Mlenk wrote:Yes, while I am sure that that Physicist is undoubtedly well-versed in physics, does that give him the background and knowledge to be a Senate member? Just because one is knowledgeable in the field of physics doesn't necessarily mean that he would be good at functioning as a manager, lawmaker, policy formulator, and all the other aspects that that position would entail.
With that said, I agree with what has been said that law, while an essential part of government, is only just one aspect of it. Formulating and implementing policies for science, education, health care, etc, goes beyond the scope of the legal field. Like what Mike has said, a more balanced approach seems to be in order, and a Physicist (or a doctor, engineer, teacher, some other scientist, or whatever else) in the Senate might indeed be good for government.
The point being is that intellectuals aren't welcomed for starters. And given the amount of bullshit spilled about Global Warming tells us that there are people who do not wish to be told what real scientific fact is, and are more interested in either twisting the facts and just simply ignoring the whole lot.
And mind you, I have heard a fair number of debates between physicists debating the government's Science, education and environmental policies. Particularly the first three, since they being educators see first hand how well prepared students are for college.
STGOD: Byzantine Empire Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
I don't know dumbass. Maybe people who're issued professional degrees in practicing law think they know a thing or two about making laws.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
If we went and did something silly like getting Engineers elected, we would end up with all sorts of pork spending, on stuff like bridges and roads and infrastructure. That costs taxpayers money. And if we spend it buying infrastructure and services, how are we going to buy their votes later on?
Sam Or I wrote:Why are Politicians usually Lawyers?
Because politicians in the United States are elected to the legislature. One of their primary duties is to create, revise and approve laws - which are often highly detailed and complex. A working knowledge of the law is somewhat essential to adequately carry out this role. Hence, lawyers.
The problem is that politicians aren't just lawmakers. They are also managers: executives of what can be thought of as a giant employee-owned corporation, with millions of worker/shareholders.
If you got rid of every manager and executive in every business who actually understood anything about the business or the employees or their job functions and replaced them all with lawyers, you'd probably get a corporation that is about as well-run as the government.
I think this is generally the argument for the presidential/congressional system, where you generally elect a president who may often not be a lawyer and who often fills his staff and cabinet with non-lawyers in order to manage.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Darth Wong wrote:The problem is that politicians aren't just lawmakers. They are also managers: executives of what can be thought of as a giant employee-owned corporation, with millions of worker/shareholders.
If you got rid of every manager and executive in every business who actually understood anything about the business or the employees or their job functions and replaced them all with lawyers, you'd probably get a corporation that is about as well-run as the government.
I think this is generally the argument for the presidential/congressional system, where you generally elect a president who may often not be a lawyer and who often fills his staff and cabinet with non-lawyers in order to manage.
Are you on drugs? You think it makes sense to build an organization which is managed from top to bottom almost entirely by lawyers, and then think you can solve the resulting problem by having a guy at the top who might be a non-lawyer, and who might bring some other non-lawyers with him?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Zwinmar wrote:
Yep, and I'm going to stereotype and say they are all slimy bastards, no matter what. They are true sophists who twist peoples words to say what they wish, rather than what was said in truth.
Yeah, when that slimey toad of a lawyer who gave birth to me wrote the legislation to abolish discrimination against Gays in my province, it was just her sneaking evilnessness.
Darth Wong wrote:The problem is that politicians aren't just lawmakers. They are also managers: executives of what can be thought of as a giant employee-owned corporation, with millions of worker/shareholders.
If you got rid of every manager and executive in every business who actually understood anything about the business or the employees or their job functions and replaced them all with lawyers, you'd probably get a corporation that is about as well-run as the government.
I think this is generally the argument for the presidential/congressional system, where you generally elect a president who may often not be a lawyer and who often fills his staff and cabinet with non-lawyers in order to manage.
Are you on drugs? You think it makes sense to build an organization which is managed from top to bottom almost entirely by lawyers, and then think you can solve the resulting problem by having a guy at the top who might be a non-lawyer, and who might bring some other non-lawyers with him?
Top-to-bottom? Only the legislatures are primarily filled with lawyers. I don't think the majority of the cabinet departments and other executive agencies are primarily staffed with lawyers, even at the managerial levels. And I never said I agreed with the argument for the presidential/congressional system. I just said it was the argument. I'd rather the U.S. adopted a semi-presidential system like the French Republic. And of course the law should be updated and simplified. In my opinion any background of representative can clearly have legal advisors who can amply help him craft legally credible legislation.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Zwinmar wrote:
Yep, and I'm going to stereotype and say they are all slimy bastards, no matter what. They are true sophists who twist peoples words to say what they wish, rather than what was said in truth.
Yeah, when that slimey toad of a lawyer who gave birth to me wrote the legislation to abolish discrimination against Gays in my province, it was just her sneaking evilnessness.
