Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

The Leviathan was what, 350, years ago?  Can we move on yet?

Yes, people are not angels.  We need government because of that.
...But that doesn't mean people are devils.


Even angels would need a government.  Why should each angel work alone in cases where organized effort is more effective?  Wouldn't they set up an authority that would be tasked with seeing the larger picture?

I may be one person in 6 billion, but so are you.  The better angels of human nature however, are a huge part of history.  If you have any sense of history, you can see that.  It's absurd to suggest that people only improve their country out of greed.  In all bluntness, those who support government for personal gain usually will allow the country to rot rather then try to make a better world.  Why shouldn't they, if they are egotistic?

[Granite26]

In all bluntness, those who support government for personal gain usually will allow the country to rot rather then try to make a better world.  Why shouldn't they, if they are egotistic?

Because they like roads?  Quit the hyperbole

[Andir]

After my self inflicted political education this past year, I would not be entirely against requiring a political study requirement to gain voting rights so people understand what it is they are doing.  These could be covered in schools.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

We currently have public education with mandatory civics classes, and immigrants are required to have a basic knowledge of civics to naturalize. If more aggressive political literacy is required, it could probably be done by simply improving the existing civics education infrastructure, rather than adding an advanced political test for registration. That kind of registration testing has been used abusively in the past in the US in order to systematically skew voter demographics, which is why voter literacy tests (which is what was used at the time) were essentially regulated into oblivion by civil rights legislation.

[mainiac]

In all bluntness, those who support government for personal gain usually will allow the country to rot rather then try to make a better world.  Why shouldn't they, if they are egotistic?

Because they like roads?  Quit the hyperbole

It's not hyperbole.  They benefit from the roads already.  If they were as self centered as you say they are, they wouldn't care about building more roads.

[JoshuaFH]

In all bluntness, those who support government for personal gain usually will allow the country to rot rather then try to make a better world.  Why shouldn't they, if they are egotistic?

Because they like roads?  Quit the hyperbole

It's not hyperbole.  They benefit from the roads already.  If they were as self centered as you say they are, they wouldn't care about building more roads.

This string of logic confuses me.

[mainiac]

I'm 21.  I benefit from roads built in the last 30 years, I paid for none of these.  These roads are sufficient for my needs.  Any roads built in the next 10 years or so, I will benefit from, but I will help pay for.  And what happens after that?  The roads will still be around after I retire and need to use roads less.  But the older I get, the richer I will be and the more I will be taxed.  So my taxes will be paying for something I will be using less and less.

Therefore, it's in my selfish interest that we stop building roads now.  My taxes are being used to pay for roads that are going to be used for people younger then me.  All I use are the roads built by the older generation, which quite frankly suck.

This argument is a little silly.  But it's ment to be a more general approach.  Taxes build a better society.  But you primarily feel the benefits of the taxes paid by others.

If we were all greedy selfish bastards, a democracy would never be able to build a road.  Everyone would want someone else to pay for it.

[Yanlin]

Alright. Looks like you people are still not getting my point. I don't blame you. My point is hard to get even to myself.

You talk about how smart people make bad decisions out of lack of knowledge. Don't you think my "test" will eliminate that? People who are not knowledgeable, should not vote. Like I've said, this is not viable until the majority of people are smart AND knowledgeable enough. People with poor judgement should not vote. But to avoid the massive idiot outcry of discrimination, the majority must be smart enough to pass this test.

Maybe my theory needs a new name? Sophiaocracy?

[mainiac]

But to avoid the massive idiot outcry of discrimination, the majority must be smart enough to pass this test.

Suppose for a second that 20% of the population wasn't allowed to vote.  Now suppose that the poorest 20% of the population wasn't allowed to vote... see the problem yet?

It wouldn't be strictly the poorest 20%, but this would be very discriminatory against the poor.  Those who would have trouble passing your test are going to be those who have trouble finding a decent job.  In order for this to not be a problem, the education system would have to be at utopic levels.

[Faces of Mu]

I swear I heard a journalist call Obama "the leader of the world". That bugs me. I don't mind "a leader of the world", or even "one of the most [adjective] leaders of the world", but THE leader is pretty unacceptable.

[Yanlin]

But to avoid the massive idiot outcry of discrimination, the majority must be smart enough to pass this test.

Suppose for a second that 20% of the population wasn't allowed to vote.  Now suppose that the poorest 20% of the population wasn't allowed to vote... see the problem yet?

It wouldn't be strictly the poorest 20%, but this would be very discriminatory against the poor.  Those who would have trouble passing your test are going to be those who have trouble finding a decent job.  In order for this to not be a problem, the education system would have to be at utopic levels.

You're still eliminating the part about a better education system. The poor will receive free education. Everything will be done to make everybody able to vote.

I however don't like how you placed wealth in line with education. Many poor people are smart. Many rich people are idiots.

I don't want to derail this thread with discussion about technocracy. We need to start a new thread.

Right. Back to

[DisembodiedFoot]

If we were all greedy selfish bastards, a democracy would never be able to build a road.  Everyone would want someone else to pay for it.

You mean like the universal health care plans and mortgage bailouts?

Lurker awaaaaaay!

[Granite26]

Suppose for a second that 20% of the population wasn't allowed to vote.  Now suppose that the poorest 20% of the population wasn't allowed to vote... see the problem yet?

This is the point...

Or in a less Utopian and more Tragic perspective:  I don't trust anybody on the planet enough to let them write an objective test that wouldn't be abused by them or the givers.  If society ever had the ability to create and maintain such an objective test, the test itself wouldn't be necessary, as the creation process for the test would itself be a better system of government.

Yanlin, I don't think anybody is failing to understand you, so much as feeling very strongly that the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Admittedly though, society already limits the ability of children, felons, and the mentally retarded from participating in democracy, doesn't it?

It gets back into the discussion mainiac and I were having.  People see no self-benefit from doing the research necessary to pass your political test.  I don't think you should worry as much about 'dumb' people that aren't able to pass it as 'ignorant' people that haven't done the research.  I can't find any research one way or the other, but I'll hazard a guess that a significant(greater than 50%) number of voters are operating under at least one serious misconception about either the candidates or the voting process. 

Things like :

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The real effects of our casual drug policy, the full story about single payer health care, what insurance really does, the historically measured effects of increased corporate taxes, etc

I'm not talking opinions here, I'm talking facts.  You get to have your own opinions, not your own facts.  (Hopefully that list is non-confrontational.  Especially healthcare, I don't think anyone on either side understands what all the issues are)

Mainiac: 

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

James Madison, Federalist No. 51 (1788-02-06)

[Yanlin]

How long will I have to reiterate this? I don't support my theory under current conditions. It is NOT viable.

My dream is a society where all the voting power rests in the hands of those who know what to do with it. I'm sick of Hick McMoron voting for the wrong guy. I'm sick of Hick McAnothermoron getting elected.

[mainiac]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

James Madison, Federalist No. 51 (1788-02-06)
[/quote]

In this Madison and I are in agreement.  Madison is one smart dude who's ideas I really like.

Let me amend my statement:
"Angels would still need a government, for the best possible society.

The important thing is this distinction:
"Government would not be necessary"
does not mean:
"Government would not be beneficial"

Even if no angel wanted coerce another angel.  Even if the government carried absolutely no authority and all angels freely ignored it.  Even then, the angels would still need a government for the best possible society.  Because a government can take the broad perspective.