Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Education Requirements for Congress

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:05:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There are a countless number of members of Congress who are intellectually bankrupt. As these men and women control trillions of dollars of money and our livelihood each and every year, they should be held to a high standard. Yes, they have to be elected and re-elected by their constituents - however, as everyone knows, elections are generally popularity contests and the electorate is generally dumb as well. Therefore, there should be an education requirement to run for Congress. Rule 1 - You must have at least a Masters degree. I was thinking about making it mandatory to have a doctorate, but I think anything greater or equal to a Masters degree is good enough - MA, MS, JD, PhD, MD, et cetera. Rule 2 - You must have an IQ of at least X. I haven't determined what X would be, but maybe somebody here could give me some input. Rule 3 - You must pass a Test. This Test would be similar to something like the SATs, except with questions on topics such as government, economics, politics, et cetera. If the Congressperson does not meet all of these rules, then they can not run for Congress. Constructive criticism and any new rules would be appreciated. Thank you.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:12:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is a bad idea. It stinks of intellectual elitism, and there is already elitism coming out from Congress, except it is just economic.

Just because you don't have a Master's Degree, or don't have a certain IQ level (IQ isn't a very good way of determining intelligence anyways), doesn't mean you should not be allowed to be a legislator. There have been many good legislators and leaders that don't have university degrees and I'm almost certain probably don't have tremendously high IQs. It goes to show that you don't need to prove how "smart" you are in order to lead.

Besides, are you willing to marginalize millions of Americans for the sake of maybe getting smarter Congressmen? You'll find it doesn't have very good traction among voters.

This doesn't really seem like a Nags post, though. Where is the spacing?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:15:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
lolgovernmentmeasuringintelligence
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:17:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 1:12:49 PM, Volkov wrote:
This doesn't really seem like a Nags post, though. Where is the spacing?

Haha, I'm not sure if I really support this, I don't think I do. I just wanted to get some opinions. And about the spacing - I was also thinking about when to hit the enter key the whole time I was typing that, I'm not really sure why I never did. I'm suprised you noticed that, lol. So yeah, I'm just looking for opinions right now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:23:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is a horrible decision, that our country was never meant to go down.

Look at it like this, the only US President to have a Master's Degree is President George W. Bush.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:28:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 1:23:55 PM, comoncents wrote:
This is a horrible decision, that our country was never meant to go down.

Reasons?

Look at it like this, the only US President to have a Master's Degree is President George W. Bush.

I doubt this. Also, there have been numerous Presidents with JDs, which meets the degree requirement.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:37:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 1:28:09 PM, Nags wrote:
Look at it like this, the only US President to have a Master's Degree is President George W. Bush.

I doubt this.

Actually, I looked it up, and he's right. George W. is the only one to have had a Master's Degree.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 1:47:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 1:37:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/19/2009 1:28:09 PM, Nags wrote:
Look at it like this, the only US President to have a Master's Degree is President George W. Bush.

I doubt this.

Actually, I looked it up, and he's right. George W. is the only one to have had a Master's Degree.

Yeah, but there have been numerous President with JDs and one with a PhD - which meets the degree requirement.

Here is the List of United States Presidents by college education:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 2:24:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I see where it is you are coming from, but i can not agree b/c america was set up, allowing anyone to run for office.

Arguably, they had people with less education and ability to make educated decisions then we do now.

Still, our Founding Fathers did not find it necessary to put an educational limit on the presidency. It is the reason why America is great, it allows for freedom to run for the highest office with a 1st grade education.

Some would argue that it is Americas down fall, but if our down fall in freedom, i'll fall as hard as i am required too.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:01:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@ Cody_Franklin

If you don't think my rules are sufficient to determine most intelligent, which method would you prefer?

@ comoncents

1) Appeal to tradition.
2) Most men weren't educated and there were very few colleges around the world when the US was founded.
3) I don't see how allowing people with 1st grade intelligence to run for office is great. It's a bit silly to me.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:04:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:01:03 PM, Nags wrote:
1) Appeal to tradition.

Enough with the 'appeal to <blank>' stuff; there comes a time for it, but mostly it is pointless and a tad arrogant.

3) I don't see how allowing people with 1st grade intelligence to run for office is great. It's a bit silly to me.

Great? No. Kind of stupid, yes. But, hey - its their right. Be glad though that a person with a first grade education most likely will not be able to get enough money run, or get enough support to.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:09:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:04:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
Enough with the 'appeal to <blank>' stuff; there comes a time for it, but mostly it is pointless and a tad arrogant.

Maybe. But I'm not going to take my time to rebut a fallacious statement if the only premise is that the constitution is good because the Founding Fathers said so because it was made a long time ago. Ergo, Appeal to Tradition.

Great? No. Kind of stupid, yes.

Ok, we're getting somewhere...

But, hey - its their right.

Rights can be taken away. Just because you have a right, does not entitle you to that right forever.

Be glad though that a person with a first grade education most likely will not be able to get enough money run, or get enough support to.

- I'd rather not leave this up to chance.
- There have been numerous stupid uneducated people who have ran for office and won.
- You don't have to be smart to be rich, stupid people can be rich too. I.e. inheriting the family business.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:13:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can see a test requiring competence of politics and the current situation of the United States. It would probably have dismissed Biden outright.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:14:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:09:31 PM, Nags wrote:
Rights can be taken away. Just because you have a right, does not entitle you to that right forever.

Actually, it kind of does. That is why its called a "right," and not a "privilege."

- I'd rather not leave this up to chance.

It is either leave it up to chance, or take away someone's rights and basically go against any sense of freedom you may have. Its up to you.

- There have been numerous stupid uneducated people who have ran for office and won.

Like? And don't say Bush 43; he isn't stupid, just incompetent.

- You don't have to be smart to be rich, stupid people can be rich too. I.e. inheriting the family business.

If the person is honestly that stupid, they'll most likely p*ss it away. Besides, usually if you're inheriting quite a large sum from family, you'll have obtained a somewhat decent education somewhere.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:15:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Any test would have to be made by government people. What would this test say?

True or False: Racial Affirmative Action benefits society.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:16:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:13:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
I can see a test requiring competence of politics and the current situation of the United States. It would probably have dismissed Biden outright.

But thats like saying that people should be able to pass a test before allowing them to vote for a candidate.

your rebuttal to tradition speaks poorly of your support for ron paul, as well as your view of conservatism.
your showing your true colors and it is not what is represented in your profile.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:17:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:04:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/19/2009 7:01:03 PM, Nags wrote:
1) Appeal to tradition.

Enough with the 'appeal to <blank>' stuff; there comes a time for it, but mostly it is pointless and a tad arrogant.

3) I don't see how allowing people with 1st grade intelligence to run for office is great. It's a bit silly to me.

Great? No. Kind of stupid, yes. But, hey - its their right. Be glad though that a person with a first grade education most likely will not be able to get enough money run, or get enough support to.

See, this guy gets it...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:19:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:14:31 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/19/2009 7:09:31 PM, Nags wrote:
Rights can be taken away. Just because you have a right, does not entitle you to that right forever.

Actually, it kind of does. That is why its called a "right," and not a "privilege."

- I'd rather not leave this up to chance.

It is either leave it up to chance, or take away someone's rights and basically go against any sense of freedom you may have. Its up to you.


Yes,Yes,Yes...

- There have been numerous stupid uneducated people who have ran for office and won.

Like? And don't say Bush 43; he isn't stupid, just incompetent.


Yes,Yes,Yes...

- You don't have to be smart to be rich, stupid people can be rich too. I.e. inheriting the family business.

If the person is honestly that stupid, they'll most likely p*ss it away. Besides, usually if you're inheriting quite a large sum from family, you'll have obtained a somewhat decent education somewhere.

Yes,Yes,Yes...
i could not have said it better... no really i could not have.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:20:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@OP

Lay off of the Plato.
If there there be some requirement, be it arbitrary or be it fixed? If arbitrary, must the judges of intelligence also pass some intelligence test, leading to an infinite regression and an impossibility? If fixed, are not loopholes to be found and even then, what criterion would be necessary? If the criterion be IQ and not knowledge, then we must breed our politicians as an elite class. If the criterion be knowledge and not IQ, the test must be arbitrary in some regard.

Politics, morality, economics... are not objective sciences. You seek utopia. Drop it, and if there be a democratic process, hope that the people will choose to elect smarter, rather than dumber leaders. Be there a panarchist process, the most competant leaders would be chosen in the interest of efficiency.

A test or requirement serves mainly to limit liberty and spawn corruption.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:21:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:16:49 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/19/2009 7:13:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
I can see a test requiring competence of politics and the current situation of the United States. It would probably have dismissed Biden outright.

to mongeese-
But thats like saying that people should be able to pass a test before allowing them to vote for a candidate.

to nags-
your rebuttal to tradition speaks poorly of your support for ron paul, as well as your view of conservatism.
your showing your true colors and it is not what is represented in your profile.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:22:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:14:31 PM, Volkov wrote:
Actually, it kind of does. That is why its called a "right," and not a "privilege."

Basic rights can't be taken away, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, other rights can. Rights are by definition, entitlements or permissions. It is a bit silly to call all current rights absolute and unchangeable.

It is either leave it up to chance, or take away someone's rights and basically go against any sense of freedom you may have. Its up to you.

How am I restricting freedom? All that would be happening is strengthening the requirements to run for Congress, which only makes it harder for stupid people to run. If by restricting freedom you mean restricting the freedom of uneducated stupid people to run for Congress, then yes I am in favor of restricting freedom. I fail to see how this is a valid civil liberties complaint though.

Like? And don't say Bush 43; he isn't stupid, just incompetent.

I said Congress, not just the Presidency. My original post was just about Congress anyway.

If the person is honestly that stupid, they'll most likely p*ss it away. Besides, usually if you're inheriting quite a large sum from family, you'll have obtained a somewhat decent education somewhere.

Ehh. I guess. This isn't really relevant to this discussion anymore though.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:24:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
More:
OP calls for a degree requirement. If this, then wherefrom must this degree originate. Surely we cannot trust private colleges to dole out such licenses. Would colleges not favor one group over another with an intent of hindering the political landscape? The natural conclusion and political distrust of private enterprise calls for the government approval of any degree given, another corrupting and awful idea.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:27:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:22:41 PM, Nags wrote:
Basic rights can't be taken away, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, other rights can. Rights are by definition, entitlements or permissions. It is a bit silly to call all current rights absolute and unchangeable.

They're meant to be guaranteed, absolutely and unchangeably(?), unless the individual commits a crime for which they know they'll have certain rights lost.

So, unless you're willing to say that being of lower intelligence is a crime, the right to run for office is guaranteed.

How am I restricting freedom? All that would be happening is strengthening the requirements to run for Congress, which only makes it harder for stupid people to run. If by restricting freedom you mean restricting the freedom of uneducated stupid people to run for Congress, then yes I am in favor of restricting freedom. I fail to see how this is a valid civil liberties complaint though.

It is a very valid one; being of lower intelligence does not disqualify you from holding office, any more than being female, black or gay should. It is a right that has been guaranteed to all citizens, and set into law as such; taking it away is taking away a liberty for which there is no real justification for, other than the fact that they're different.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:27:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ultimate solution: private companies give candidates tests, then release the tests and the results to the general public, allowing the general public to evaluate the tests, the answers, and the responses for themselves.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:29:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:27:53 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ultimate solution: private companies give candidates tests, then release the tests and the results to the general public, allowing the general public to evaluate the tests, the answers, and the responses for themselves.

No. Not if it is a requirement to hold office. In fact, this is generally a bad idea; you're willfully stoking an intelligentsia to take over.

And really, this idea that private companies are somehow unbiased is getting old.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:29:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:27:53 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ultimate solution: private companies give candidates tests, then release the tests and the results to the general public, allowing the general public to evaluate the tests, the answers, and the responses for themselves.

Candidates can opt not to take such tests, and are so penalized by the electorate. Candidates are not forced into taking such tests.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:32:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:29:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
And really, this idea that private companies are somehow unbiased is getting old.

Agreed. Private companies would favor politicians that support them. However, an assumption is that these companies would only supply the test (that being its only market purpose). This, too, may be corrupted by other private companies, but at a severe cost (reputation) to the testing companies.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:32:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:20:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
@OP

Lay off of the Plato.
If there there be some requirement, be it arbitrary or be it fixed? If arbitrary, must the judges of intelligence also pass some intelligence test, leading to an infinite regression and an impossibility? If fixed, are not loopholes to be found and even then, what criterion would be necessary? If the criterion be IQ and not knowledge, then we must breed our politicians as an elite class. If the criterion be knowledge and not IQ, the test must be arbitrary in some regard.

I don't think it would be too challenging to find smart people. You have set up straw men which you have shown to be logically impossible which is a bit unfair. The test would be made the same way SATs and AP Exams and IQ Tests are made, where there is no infinite regress. The test could be made with a panel of University Political Science Chairman with PhDs. I'm sure they are objectively smart enough to be presumed judges. It wouldn't be too hard.

Politics, morality, economics... are not objective sciences. You seek utopia. Drop it, and if there be a democratic process, hope that the people will choose to elect smarter, rather than dumber leaders.

Who said the test had to be subjective? I call for a comprehensive examination on American Government, Politcs, Economics, and History. The test would be on how things ARE, not how the SHOULD be. You've set up another straw man by demanding the tests be objective, this is untrue - the test would be like the AP Government Exam, except quite harder.

Be there a panarchist process, the most competant leaders would be chosen in the interest of efficiency.

Speaking about utopias...

OP calls for a degree requirement. If this, then wherefrom must this degree originate. Surely we cannot trust private colleges to dole out such licenses. Would colleges not favor one group over another with an intent of hindering the political landscape? The natural conclusion and political distrust of private enterprise calls for the government approval of any degree given, another corrupting and awful idea.

Umm... now you presume that if Person A goes to college for a Masters Degree, then Person A must want to run for Congress. This again makes no sense. When the person applies for their degree, there doesn't have to be a form where they say they want to run for Congress. Moreover, it's not like new colleges will be popping out of the ground offering masters degrees, only accredited colleges with accredited degrees will be accepted.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 7:35:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 7:29:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Candidates can opt not to take such tests, and are so penalized by the electorate. Candidates are not forced into taking such tests.

This is unnecessary, though. If the voters were actually engaged, then we wouldn't need this; and if they aren't, this is just a waste of people's time and money. Nothing will change with this idea.