There, I said it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (122)
sorted by:
How would you enforce no offshore accounts without a total violation of personal privacy?
And what is the reasoning for that? No avoidance of taxes? Well taxation is theft so why would we not abolish that as well?
Not sure how but their funding needs to be 100% transparent to heck with privacy when you hold public office. Includes close family members as well. That is the ONLY way to ever have them answer to We the People. Same way I have zero concern for DiFi's privacy as she canoodles with her Chinese spy chauffer for years.
Ah I misunderstood that this was only pertaining to office holders. I agree that anyone holding public office should have to give up their financial privacy.
Here's an idea: governments have to do everything in bitcoin, that way there is 100% transparency.
You no longer get your rights if you sign up for the military - you get an alternate set of rights.
So, why do we care if the privacy of elected officials is curtailed for the public good? Or even beurecrats? This is a nation for the people, not whomever can cram the most gibs for their dynasties into the maw of the spending season.
It should be that everyone working for any level of government must stipulate all incomes, ownerships, beneficiary, or any other word meaning they gained stuff and then be required to relinquish or repatriate everything off soil as a condition of employment or being elected.
Every government employee has to do this. Disclosure of all financial ties to foreign businesses, foreign banks, ownership of foreign companies or ANY monetary gain from any source outside of the US. Anyone with a security clearance is required to disclose any contacts with ANY foreign nationals period. Our exalted office holders are not required to do any of this. Most of them could not pass a background check to even obtain a security clearance. If we want to make it a requirement that every single elected office holder must be investigated up to a TS-SCI level, this would be the way. The investigations are very thorough and polygraphs should be required every 6 months for every elected official and appointee. This is how we stop corrupt POS' from getting into office and weeding out the ones that do get there. Every single one should be required to undergo a psychological evaluation to also weed out the psychopaths and sociopaths. There are many more out there than you think. They are predominantly at the highest levels of government.
Every government employee I don't agree with. There's a certain level that it definitely has to happen - but the current ties to report are foreign. I say all finances. Everything - and not just you, anything you are in charge of or can make use of.
As for psychological profiling, it's all a crock. We all share traits that are dubious and we all have moments we give into them. The actions taken are the only judgement we should go for.
The psychological screening is to locate sociopathic and psychopathic personalities. Some of psychology is a crock, but there is quite a bit of profiling and patterned behavior and response that is dead on accurate. The ability to identify aberrant personality disorders is very accurate because it is based on anecdotal evidence that numbers in the hundreds of thousands or millions. It isn't just some hare brained quack dreaming up the patterns of behavior
As far as which government employees, there are laws which deal with conflict of interest that prohibit employment for a certain number of years within the same sphere. Unfortunately, like most of the laws, it never seems to apply to the highest levels of government. They find ways to skirt around the law by finding loopholes in the letter of the law and violating the crap out of the spirit of the law. I think that once you get into handling finances and directing awards of contracts, they should be required to non-compete for a number of years after leaving government service.
I misunderstood that this would only pertain to office holders. I agree with all of your points.