Ministry Of Truth 2006: LiveSimplicity discussion forum

Have your say and share your ideas. Join us on the road to simplicity.

Ministry Of Truth 2006

Every politician, CEO, media personality, lobbyist, judge, & lawyer should have to submit to a polygraph test each time s/he speaks. Hook the polygraph test up to an electrical device with increasing levels of shock, from mild to total electrocution. Each time the person lies, the level goes up.

View A

Wow. What could possibly be more simple? All that needs to be done is to perfect the polygraph tests, and VOILA! I bet within a year or so we could clean up this mess of a world in which we currently live. Come on, Philips – you can do it!

View B

Well, it's like an inverted "A Clockwork Orange". It would ultimately take away free will. It's unfair to condition them to force them to tell the truth against their true nature. It’s inhuman is what it is!

11 comment(s) so far

idesign thinks: I hate to say this, but sometimes it is necessary for those in higher positions to lie about certain situations for the safety of the public. We don't need a president giving away national or corporate secrets to the press simply because they are not allowed to lie. Let's be serious, this would never happen. Politics is all about influencing people. This involves a certain level of bending the truth for a certain cause. It's a fundamental part of the process as much as we don't want to admit it.

Techy23 thinks: It makes you wonder if government creates more problems than it solves. How much of governement is about self preservation and power rather than helping society?

Skink thinks: Politicians aren't expected to divulge the secrets of national security and whatever else is required to be kept from the public, but lying about policies and things they say they will do in order to get votes is plain wrong, it's blatant deception and should not be allowed so therefore, I think that giving them a polygraph test is not the way, but some other form of "interrogation" in order to see if their intentions are noble is a great idea.

idesign thinks: Skink, I have to agree with you about finding out candidates motives before they run for office, but what about during their tenure? I've noticed that high ranking officials will be more realistic about what they say during a campaign because it is solely an idea they are running on. It seems the lying begins when they are actually in office and need to be accountable for their promises during a campaign.

gnho13 thinks: If we were to punish those types we would have to increase investment in the NHS, particularly in treatments for electrical burns. Perhaps we could begin with a similar, if less harsh, treatment of unscrupulous sales people.

It is an unfortunate truth that everyone represents the truth as they want it to be seen and in politics there is very seldom a black and white answer, as long as we continue to question and challenge the outpourings of the politico's we should keep them honest.

Maven thinks: It would be nice if everyone told the truth at all time, but let's be real, it will never happen. Society is built on perception, not reality. People need to have some sense of honor in order to enter politics. It's up to us to decide for ourselves and elect representatives that are beyond corruption and choose to enter politics to make a change and not because they are starved for power.

pawn thinks: I always thought the job of a politician was to tell you what you want to hear. It may not be lying, but it could probably considered a form of deception, kind of like telling only part of a truth.

ztyler thinks: This solution seems like it would be a serious infringment on privacy issues. It could never work in the way that is described.

Simpler thinks: "YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men

onesandshoe thinks: Well said Skink , you have my vote , my opinion on the key word in your text was "interogation" , perhaps as far as usage of the English language goes that word itself might appear to be a little too strong but never the less it carries the weight necessary concerning questioning these people for answers in order that we be informed of their intentions before voting for them with the implication that if their intentions and our desires are not being fully met a little more interrogation might just be justified , and needless to say the whole purpose of interrogation would not be to put people " on the spot " but rather to " keep them on the ball " .

Which brings up the validity of politicians going @ it head to head " in debate " ?

Let them state their case about what it is that they want to do for the voting public , question them at that point for clarity , feasability , in order that we cleary understand our options before voting , vote , and if they produce all the better for all concerned , and if they don't find out why they didn'nt / couldn't produce , and if neccessary , vote them out of office .

Search in discussions

e.g. search for technology, christmas, future, bioscan

Simplicity topic poll

This blog