (i.e. their ability to do their job). Victims of your inquisition don't have that option.

Do you know why politicians seek to avoid being asked certain questions?

Quote: I don't think most people keep track of who is ducking interviews.

That's why the candidates can get away with it.

Quote: Also, there are good reasons in the current environment in which a candidate might not want to give an interview. An interviewer can do editing to make the interviewee to look bad or the interviewee might not be given appropriate time to elaborate on his position. When the host is losing his argument he can yell over, filibuster, and and straw-man until time is out and the interviewee doesn't have a chance to respond.

Yes. What makes you think that the answers given to your Inquisition wouldn't be treated in exactly the same way by the news networks as they broadcast them?

Quote:
I'm not talking about a closed party list. I'm talking about using a single transferable vote in which a voter ranks individuals. It would be similar to Australia's system for electing members to the senate.

Then where does proportional representation come into this?

Quote: Candidates and elected officials would have to give uncomfortable interviews.

Uncomfortable? Answering the wrong question could cost somebody billions of dollars in political support. Look at what congress did to ACORN when the videos about it started coming out.

Quote:
If a member of congress votes to remove an elected official for no good reason, he will most likely be punished by the voters when he is up for re-election. In the United States, a member of congress can be removed from office if 2/3's of his colleagues vote for it. I don't remember it ever being abused when a party had a super majority.

I'm not talking about "a member" - I'm talking about large-scale cooperation between politicians to make sure that the watchdog doesn't "get out of hand."

We tried some of this already in the UK, by the way. The government has a 'sleaze watchdog' who keeps the other members of the government ethical. Two things have happened as a result: One, people don't cooperate with them; and two, the sleaze watchdogs themselves have frequently found themselves exposed as unethical.

Quote: It is just a questionnaire. The questions wouldn't be asked in real time.

So what happens if the answer isn't satisfactory?

Quote: The news networks aren't apart of the government. The U.S. constitution prohibits the government from implementing a religious test to run for office as it should.

Thank you for enlightening me on the relationship between the news networks and the government. A religious test to run for office, and asking religious questions, are two very separate things. Your inquisition can't ask a candidate whether they're a Christian fundamentalist; that's something I want to know about my candidates.

Quote: If a candidate or elected official didn't show up, the interview would be rescheduled. If he didn't have a medical excuse, he would be given a warning. If the particular candidate or elected official is prone to skipping interviews, he would either be removed from the ballot or removed from office.

What happens if they show up, and just answer 'I don't wish to answer' to every question? It's an honest and accurate answer.

Quote: Original post by frob
It is expected for politicians to lie. We *WANT* politicians who can make convincing debates on either side; it shows they understand the issue, but it requires the ability to deceive. We *WANT* politicians who will take sides on complex issues, even when we know deep down that complex issues typically contain conflicting moral truths. We *WANT* politicians who can negotiate and argue and fight behind closed doors, then walk arm-in-arm to the public spotlight as though they were best buddies. We *WANT* politicians who will do what is best for everybody and appear happy about it, even when they aren't.

And what do we get?

We *GET* politicians who are out for themselves. We *GET* politicians who work as hard as they can to line the pockets of themselves and their buddies. We *GET* politicians who say whatever it is they think will get them elected, and then do whatever the hell they want. We *GET* politicians who can't see the world beyond the next election!


And frankly, I don't want a politician who glosses things over to sugar coat them for my sake. I want the truth, I want honesty, and I want them working for the best interest of myself and those around me. (I also want a proper communist state without corruption that is centered around advancing robotic labour to free humans for creative and academic goals. But that isn't happening in my life time.)

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote:
I want politicians to lie when they need to.

I don't. I find it absolutely unacceptable to be deceived by someone I gave my trust by voting for him.

Why trust the people you vote for? I expect the people I vote for to be deceiving me some of the time. What matters is whether they're doing what I elected them to do, i.e. govern well, manage national defence, etc.

Quote: Original post by superpig
Why trust the people you vote for? I expect the people I vote for to be deceiving me some of the time. What matters is whether they're doing what I elected them to do, i.e. govern well, manage national defence, etc.

Because it requires a certain amount of trust in the integrity of the person when you put him into power. You need to trust him that he will do what he promised, that he won't abuse his power, that he won't make the economy collapse on purpose, that he won't nuke the neighboring country for fun, etc.

In my opinion, someone intentionally deceiving his own voters is not someone I can 'trust' to defend my interests when the shit hits the fan.

But then again, I work in corporate management, so I might be biased. If someone intentionally lies to me about important work related matters, he can go and look for a new job the next day.

Your new proposed branch sounds like a great place where corruption and nepotism can flourish [smile]. People are stupid, people do stupid things, and people lie; creating a new branch of government isn't going to stop any of that.

In reality, each branch of the government should be replaced by a chou powerful feminine supercomputer! They work together for the common good—and they fight giant MONSTAAAAAARRRRRS!

Quote: Original post by Yann L
You need to trust him that he will do what he promised, that he won't abuse his power, that he won't make the economy collapse on purpose, that he won't nuke the neighboring country for fun, etc.

Do we? If we trusted our politicians, we wouldn't need the checks that are in place to make sure that they can't nuke neighbouring countries for fun, that they can't destroy the economy on purpose - things like votes of no confidence, and an active opposition. Even the courts. It's better to 'trust' the system than the people, because the way the system works is much easier to learn and understand.

Quote: Original post by superpig
Do we?

Of course not. But we should be able to. Personal accountability for breach of contract trust can help this a lot.

Quote: Original post by superpig
It's better to 'trust' the system than the people, because the way the system works is much easier to learn and understand.

Possibly. But a control system can only function properly if it is decoupled from the subjects it is supposed to supervise. Which is unfortunately not the case. Or in other words, the current control system is being influenced and subverted by the very individuals it is controlling.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
But then again, I work in corporate management, so I might be biased. If someone intentionally lies to me about important work related matters, he can go and look for a new job the next day.

For working in management, I'm surprised to hear your hardline stance for absolute truth from leadership.


When a subordinate asks you about their peer's salary, how do you answer them?

Do you take the "complete transparent honesty" approach and tell them everyone's salary and bonus amounts? Do you evade the question? ("You know I can't answer that.") Do you make a joking, obviously brazen lie? ("I'm sure makes more than all of us combined!") Do you make a serious and honest negative statement? ("I am forbidden by company policy from telling you that.")



Or, in management you get to learn about problems before the rank-and-file employees. There are many good reasons for this.

Suppose you you learn from your superiors that the project is going to be canceled, but they ask you to continue on course while everything is restructured, do you run out and tell your team to take a siesta? Do you spread the word that the project is dying? When somebody asks you about the rumor, do you deceive or mislead or misdirect or evade?

No successful manager will tell their subordinates: "Yes, the project is going to be canceled, and upper management is just pretending that nothing is wrong while they adjust course and find a good way to spin it. Don't panic, it will get sorted out. You will all keep your jobs. Get back to work."



This comes back to the definitions of lying, honesty, and their relationship to deception and morality. Leaders must respect confidentiality, and must understand that when a message comes out, both timing and perceptions are critical.

In leadership, careful deception is sometimes the most moral choice. Sometimes an outright lie is far better (potentially saving countless lives) than half-truths or evasion or pure honest. Good leaders know this.

Leaders who cannot keep secrets or who sacrifice the common good in exchange for their own definition of honesty will quickly find themselves leading nobody.

Quote: In my opinion, someone intentionally deceiving his own voters is not someone I can 'trust' to defend my interests when the shit hits the fan.

You know (or should know) your boss is not 100% perfectly honest with you, and that your boss and their boss and their boss will all "protect you" from certain information, even if that means deception.

Yet your boss is entrusted with far more direct control over your life than your government leaders.




A corporate executive is co-manager over a few million, or perhaps a few billion dollars worth of resources. They have perhaps a hundred or even few thousand employees that they directly impact.

A politician is co-manager over many billions or trillions of dollars, or even more. Their choices affect many millions and sometimes billions of people.

Just like I expect good corporate leaders to do it, I expect politicians to be able to lie and deceive, and to do it well, for the benefit of everybody.

Quote: Original post by frob
When a subordinate asks you about their peer's salary, how do you answer them?

[...]

Do you make a serious and honest negative statement? ("I am forbidden by company policy from telling you that.")

That of course.

Quote:
You know (or should know) your boss is not 100% perfectly honest with you, and that your boss and their boss and their boss will all "protect you" from certain information, even if that means deception.

Yet your boss is entrusted with far more direct control over your life than your government leaders.

This is correct. However, you got my business analogy backwards.

Management = the voting public (not the politicians !).
Working staff = politicians.

The public chooses the direction to go for a country, and appoints staff to make it happen. This appointment / hiring is done by voting. The politician is the employee of the public. It is the politicians job to make the decision of the public a reality. A politician lying to the public would be the equivalent of an employee lying to his superior. Not the other way round.

I don't have to justify my actions to a subordinate. But I have to justify it to my boss. The same should be valid in politics. The public doesn't have to justify their choice to the government. However, the government has to justify itself to the public.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
Management = the voting public (not the politicians !).
Working staff = politicians.

The public chooses the direction to go for a country, and appoints staff to make it happen. This appointment / hiring is done by voting. The politician is the employee of the public. It is the politicians job to make the decision of the public a reality. A politician lying to the public would be the equivalent of an employee lying to his superior. Not the other way round.

I think this is where we differ in philosophy.

I believe that while the government belongs to the people, and the people hire the politicians, it is the politicians who are placed the leadership positions.



The people are not the boss who know the full details, but they are shareholders who own the company.

I would equate it to hiring your own boss, or like a corporate vote for executive officers where the stock is evenly split a half-billion ways.

The people get to pick the bosses and leaders, they do it frequently, and as shareholders they may take overwhelming action to override decisions made by the bosses and leaders.

In this analogue, it is still the boss's decision to what gets kept secret and what gets made public. We pick the leaders and managers and trust them to do their job. We elect them to know the details so we don't have to. Part of the job involves secrecy and deception.