Should IQ Tests be MANDATORY for politicians and government service?

making our elected officials wear shock collars, when they make a vote or act against "we the people" the people of that state can get online and deliver their "shocking" displeasure to their representative.

walden.... should you have to take a iq test for your place of work?
in order to be a good public servant all you need to do is to know the constitution inside and out and FOLLOW IT TO THE LETTER! not to hard to do.. its always the high iq people who think that they are highly enlightened intellectuals who think they know it all or think they know whats best for everyone else.

no any public official should be tested on thier knowledge of the constitutions, and have mandatory training.

A person's intelligence should not come into play when choosing a
Representative, in my opinion. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.

Didn't the Founding Fathers want everyday citizens to be part of the government? Shouldn't the only "test" to be a Representative of the people, is that you support and defend the Constitution, as Ron Paul does. If Ron Paul was not college educated and a Doctor, I would still support him. You do not have to be college educated or an intellectual to understand the Constitution. The problem is that our "dumb" representatives like Bush, or our "smart" representatives like Obama(some say), do not follow the Constitution.

It makes me nervous when people want an intellectual elite to run our country under the premise that they will make the "right" decisions. The "right" decisions to make are in the Constitution,as RP has showed many of us, and you do not need a PHD. or go to a ivy league school to understand this.

The belief that humans have, that certain individuals who are more intelligent, wealthier, better looking, charismatic, etc. , makes them "superior" and more capable to lead the rest of us, is a fallacy which leads to totalitarianism.

The answers to our problems as a nation are to follow the Constitution, support individual liberty, and truly free markets. Any American can understand this and represent these views in government.

They're one of many frauds promulgated by slipshod researchers who could never make it as real scientists.

-jcr

the feedback everyone.

I suppose a good knowledge and interpretation of the Constitution would suffice. As would a great love of liberty and other people.

The great love of people part, I suppose used to be measured (and may still be so) by the religiousity of the candidate.

It's strange the measures we use personally to asess a candidate/politician. I admire Dr. Paul's commitment to America and his trust in all of us. I still can't believe sometimes that someone like him is around right now.

Thanks again.

I'd go for drug testing instead, especially O'Cain!

As another high-IQ individual, I can say that while it is difficult to see people making stupid choices, lack of intellect is NOT the problem. My DOG is reliably intelligent and healthy in his social choices and interactions with people, for example -- IQ has nothing to do with it. Emotion health is the issue, and that is why the freedom movement will continue to fail until it embraces the "love" side of the love and freedom duality. (No, that DOESN'T mean using government coercion to impose or fund "compassionate" programs; coercion is always at odds with love).

A longish column on the subject (and a great read, if I say so myself!): Feeling, Emotion, Intellect
http://www.strike-the-roo...

For more on how the freedom movement (including the Campaign For Liberty and every other group working for a more free and healthy world) can improve the odds for success, here's a talk I gave at the FreeAmerica conference last year in Utah:

The Road to Compassion and Freedom:
Thoughts on a Classical Liberalism for the 21st Century
http://www.strike-the-roo...

represent me than a Harvard law grad.

If a subject is beyond his comprehension, then there is no way government should be involved.

WAHOR!!!

At our county convention we tried to get a plank that proposed all candidates for public office should be tested to see if they were qualified to have a license to run for office. The type of test was never specified as it was shot down by the majority. The reason being was that it was hard to find people willing to run for office.

It would be my wish that candidates be tested for integrity. I want my elected officials able to know the difference between party loyalty and upholding their oath of office. I want my elected officials to be able to stand up to bullies and lobbyists. I want Ron Paul type politicians.

the politicians elected mirror the voters..

perhaps better then with IQ test for voters...but seriously even a stupid man should be allowed to vote or be elected..

Which do you fear more the stupid evil politicians or the really smart ones?

This might help weed out the stupid but it's surely no holy grail.

I guess I'd be okay with it as long as the bar were set at say, hmmm 160. lol That would give me about 8 points to spare. lol

IQ testing really only tests problem solving and is not a very good indicator of what ones morals and judgment are.

CommissiononPresidentialDebates
NationalBallotAccess
NOTA
BlackBoxVoting

.

Do you require IQ tests before hiring someone? I don't.

Choosing a representative is analogous to hiring someone. You look at his or her background, past performance, practical skills, good manners, etc.

It's not difficult to determine which candidates are honest, intelligent and prepared for political office. However, most voters don't have their priorities straight and don't research candidates before voting.

The best we can do is educate the people. IQ tests are unnecessary regulation, because the best indicators are already available.

At running my own life.

The essence of libertarianism for me is that I get to decide which authorities, experts and guides I follow. I hate paying, over and over again, for the mistakes of others. I hate being regulated for the failings of others. I'm tired of paying for the "sins" of others.

For example, I'd be thrilled to get pot-smokers off my dime in jail and onto their own mothers' couches. The prison union runs the state of California and I'm tired of paying for them, and their golden parachutes, too. Even my city government is the biggest employer in town, and they give us red-light cameras. Big government has run amok.

IMissLiberty

As it is now, I have this ever recurring nightmare of of turning on cspan and watching Ron Paul defend himself from a troop of monkeys with potato guns.

SSD (meaning my monthly amount is based on money I earned
working over my lifetime as opposed to SSI, which is for disabled people who have never worked or only worked sporadically and haven't made enough money to draw on)...............

anyway, I absolutely positively hate being on disability. I feel useless and worthless. I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out a job I could do that I could handle in spite of my disability....yes cyber work would do it..I had also thought about maybe learning another language (like Spanish) and being an interpreter (I think you can sit for that job)....The only reason I've put it off is because I live in small town USA, and don't know if any jobs like that would be available in my area...I can't do Nursing due to the lifting of patients, etc.

So, to me, the cyber work for disabled people gets a big thumbs up....and would be doubly great if one could do it from their own home...I'd apply tomorrow...and I agree..not government jobs, but business and regular people cyber jobs...
I laughed when I read about IQ/politician tests--I've been saying that myself for quite awhile....so yes...since their decisions affect us, they should have the intelligence to know exactly what they are voting for or against....

know of some people in government with very high IQs. My own baby brother (with the FDA in Washington for many years) has a genius level IQ, but that has never motivated him to "find honest work" (what I have always suggested to him) or kept him from kneeling at the alter of his almighty government. He describes his "job" as creating law (aka: regulation). I describe it as being a highly-compensated welfare recipient, as he scurries about trying to find ways to make food packaging more expensive for the rest of us. Discussions at family reunions tend to be "interesting".

_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

Yeah, that's what we want: smarter politicians -- NOT!

The smart guys wrote the Constitution. What we need is politicians who follow it and voters who reward it.

The main problem is that the type of people who become politicians are people-pleasers. They have to campaign year-round, network and interact in Congress, etc., and compromise and form alliances. This automatically excludes the sensible, logical, truthful non-people-pleasers.

All of which boils down to an excellent reason not to give them any more power than absolutely necessary.

And a reason, when one of the principled ones get in, to support him wholeheartedly.

IMissLiberty

Not long ago there was a video of clips dipicting McCain and Bush on numerous occasions boasting that they were "C" students. I have mixed feelings on standardised testing, but one thing is for sure- wisdom and intelligence are 2 different things. None of us know everything- so Id much rather have a wise president than a smart one if I cant have both. A better test may be that a candidate has to prove more than 6 degrees of separation from Bush, Bin Laden, Halliburton, Skull & Bones, The Clintons, any oil company, or the Olsen twins (for good measure).

www.dvds4delegates.com

Yes at the same time you test the voters..

______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *

No more than 'mandatory' government tests for anything. The online work is a terrific idea - ONLY if implemented by the people and our businesses, not the government.