Licensing politicians, as well as voters, has many drawbacks as you correctly identified in your essay. The skills needed go vastly beyond what one may learn in an economics or poli-sci program. Ultimately, the goal for governments should be to provide society with a stable, but manageable set of boundaries in which citizens can freely associate to create the necessities (both tangible and intangible) for a happy and healthy life.
We pay dearly for an education system that is meant to teach our children hard skills including "the three R's" as well as soft skills (how to get along with others). Thinking critically, morality, and looking for objective truth (without utopian social justice crusading) should be given greater emphasis in order to produce qualified citizens, be they electors or political candidates.
I like the SWOT analysis method. Tons of great questions to consider here, Gene.
I wonder how elected officials would be impacted in the future if people were required to have mandatory political education in high schools. With more informed voters (both in quality and in quantity) leaders would theoretically be forced to pull up their socks in order to accommodate a stronger following. I think this would influence their required qualifications in a constructive manner and be exceedingly beneficial.
Corruption is an important concern as well because even with informed citizens, they have to believe the system works in order to want to engage. How can you convince more people to play a game that is apparently designed in opposition of their favour, or that there is honour in participating even when the results aren't obviously honest?
The tribalism you mention is a curious phenomenon to me which feels paradoxical when given any consideration. I personally think it makes the most sense to vote in relation to the specific expectations and duties regarding the role. Why vote for someone with nice hair to instruct an economy if they don't know how budgets work?
A woman I know is an example of this because she said she always and only votes liberal because this was her grandmother's dying wish. Over the course of 30 years, the liberals her grandmother was praising may have changed drastically but the principle is still unwaveringly respected.
There seems to be common confusion with chosing important criteria for making decisions. This leads me to wonder about appropriate intervals of reevaluating morals and values and adjusting accordingly.
With all this in mind, who is to say what the "right" way to vote is? If people have freedom of thought how can we adequately determine their reasonableness without just doing so as a reflection of our own bias?
Also, if politicians are to have specific requirements and licenses, what would the incentives be to encourage obtaining these? What is the appeal of defiance of corruption and how can further corruption resist promotion at the same time?
Thanks for sharing, Gene. Always enjoy hearing your 2 cents, which might be more like a dime or two now with inflation and taxation ;)
I'm going through my IN basket to purge emails I don't need when this one caught my attention. I suspect Dr Goldstein believes that the purpose of government is to "help people." As a libertarian I understand the only tools government has are force and counterfeiting (i.e. printing currency). I don't care if they are tested, licenced or endorsed, if they are willing to work for an immoral organization (and spend a lot of time and/or money to do so) I cannot vote for them.
Licensing politicians, as well as voters, has many drawbacks as you correctly identified in your essay. The skills needed go vastly beyond what one may learn in an economics or poli-sci program. Ultimately, the goal for governments should be to provide society with a stable, but manageable set of boundaries in which citizens can freely associate to create the necessities (both tangible and intangible) for a happy and healthy life.
We pay dearly for an education system that is meant to teach our children hard skills including "the three R's" as well as soft skills (how to get along with others). Thinking critically, morality, and looking for objective truth (without utopian social justice crusading) should be given greater emphasis in order to produce qualified citizens, be they electors or political candidates.
I like the SWOT analysis method. Tons of great questions to consider here, Gene.
I wonder how elected officials would be impacted in the future if people were required to have mandatory political education in high schools. With more informed voters (both in quality and in quantity) leaders would theoretically be forced to pull up their socks in order to accommodate a stronger following. I think this would influence their required qualifications in a constructive manner and be exceedingly beneficial.
Corruption is an important concern as well because even with informed citizens, they have to believe the system works in order to want to engage. How can you convince more people to play a game that is apparently designed in opposition of their favour, or that there is honour in participating even when the results aren't obviously honest?
The tribalism you mention is a curious phenomenon to me which feels paradoxical when given any consideration. I personally think it makes the most sense to vote in relation to the specific expectations and duties regarding the role. Why vote for someone with nice hair to instruct an economy if they don't know how budgets work?
A woman I know is an example of this because she said she always and only votes liberal because this was her grandmother's dying wish. Over the course of 30 years, the liberals her grandmother was praising may have changed drastically but the principle is still unwaveringly respected.
There seems to be common confusion with chosing important criteria for making decisions. This leads me to wonder about appropriate intervals of reevaluating morals and values and adjusting accordingly.
With all this in mind, who is to say what the "right" way to vote is? If people have freedom of thought how can we adequately determine their reasonableness without just doing so as a reflection of our own bias?
Also, if politicians are to have specific requirements and licenses, what would the incentives be to encourage obtaining these? What is the appeal of defiance of corruption and how can further corruption resist promotion at the same time?
Thanks for sharing, Gene. Always enjoy hearing your 2 cents, which might be more like a dime or two now with inflation and taxation ;)
I'm going through my IN basket to purge emails I don't need when this one caught my attention. I suspect Dr Goldstein believes that the purpose of government is to "help people." As a libertarian I understand the only tools government has are force and counterfeiting (i.e. printing currency). I don't care if they are tested, licenced or endorsed, if they are willing to work for an immoral organization (and spend a lot of time and/or money to do so) I cannot vote for them.