End Conflict of Interest in Washington - Elect Doctors, Scientists and Engineers

[Dieseler]

Don't be trying to go to jail without a Lawyer JohnMathews.
They will surely throw you in court if you do.
I can attest to that.

Laws as a whole benefit everyone, without them we have crap.
Lawyers benefit from legislation.
The dockets are full.
There are to many laws and to much frivolous legislation.
Look at the bill that was just passed before Christmas break.
Do we throw the baby out with the bath water?
No, that is against the law.
Professionals of all kinds in politics is a good thing.
Mamas don't let your babys grow up to be
10th grade educated blue collar guys like me.

 

[rodent]

Defense spending is welfare for engineers.

There's a huge conflict of interest there. Many scientists also get lots of government money.

It's a nice thought, but I think it's better to make term limits. Limiting pay and benefits if also nice, but it's not the reason why people go into politics. They go into politics because they want to exercise power.

It's not really welfare for engineers, so much as it is for shareholders. Northrop-Grumman was hiring like crazy back in 2003, and they were paying people $59,000 out of college to live in LA. In LA, if you're on welfare as a mother and/or are an illegal, you can take $50,000 in services from the state just being on welfare and various assistance programs.

So in terms of time/cost/energy, it's better to be on welfare.

 

[JohnMatthews]

I'm not so sure

Laws as a whole benefit everyone, without them we have crap.

You are right, I would hate to be caught breaking the law without a lawyer, but I'm not so sure about what I've quote you on here.

Some laws benefit everyone.
Some laws benefit a few.
All laws benefit lawyers.
Do all laws benefit you?

 

[rodent]

Typically when a person stands to gain unwarranted advantage, influence or wealth by participating in an activity from a privileged position, that person should recuse themselves to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

Following this logic, all lawyers should be directly barred from participation in government.

End the conflict of interest. Stop electing lawyers to government!

As an engineer, I love your thread. However, I know well enough to say that a lot of engineers just don't have high quality management skills. I'd say the ideal president is a guy with a BS in electrical engineering from a top tier engineering school with an MBA from the Ivy League.

Lawyers are just bad news.

 

[ionlyknowy]

I'm not sure I follow you. Who can't perform their jobs? If they are elected officials, then their jobs are in Washington.

The point is this:

If there were no laws, could lawyers make any money? -> no

If lawyers make more laws, can lawyers make more money? -> yes, hence the conflict of interest.

If anyone other than lawyers make laws, do lawyers make more money? -> yes, but there is no conflict of interest because it is not the lawyers that have made the laws.

Dude, your logic is outstandingly flawed. Lawyers only make money when someone breaks the many laws out there.

It is not the laws that are in place that make lawyers money, it is the people that choose to be unscrupulous and break those laws, then these people decide to pay a lawyer to help represent their interest.

You could say that creating more laws give people more chances to break some law but having more chances to break some law doesnt mean you will break them.. Making more laws doesnt necessarily lead to more criminals.

Plus, saying you want people that have never studied law or govt. as president would only result in the same thing we have now, no regard for the constitution because no one will have even read the thing.

I personally think that we should elect libertarian minded lawyers. These type of people realize that to have a functioning society, you must have laws... While also realizing that a society that is essentially in a straight jacket because of all of the regulations placed on it, is not a good thing. This is because the massive govt. needed to enforce such regulations cost tax payer money. This is money that the tax payer could use to pay a lawyer to represent them, where as if they are financially strapped they are more likely to just "eat it" and not obtain a lawyer to protect their rights.

 

[Proemio]

As an engineer, I love your thread. However, I know well enough to say that a lot of engineers just don't have high quality management skills. I'd say the ideal president is a guy with a BS in electrical engineering from a top tier engineering school with an MBA from the Ivy League.

That is 'probably' where the Founders got the idea for a small multitude of citizen-politicians - many talents and points of reference. That way the overall implications of legislation can be subjected to informed discussion/debate/duel before any law is written.

In my view, it's the many points of reference, together with the resulting "conflict between interests", that made the Constitution possible; much more so than the greatness of any particular individuals, although that didn't hurt either.

Lawyers are just bad news.

As a special interets group or concept, I would agree.
I've argued for years, that it can be demonstrated that "Justice is inversely proportional to the number of Laws ON the Books".
How? Just look around...

 

[JohnMatthews]

Starting off with Dude says it all....

Dude, your logic is outstandingly flawed. Lawyers only make money when someone breaks the many laws out there.

It is not the laws that are in place that make lawyers money, it is the people that choose to be unscrupulous and break those laws, then these people decide to pay a lawyer to help represent their interest.

You could say that creating more laws give people more chances to break some law but having more chances to break some law doesnt mean you will break them.. Making more laws doesnt necessarily lead to more criminals.

Plus, saying you want people that have never studied law or govt. as president would only result in the same thing we have now, no regard for the constitution because no one will have even read the thing.

I personally think that we should elect libertarian minded lawyers. These type of people realize that to have a functioning society, you must have laws... While also realizing that a society that is essentially in a straight jacket because of all of the regulations placed on it, is not a good thing. This is because the massive govt. needed to enforce such regulations cost tax payer money. This is money that the tax payer could use to pay a lawyer to represent them, where as if they are financially strapped they are more likely to just "eat it" and not obtain a lawyer to protect their rights.

If the laws weren't in place to begin with, could people break them and thereby make lawyers more money?-> no.

If you make more things illegal, does that increase the chance that people will break the law and therefore make lawyers more money? -> yes.

Lets take this logic to it's extreme conclusion:
If everything (except for being a lawyer of course) were illegal, wouldn't lawyers rule the world?

If you scare people into believing that your job is necessary, and you convince people that you belong to the only group capable of handling that job, does that guarantee you and your groups future employment? -> almost certainly. (people might eventually get tired of being scared)

"Plus, saying you want people that have never studied law or govt. as president would only result in the same thing we have now, no regard for the constitution because no one will have even read the thing."

This is the most puzzling and contradictory part. Isn't the government already chock full of people who have made studying the law their livelihood? Isn't that how we got here? Don't you think that might be the problem?

Why are you on a Ron Paul forum if you think lawyers are the only people qualified to run government?

 

[Melissa]

I got it Librarians- They can read as one wanted to make sure -no conflict of interest-so the best of all worlds hehe

 

[ionlyknowy]

If the laws weren't in place to begin with, could people break them and thereby make lawyers more money?-> no.

Ah, but you forget, to have a FUNCTIONAL society you MUST have laws. This totally negates your argument above. "If laws weren't in place to begin with" OOPS stop right there, you HAVE to have at least some laws. NEXT.

If you make more things illegal, does that increase the chance that people will break the law and therefore make lawyers more money? -> yes.

If I were to increase the number of gay men that were flirting with you on a regular basis, does that then make you more likely to sleep with a man?
This is the same logic. Increase laws around people, more likely they will become criminals. More gay men around you, more likely you will sleep with a man.
People make a conscious decision to break the law. Oh, you probably think that guns kill people too right? So we should ban ALL guns. People kill people. NEXT.

Lets take this logic to it's extreme conclusion:
If everything (except for being a lawyer of course) were illegal, wouldn't lawyers rule the world?

Yes I agree with you if you outlaw everything else but what you are trying to accomplish then of course you would accomplish it. Not plausible. Lawyers as a group dont make laws. And the ones that are in congress that happen to be corrupt that do, may make laws that favor themselves, just like any other corrupt person, (Bush oil, Cheney Halliburton) you get the point.
When power is given to people, it changes them, they think.. I have all of this power and I can make myself rich if I want... many fall prey to it. What we need is morally stable men with principled integrity making laws. NEXT

If you scare people into believing that your job is necessary, and you convince people that you belong to the only group capable of handling that job, does that guarantee you and your groups future employment? -> almost certainly. (people might eventually get tired of being scared)

I dont get it, who is scaring who? Are you saying that you have been scared into believing that lawyers are the only people that can write laws? Did I miss something here? NEXT

"Plus, saying you want people that have never studied law or govt. as president would only result in the same thing we have now, no regard for the constitution because no one will have even read the thing."

This is the most puzzling and contradictory part. Isn't the government already chock full of people who have made studying the law their livelihood? Isn't that how we got here? Don't you think that might be the problem?

Why are you on a Ron Paul forum if you think lawyers are the only people qualified to run government?

You misinterrpreted my statement. I said that I think people running for office should study law or govt. No where in my statement did I say that this is the only thing that they have studied. I would rather have someone that has read the constitution, learned that we have checks and balances in the three, yes there are three, branches of govt. Oh AND their respective functions.

I was merely pointing out that I think knowledge of law and govt. (whether through formal education or reading books in your spare time) should be a necessary condition for holding the highest office in the land. Or for that matter, holding office in congress or senate.

All lawyers have met this requirement. So you know for a fact, that if someone is a bar certified lawyer they have actually read the constitution. Not many other professions can claim this in their formal education. I see it as a law degree tells me that this candidate has read the constitution. Now, if someone else that is not a lawyer shows me that they understand and have read the constitution like RP, then I support them and I think they are also qualified. But being able to understand the constitution and have read it, these things are not enough in finding an electable person to hold said offices. You must look at their history, morality, and reputation. You must make sure that they have upheld the constitution in the past and have voted in accordance with it. This should be the real test.



You cannot just ban a whole class of people... you might as well go join stormfront.org if you are going to think like this....

 

[Mr. White]

Ah, but you forget, to have a FUNCTIONAL society you MUST have laws. This totally negates your argument above. "If laws weren't in place to begin with" OOPS stop right there, you HAVE to have at least some laws. NEXT.



If I were to increase the number of gay men that were flirting with you on a regular basis, does that then make you more likely to sleep with a man?
This is the same logic. Increase laws around people, more likely they will become criminals. More gay men around you, more likely you will sleep with a man.
People make a conscious decision to break the law. Oh, you probably think that guns kill people too right? So we should ban ALL guns. People kill people. NEXT.



Yes I agree with you if you outlaw everything else but what you are trying to accomplish then of course you would accomplish it. Not plausible. Lawyers as a group dont make laws. And the ones that are in congress that happen to be corrupt that do, may make laws that favor themselves, just like any other corrupt person, (Bush oil, Cheney Halliburton) you get the point.
When power is given to people, it changes them, they think.. I have all of this power and I can make myself rich if I want... many fall prey to it. What we need is morally stable men with principled integrity making laws. NEXT



I dont get it, who is scaring who? Are you saying that you have been scared into believing that lawyers are the only people that can write laws? Did I miss something here? NEXT



You misinterrpreted my statement. I said that I think people running for office should study law or govt. No where in my statement did I say that this is the only thing that they have studied. I would rather have someone that has read the constitution, learned that we have checks and balances in the three, yes there are three, branches of govt. Oh AND their respective functions.

I was merely pointing out that I think knowledge of law and govt. (whether through formal education or reading books in your spare time) should be a necessary condition for holding the highest office in the land. Or for that matter, holding office in congress or senate.

All lawyers have met this requirement. So you know for a fact, that if someone is a bar certified lawyer they have actually read the constitution. Not many other professions can claim this in their formal education. I see it as a law degree tells me that this candidate has read the constitution. Now, if someone else that is not a lawyer shows me that they understand and have read the constitution like RP, then I support them and I think they are also qualified. But being able to understand the constitution and have read it, these things are not enough in finding an electable person to hold said offices. You must look at their history, morality, and reputation. You must make sure that they have upheld the constitution in the past and have voted in accordance with it. This should be the real test.



You cannot just ban a whole class of people... you might as well go join stormfront.org if you are going to think like this....

Just got back from dinner and thought I'd check the thread out. I was going to respond to most of those, but you did it for me, thanks.

 

[Proemio]

Dude, your logic is outstandingly flawed. Lawyers only make money when someone breaks the many laws out there.

There is far more money to be made writing and arguing law than in practicing. Check income and the all important 'standing' - you don't get a 'knighthood' for representing (<- qualified, see below) Joe public.

It is not the laws that are in place that make lawyers money, it is the people that choose to be unscrupulous and break those laws, then these people decide to pay a lawyer to help represent their interest.

Lawyers by law and oath represent TheCourt - always.

You could say that creating more laws give people more chances to break some law but having more chances to break some law doesnt mean you will break them.. Making more laws doesnt necessarily lead to more criminals.

True, not if the proles conform to the whims.

Plus, saying you want people that have never studied law or govt. as president would only result in the same thing we have now, no regard for the constitution because no one will have even read the thing.

Red crawly thingy - nobody suggests that people should not study law. In fact quite to the contrary, people should know much more about it.

I personally think that we should elect libertarian minded lawyers. These type of people realize that to have a functioning society, you must have laws...

A libertarian lawyer? How do you figure that? In its broad meaning, as advocate, sure, but as a "Member of The Bar" it is an impossibility.

It also will have to be demonstrated that a "functioning society" needs anythingmore than a set of simple principles. That comes right after we establish what a "functioning society" is. What we have is a "functioning society" in the view of all the mountebanks Ron Paul wants to oust (who happen to be mostly lawyers, btw), but not functioning in his view, or in the view of most of those who support his policies.

While also realizing that a society that is essentially in a straight jacket because of all of the regulations placed on it, is not a good thing. This is because the massive govt. needed to enforce such regulations cost tax payer money. This is money that the tax payer could use to pay a lawyer to represent them, where as if they are financially strapped they are more likely to just "eat it" and not obtain a lawyer to protect their rights.

How can "all the ragulations placed on it" be "not a good thing" and "a good thing" at the same time? Either laws are beneficial to a "functioning society" or they are not.

 

[ionlyknowy]

There is far more money to be made writing and arguing law than in practicing. Check income and the all important 'standing' - you don't get a 'knighthood' for representing (<- qualified, see below) Joe public.



Lawyers by law and oath represent TheCourt - always.



True, not if the proles conform to the whims.



Red crawly thingy - nobody suggests that people should not study law. In fact quite to the contrary, people should know much more about it.



A libertarian lawyer? How do you figure that? In its broad meaning, as advocate, sure, but as a "Member of The Bar" it is an impossibility.

It also will have to be demonstrated that a "functioning society" needs anythingmore than a set of simple principles. That comes right after we establish what a "functioning society" is. What we have is a "functioning society" in the view of all the mountebanks Ron Paul wants to oust (who happen to be mostly lawyers, btw), but not functioning in his view, or in the view of most of those who support his policies.



How can "all the ragulations placed on it" be "not a good thing" and "a good thing" at the same time? Either laws are beneficial to a "functioning society" or they are not.

LOL! I dont even know what to say...

just a few comments though..

It seems to me that many anarchist types have taken to RP's message and have intertwined their views with his. Go ask Ron Paul if he feels lawyers are necessary, and if laws are necessary for a society... I bet you anything he will say they are necessary.

Stop projecting your views of the world onto what Ron thinks just because both views are similar in some way. This is what some truthers have done... And I suspect others will do it in the future..

In order to have any type of business or commerce or travel or ANYTHING, you must have laws. If you do not, then if you open a business I could walk into your shop at any time point a gun in your face and demand all of your money. I could do this every day and pretty soon you would either have to hire a militia to defend yourself or you would just give up doing business.

On your way home, because there are no laws, you get hit 10 times from people going through intersections.

We need laws.. just not a TON of them that are ridiculous, cumbersome, un economical, and or unnecessary to abide by.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

Limiting who is on office won't change anything. It's electing ethical people and people who want to follow the constitution.

Agreed.

 

[free.alive]

bump

 

[free.alive]

We could pick a few congressman around the country who might look into this historical oversight and consider backing the idea of dredging it up. Then we make sure we make a lot of noise about it in their districts and get a bill written and sponsored.

Initially it wont pass.

Over the next couple of elections we focus on running candidates that are Republicans and/or aren't lawyers. There would be natural support for such an idea among Republicans and maybe conservative Democrats.

Once we can get a powerful enough bloc of congressmen that aren't lawyers or are suspicious of them, and maybe some Democrats which have Republican/libertarian leaning districts, we pressure them to open up debate.

This would take a few years but it could be done.

(most of what I'm talking about is referring to my previous comment on this idea.)

 

[Corydoras]

People are really kidding about legislators writing laws, aren't they?

Legislators don't write the laws. Laws are written by nonpartisan legislative reference bureaus. Every legislative body has a nonpartisan office that actually puts the words of laws together. This is a specialized and highly technical field of law.

And legislators don't read all the bills, anyway. They have legislative assistants within their offices who sort through these things and bring a selection of them to the legislator's attention. Ron Paul himself has a legislative staff that does this for him.

Elect doctors, scientists, and engineers, and they're STILL going to be voting on bills that the legislative reference bureaus draft and that their legislative assistants have sorted through.

Here's a 28-minute 1999 interview with Ron Paul's legislative director:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baa1JzQwFDo

 

[Corydoras]

I can just imagine how the people on this forum would complain if doctors, scientists, and engineers ran this country. Let's look at a worst-case scenario...

The doctors would let the CDC erode our civil liberties, the WHO erode our national sovereignty, and the FDA our health choice freedom.

The engineers would talk about how the New Orleans levees really ARE okay.

The scientists would clamp down on homeschooling, religious schooling, and teaching of intelligent design.

And none of them would have a clue about monetary policy.


I mean, if you want people who aren't lawyers, then why not elect historians?

 

[Proemio]

I can just imagine how the people on this forum would complain if doctors, scientists, and engineers ran this country. Let's look at a worst-case scenario...

The doctors would let the CDC erode our civil liberties, the WHO erode our national sovereignty, and the FDA our health choice freedom.

The engineers would talk about how the New Orleans levees really ARE okay.

The scientists would clamp down on homeschooling, religious schooling, and teaching of intelligent design.

And none of them would have a clue about monetary policy.


I mean, if you want people who aren't lawyers, then why not elect historians?

Nice, but...
The point of course is not to replace one dominating group with another, but to have a healthy mix.
I'm confident that all the lawyer types understand that perfectly since post one.
Nobody ever accused lawyers of have trouble with twisting words into self-serving pretzels...

 

[SoundOfSilence]

I think this is slightly misguided. The real problem is that we, the people, do not place enough value on a candidate's honesty and voting record.

Ron Paul himself said that the real answer to our troubles is "honest men in Washington."

And I personally can tell a lot about someone's honesty just by their face and voice. Is it just me? That "politician" look that most have, that two-facedness. It's so obvious to me, and Ron Paul is nearly the only politician I've seen who doesn't have it. He's a plain dealer.

Simply refuse to give in to smooth talkers. Demand real debate with real transparency, not a cult of personality. That is how we end this corruption and win back our freedoms.

 

[Proemio]

LOL! I dont even know what to say...

just a few comments though..

It seems to me that many anarchist types have taken to RP's message and have intertwined their views with his. Go ask Ron Paul if he feels lawyers are necessary, and if laws are necessary for a society... I bet you anything he will say they are necessary.

Stop projecting your views of the world onto what Ron thinks just because both views are similar in some way. This is what some truthers have done... And I suspect others will do it in the future..

In order to have any type of business or commerce or travel or ANYTHING, you must have laws. If you do not, then if you open a business I could walk into your shop at any time point a gun in your face and demand all of your money. I could do this every day and pretty soon you would either have to hire a militia to defend yourself or you would just give up doing business.

On your way home, because there are no laws, you get hit 10 times from people going through intersections.

We need laws.. just not a TON of them that are ridiculous, cumbersome, un economical, and or unnecessary to abide by.

Earlier on this thread you protested someone as twisting your words - funny that...

1. I do not project my views into what Ron Paul thinks - never did and never will.
2. Nowhere am I advocating anarchy.
3. I argue that "Laws ON the Books" can never replace fundamental rules of coexistence.
4. And further argue that those laws are actually a device to corrupt those fundamental rules of coexistence.

Also - if at all necessary - I will quote Ron Paul's words, unlike your patented 'appeal to authority' "GO, ask Ron Paul...".

I don't have to GO and ask him - he volunteered:
"... oust the mountebanks who violate the ideals..." - Ron Paul
The vast majority of those "mountebanks" are demonstrably lawyers - at least the visible ones...