Should public office be limited to business executives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vonsalza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, The President of the United States is not the President of the world. The people of the United states that voted for Trump didnt elect him to help other countries. They elected him to Improve the USA.
 
So the (very) poor don’t get to vote? That’s a unique understanding of the preferential option for the poor, wouldn’t you say?
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
What say you?
Click to expand...
Thinking back on American history, I realize that this would exclude (among many other great statesmen and leaders) Franklin D. Roosevelt from public office.

That leads me to the conclusion that this would be an incredibly stupid and destructive policy.
 
It sounds reasonable at first, and probably lots of people will say “Heck, yes! a businessman knows how to run an organization! He can balance a budget! He understands efficiencies!”

HOWEVER.

However.

Business is not government and government is not business. If business were government, we wouldn’t have government to begin with. But it’s not. We have a billionaire CEO running the U.S. federal executive branch and his inexperience is devastating.
 
philipl said:
They elected him to Improve the USA.
Click to expand...
Among other things…

The U.S is part of the United Nations and a part of that is looking out for the interests of the whole world… and there are countless examples of the US working to help the whole world.
 
DarkLight said:
That’s also one of my concerns with private charity. A smaller charity is less likely to have experts on hand to be able to make a competent evaluation, so it’s a lot easier for whether someone looks like they need help to influence things. And that’s a problem both ways - both that people who want to fake it can look genuine, and that genuine people can look fake.
Click to expand...
Don’t see how a large charity is any more competent. If anything they will become rule bound on their qualifications while a smaller charity is more agile to to actual needs.
 
The United nation is a useless organization and we need to get out and move it out of NY. BTW, you didnt say help the world. You wrote “The leaders of world power countries like America have a unique responsibility and obligation to govern the world.” You want the USA to govern the world. I want the USA to quit sticking it nose into other countries business.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Don’t see how a large charity is any more competent. If anything they will become rule bound on their qualifications while a smaller charity is more agile to to actual needs.
Click to expand...
A larger charity is more likely to be able to either afford an expert or at least someone who can competently evaluate needs.

My concern is - I know when I was dealing with mental illness, my actual symptoms sounded a lot like someone just being lazy to someone who wasn’t trained on mental illness. And even an actual diagnosis isn’t always the most helpful, because of the wide range of severity. The “spoon theory” idea that’s been going around the internet is a good start, but still hard for a lot of people to grasp - and there’s a lot of individual variation.

So the question is, who do you get to tell the difference between someone who so completely drained by mental illness that they can’t get out of bed and go to work, and someone who could go to work but would rather stay in bed?
 
DarkLight said:
A larger charity is more likely to be able to either afford an expert or at least someone who can competently evaluate needs.

My concern is - I know when I was dealing with mental illness, my actual symptoms sounded a lot like someone just being lazy to someone who wasn’t trained on mental illness. And even an actual diagnosis isn’t always the most helpful, because of the wide range of severity. The “spoon theory” idea that’s been going around the internet is a good start, but still hard for a lot of people to grasp - and there’s a lot of individual variation.

So the question is, who do you get to tell the difference between someone who so completely drained by mental illness that they can’t get out of bed and go to work, and someone who could go to work but would rather stay in bed?
Click to expand...
Maybe they could afford that expert, but they don’t hire them.

Charities send people to the Hospital for evaluation, so the expertise is whatever is available locally through public services.

Spoon theory looks like a good metaphor, thanks for sharing it.
 
There isn’t always much available locally. That’s actually a fairly common problem in certain areas. Doctors cost money, and you have to be ruled to be disabled and unable to work in order to access assistance to see the doctor. (I don’t think the hospital around here does outpatient mental health either, and the (name removed by moderator)atient is notoriously little more than a warehouse.)

I wouldn’t be as concerned if a smaller charity worked with reliable local practitioners though, as long as there was some provision for people who couldn’t afford an evaluation. My main concern is that smaller charities can end up with someone who’s winging it based on whether they look like someone who needs help.

Although I’m unfortunately aware that there are some really dumb professionals too.
 
DarkLight said:
There isn’t always much available locally.
Click to expand...
If it’s rural, the big charities aren’t going to hire expensive medical staff. That only makes sense in metro areas, where there are better public services to get a proper evaluation.
 
Christ clearly told us that we will be judged on how we treat the least in our society, and I don’t see how disenfranchising them is consistent with the Gospel message. If you can point me to a theologian who makes such an argument I would be interested to read it.

I do agree that there is a danger of allowing people to vote themselves benefits. The biggest abusers of that are our senior citizens. Medicare part D is a prime example of a minority exploiting the majority.
 
It’s not the ruralness that’s usually been the issue. It’s just plain old funding catch-22 stuff. You can only access subsidized care if you’ve been declared unable to work, which you can only get by showing that you’ve been seeking appropriate medical care.
 
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

Fortunately, there are great world leaders who disagree with you and work to make the world a better place…
 
Yea, like wanting a one world govenrment. No thanks. I like my liberty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top