Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Marx's sister-in-law is Ayn Rand! And hijinks ensue.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
This thread hasn't been on the rails for, like, five pages now. A sitcom starring Karl Marx is probably actually moving us more on topic.
Karl Marx's beard should be comically large.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
dogma
well I think lack of consensus between groups is probably normal. lack of consensus within groups... to a certain extent yes... but disagreement about core values.... idk. I dont think it will work. I dont think its working now. I predict that it will fail. but thats just conjecture. its still an open experiment....
yes a government has to be responsive...... this is true.... when the bottom changes the top has to as well, or else it will be shrugged off...
about classical realism.... well I would define morality as the behavior people who are part of the same group owe to each other.... the states interests are what will benefit the people who compose it.... as for people outside of it.... the state does not have any moral obligations to them, just as they have no moral obligations to it.
Thats how statesmanship is conducted in practice anyhow so I think its best to just be up front about it. Telling Americans that there are critical moral issues behind every act of international policy is baby talk. I mean its infantalizing the electorate. its pure nonsense. only very rarely does someone get into power in washington whose genuinely concerned about stuff like that. Carter and Wilson are the only ones I can think of in the 20th century. Internationally neither of them were particularly effective....
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:AbbadonFidelis shouldn't be able to vote because he is bad and should feel bad.
Just kidding, but the stuff you are suggesting is pretty goddam crazy.
is it? here's my argument [recap]
if you want to have good laws, you need good lawmakers. how can you make sure you end up with good lawmakers? have sensible voters. how can you make sure you have sensible voters? according to the founding fathers, dont let anyone vote who isnt
1 white
2 male
3 an adult
4 a substantial property owner
by comparison Im pretty liberal. The only people I want to exclude from the polity are
1. drunks
2. crazy people
3. slowed people
4. people on the dole
why?
1. because they cant even order their own lives, so how can they order the state's?
2. because they'll tend to vote themselves social programs that benefit them and their impotence at my expense.
Is it really that crazy? we dont let convicts or 4 year olds vote. why not? because they arent qualified to participate. because voting is power. because not everyone is entitled to wield that power.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean its like a family with 10 kids. are all members of the family important? sure. do they all get an equal say? nope. neither should they. dad knows things the 4 year old doesnt. thats why he gets to make decisions (when the wife lets him) and the 4 year old doesnt. Its really the same principle in politics. only the stakes are much, much higher....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/17 05:45:04
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
I spelled out exactly how far I want to go with it. If you require state assistance you dont get to vote.
why? because its demonstrated inability to order your own life.
if you cant order your own, youve got no business trying to order mine. ie writing the laws. ie voting.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:we dont have any moral consensus in this country because of a breakdown in ideological consensus, which is basically a function of the failure of the traditional religious establishment - protestantism - to reconcile the discoveries of science with their theological traditions.
Hmm, that certainly sounds plausible. I think there's some issue with liberalism as well. It failed to deliver, and left an ideological hole, which was then filled with a sort of feel-good idea of mass democracy, that doesn't really stand for anything. That might just be me, however.
no its true. liberalism works pretty well materially and tolerably well politically. but its a spiritual failure.
life to be good has to be more than free. it has to be meaningful. liberalism has no answers in that department.
AF
The level playing field has never existed from the start though. It's easy to say that only those who don't need government assistance in order to contribute to the society can vote, when you are one of those who have either inherited or grew up with a supportive family to make sure you get into that revered middle class status. It's harder to justify that way of thinking, and to disrespect the less fortunate, when you have been there yourself. The French revolution proved pretty well that the peasants are perfectly capable of taking away your rules if they want to, when your rules are against their interest.
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
I spelled out exactly how far I want to go with it. If you require state assistance you dont get to vote.
why? because its demonstrated inability to order your own life.
if you cant order your own, youve got no business trying to order mine. ie writing the laws. ie voting.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:we dont have any moral consensus in this country because of a breakdown in ideological consensus, which is basically a function of the failure of the traditional religious establishment - protestantism - to reconcile the discoveries of science with their theological traditions.
Hmm, that certainly sounds plausible. I think there's some issue with liberalism as well. It failed to deliver, and left an ideological hole, which was then filled with a sort of feel-good idea of mass democracy, that doesn't really stand for anything. That might just be me, however.
no its true. liberalism works pretty well materially and tolerably well politically. but its a spiritual failure.
life to be good has to be more than free. it has to be meaningful. liberalism has no answers in that department.
AF
The level playing field has never existed from the start though. It's easy to say that only those who don't need government assistance in order to contribute to the society can vote, when you are one of those who have either inherited or grew up with a supportive family to make sure you get into that revered middle class status. It's harder to justify that way of thinking, and to disrespect the less fortunate, when you have been there yourself. The French revolution proved pretty well that the peasants are perfectly capable of taking away your rules if they want to, when your rules are against their interest.
And how did that work out for them 20-50 years down the track? (seriously how? I don't know much about the french revolution)
AbaddonFidelis wrote:dogma
well I think lack of consensus between groups is probably normal. lack of consensus within groups... to a certain extent yes... but disagreement about core values.... idk. I dont think it will work. I dont think its working now. I predict that it will fail. but thats just conjecture. its still an open experiment....
How do you define a group if not by beliefs? And how do you reconcile the fact that group membership is no longer restricted by geography?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Thats how statesmanship is conducted in practice anyhow so I think its best to just be up front about it. Telling Americans that there are critical moral issues behind every act of international policy is baby talk. I mean its infantalizing the electorate.
Oh, the moralism in American international politics isn't done for the people, not always anyway. Often times its simple what the people in power believe.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
And how did that work out for them 20-50 years down the track? (seriously how? I don't know much about the french revolution)
A whole lot of death and Napoleon actually. It didn't work out well for France at all. Not immediately. It set the stage for later events of importance to France and the world. The French Revolution is too complex to really describe as simply good or bad.
Regardless, it doesn't really show what Guitardian is saying. The middle class was vital to the revolution (EDIT: The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and the birth of the United States helped). Without them it wouldn't have happened. The poor didn't just rise up one day cause the rich were hosing them. The middle class realized it's political power and spurred them to rise up because it was also being hosed (in their minds at least) and had amassed enough power to make revolution viable. I don't see what the point really is. We should be fear mongered by the poor because they might start killing everyone? Not really a way to get what you want and the Revolution itself didn't really resolve many of the immediate problems for the poor and they lost most the progress they made after Napoleon messed it up.
The Revolution was important but Guitardian is applying it falsely imo. The Revolution is a very specific event in history sparked by a combination of factors that are unlikely to be replicated in the modern world. I don't see it's application here.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2010/09/17 06:43:06
It is difficult for me to respond to this in a non-sarcastic way. I'll try anyway.
How many of those people are there? If you grew up with 7 siblings and ate government cheese and peanut butter, you were are from one of the families that you spout so much hate towards. At this point I would like to remind you that you're suggestion is not mine, I have made no slight against your family; I am happy you didn't starve to death.
We got government cheese and peanut butter because they used to give it away at the school. That is not welfare or food stamps. It's actual food given out by the church....big difference, we earned that through our service. We never took any direct government aid except some unemployment, which you pay for when you work anyway, you are just getting your money back.
People who don't work and suck off the system are vile. That's what the socialist/communist ideas have done to the U.S. they burden everyone with these peoples problems.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/09/17 06:49:56
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Wait, was the cheese and peanut butter from the government, or from the Church?
Also, yes, socialism is designed to place some of the burden of those who are not employed, or who cannot be employed, onto those who can be. That's a part-and-parcel component of all archic, and most anarchic, societies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/17 07:22:36
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Have you considered that the issue may be one of terminology? My usual definition of communism is a stateless society where the means of production are communally owned, and distribution is afforded "according to one's need" rather than by productive ability. While this may not actually end in equal pay for doctors and street sweepers, it may very well.
I don't think it's an issue of terminology. I think it's an issue of people hearing a legitimate complaint about communism (the lack of a profit motive to drive efficiency and expansion in business) and only vagulely understanding that, and reducing it to 'everyone gets paid the same'. They go on to repeat that, other people here it and repeat it and soon enough a lot of people believe that everyone got paid the same, regardless of what job they did. It doesn't seem to matter to anyone how actual communist countries work, they've got their mantra and that's enough for them.
You can say it might end up with everyone getting paid the same, but no communist I've ever heard is actually arguing for everyone to get paid the same, and no communist state has ever tried anything of the sort. So why even bother with the possibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I dont think the biggest worry is a degenerate vasting his vote. It just happens to be the worry under discussion at the moment.
I would love to kick the corporations out of government. They're alot higher on my list than irresponsible people.
AF
It's just, it's like complaining about a fly in your soup. Sure, that sucks and all but if the bar is burning down...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:You name one country you think is communist and I will tell you why it is not.
See, this is the thing. Communist academics really could have spent the last couple of decades talking about why true communist states never arose where it was tried, how it slid into dictatorship and oppression each time. They might have even built a case for how it might be done next time, to avoid that slaughter. But they haven't even tried, instead they just avoid the issue, they weren't really communist, it'd never be like that in real communism, now moving on aren't capitalists evil?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kragura wrote:Odd how the rules were invented 100 years before any of those countries became communist then. was Marx a time traveller?
You know what I would watch? Time travelling Marx teams up with time travelling Benjamin Franklin and time travelling Mohammed. They would fight crime.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/09/17 08:32:53
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Wait, was the cheese and peanut butter from the government, or from the Church?
Am I the only one that remembers how hard times were in the early 80's. The government used to give out cheese (good), bread(the worst white bread ever) butter, and peanut butter (real peanut butter, the expensive stuff you have to stir up first) at local schools and churches to anyone who needed it. You just had to wait in line. We helped distribute it.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
by comparison Im pretty liberal. The only people I want to exclude from the polity are
1. drunks
2. crazy people
3. slowed people
4. people on the dole
I should probably respond with reliable statistics showing exactly what you are talking about here. I am not entirely sure I'm even clear on some of your statement here, so I won't even bother.
At the very least you are talking about somewhere in the region of 15% or more of the entire U.S. population. That is bloody craziness.
AF wrote:why?
Dunno.
1. because they cant even order their own lives, so how can they order the state's?
I am sure you will take care of that for them. Caring as you are and all.
2. because they'll tend to vote themselves social programs that benefit them and their impotence at my expense.
I trust you to make the right decisions on their behalf; pinky swear.
Is it really that crazy?
Yep.
we dont let convicts or 4 year olds vote. why not? because they arent qualified to participate. because voting is power. because not everyone is entitled to wield that power.
You are clearly a very worldly individual with much experience to impart to all of us.
My options are limited thus. Either I block you specifically from voting, in place of the 40 odd million people you are talking about here, or I appoint you dictator.
I'm going to have to choose dictator, mainly because I enjoy a good slapstick routine.
mean its like a family with 10 kids.
No, it really freaking isn't. Don't worry about it, dad.
are all members of the family important? sure. do they all get an equal say? nope. neither should they. dad knows things the 4 year old doesnt. thats why he gets to make decisions (when the wife lets him) and the 4 year old doesnt. Its really the same principle in politics. only the stakes are much, much higher....
Comedy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/17 09:46:18
Kragura wrote:You name one country you think is communist and I will tell you why it is not.
See, this is the thing. Communist academics really could have spent the last couple of decades talking about why true communist states never arose where it was tried, how it slid into dictatorship and oppression each time. They might have even built a case for how it might be done next time, to avoid that slaughter. But they haven't even tried, instead they just avoid the issue, they weren't really communist, it'd never be like that in real communism, now moving on aren't capitalists evil?
I consistently find myself agreeing with your post bar one minor detail. I as a communist and as have all the communists i know spent long amounts of time pondering the question huge numbers of theories ideas and hypothesis have been put forward comrades can argue for days about whether china stopped being communist in 1979 or in 1978. whether the soviet union began it's degeneration after Lenin Stalin Khrushchev or Breznev and whether Cuba is still socialist. this I think is one of the greatest threats to the far left today rampant sectarianism and and overall stubbornness over the ideas you imply they don't have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
It is difficult for me to respond to this in a non-sarcastic way. I'll try anyway.
How many of those people are there? If you grew up with 7 siblings and ate government cheese and peanut butter, you were are from one of the families that you spout so much hate towards. At this point I would like to remind you that you're suggestion is not mine, I have made no slight against your family; I am happy you didn't starve to death.
We got government cheese and peanut butter because they used to give it away at the school. That is not welfare or food stamps. It's actual food given out by the church....big difference, we earned that through our service. We never took any direct government aid except some unemployment, which you pay for when you work anyway, you are just getting your money back.
People who don't work and suck off the system are vile. That's what the socialist/communist ideas have done to the U.S. they burden everyone with these peoples problems.
What about the people who can't work i.e cant get a job.
(not intended as one of my absolutely cutting and philosophically sound rhetorical questions, I'm actually curious)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/17 10:35:17
Kragura wrote:I consistently find myself agreeing with your post bar one minor detail. I as a communist and as have all the communists i know spent long amounts of time pondering the question huge numbers of theories ideas and hypothesis have been put forward comrades can argue for days about whether china stopped being communist in 1979 or in 1978. whether the soviet union began it's degeneration after Lenin Stalin Khrushchev or Breznev and whether Cuba is still socialist. this I think is one of the greatest threats to the far left today rampant sectarianism and and overall stubbornness over the ideas you imply they don't have.
You could do what real life Communist leaders have done and kill them, or send to reeducation camps, until you get the hegemony of belief you seek.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
"drunks, crazy people, slowed people, people on the dole"... The only people you want to exclude AF?
Well first off, you forgot "donkey-caves" and secondly, define "slowed people"? Personally I believe anyone with an IQ less than 130 to seem "slowed". That gives us about a less than 1% competent voters population. Kick off religious people too while we're at it, since nobody got to vote for god, he needs to stay out of it. Although most of them have already been omitted by either the IQ requirement or the "no donkey-cave" rule. So... who's left? about a hundred people give or take are considered worthy to have their opinions made into practice.... oh wait that would be the U.S. Senate if only it wasn't for that damn IQ requirement and "No donkey-caves" rule...
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
Guitardian wrote:
The level playing field has never existed from the start though. It's easy to say that only those who don't need government assistance in order to contribute to the society can vote, when you are one of those who have either inherited or grew up with a supportive family to make sure you get into that revered middle class status. It's harder to justify that way of thinking, and to disrespect the less fortunate, when you have been there yourself. The French revolution proved pretty well that the peasants are perfectly capable of taking away your rules if they want to, when your rules are against their interest.
Yes if there are too many poor people they can foment revolution. I dont want to impoverish people. Alot of the policies I would advocate are for the protection of the poor.... minimum wage, workers safety laws, keeping corporations out of politics, the right to form unions, etc. I'm not talking about disenfranchsing the entire lower class. Just the lowest of the lower class. Most working class people dont take government subsidies. They would continue to vote. Anyway people who are on the dole need to respect themselves by getting off of it - then I'll respect them better. Oligarchy is possible on one extreme - the other possibility is poor people using their superior numbers to vote themselves the wealth of the middle and upper class through social programs. It can and does happen - its called voting democrat.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: del'Vhar
the french revolution was a total disaster in the short run. After a decade of massive economic disruption, state sponsored terrorism, ruinously expensive wars, and anarchy at the highest levels of government, the army stepped in and restored order. I would hope that guitardian doesnt want a repeat...
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yeah Lord of Hats is right it wasnt driven by the rural poor but by the urban middle class
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:dogma
well I think lack of consensus between groups is probably normal. lack of consensus within groups... to a certain extent yes... but disagreement about core values.... idk. I dont think it will work. I dont think its working now. I predict that it will fail. but thats just conjecture. its still an open experiment....
How do you define a group if not by beliefs? And how do you reconcile the fact that group membership is no longer restricted by geography?
right now.... I really dont know. we're witnissing a break down in group cohesion. our tools of communication are so powerful that geography probably doesnt count for much anymore. If I had to pin it on one thing I'd say shared beliefs, shared values, shared interests. fundamentalist christians are a group. 40k players are a group. as far as a wider community. well I guess thats what I'd complain about. it doesnt seem to exist anymore. we're all just strangers passing in the night, you know? So I dont really have a good answer for you I guess... but I think its pretty clear that sharing a single political organization doesnt qualify.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Thats how statesmanship is conducted in practice anyhow so I think its best to just be up front about it. Telling Americans that there are critical moral issues behind every act of international policy is baby talk. I mean its infantalizing the electorate.
Oh, the moralism in American international politics isn't done for the people, not always anyway. Often times its simple what the people in power believe.
which is the scariest thing of all....
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2010/09/17 19:41:01
No I certainly don't want a repeat. I am not a big fan of mob rule and violent revolt. Pointing out that it can happen is different than hoping that it does.
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
Wrexasaur
I read your reply.....
ummm.... if you dont have anything to say.... just dont say it. k?
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: btw I love that clip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:"drunks, crazy people, slowed people, people on the dole"... The only people you want to exclude AF?
Well first off, you forgot "donkey-caves" and secondly, define "slowed people"? Personally I believe anyone with an IQ less than 130 to seem "slowed". That gives us about a less than 1% competent voters population. Kick off religious people too while we're at it, since nobody got to vote for god, he needs to stay out of it. Although most of them have already been omitted by either the IQ requirement or the "no donkey-cave" rule. So... who's left? about a hundred people give or take are considered worthy to have their opinions made into practice.... oh wait that would be the U.S. Senate if only it wasn't for that damn IQ requirement and "No donkey-caves" rule...
there actually is a medical definition for someone who is... mentally handicapped. I forget what the clinical term is now. used to be mentally slowed. now its something else. its something like IQ below 60 or 70. not 130. the definition is medical it's not based on who you think is a dummy.
anyway you're taking the argument in a totally different direction. I never said that stuff about religious people or a no donkey-cave rule so I'm not going to defend any of it either. thats your idea not mine. What I said is that people who cant take care of themselves - as demonstrated by reliance on state support to live - dont have any business telling me how to live my life. writing laws. participating in politics. voting.
AF
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/09/17 19:50:35
AbaddonFidelis wrote:ummm.... if you dont have anything to say.... just dont say it. k?
You mad.
Look dude, I am trying really hard to convince myself you aren't trolling, as your suggestions have been flatly crazy.
You aren't responsible enough to vote in my opinion (just kidding), so I really have decided to make you dictator of the day. I am going to enjoy this one.
I am guessing that you aren't going to benevolent and many laughs will be had by all. I don't want to take the vote away from 15-20% of the U.S. population when I can simply take the vote away from all of them, leaving just you to make the decisions. That is the best answer here, trust me, you'll do fine.
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you wrex. you obviously dont understand my argument, so what you're saying basically doesnt have anything to do with anything. this is the last thing I'll say to you on this thread. AF
Your accusations about my intelligence are false, as is your suggestion that my intention is to start a flamewar.
How many millions of people are we talking about here? You directly suggest that state assistance is wrong and bad, while at the same time limiting that argument to that of individuals, leaving out the fact that subsidies are just a part of life in the U.S.
Without subsidies many industries would begin to fall apart at the seams. Without subsidies many small businesses would fall flat on their faces at the starting line. Without assistance many would not be able to attend college, nor would they even have the time to think about voting.
It is quite possible that you don't understand the depth of what you have suggested, but I sincerely doubt that possibility. There is little reason to address many of your points, because they are ridiculous. It would be a waste of my time and yours.
I would like to know if you can answer the simple question about how many millions of people you are actually talking about removing from the voting pool. I maintain my response that you should either be removed from the voting pool yourself, or be appointed dictator for a day.
It seems reasonable enough to remove one person, in place of millions, but I still feel that having you make all of the decisions could be the best answer on this.
By Abbie Don Fidelis's somewhat rational idealism, yes, it makes sense that some folks should not really get a say if they cannot participate in a society. Wait... no it doesn't.
From my point of view, much of society and culture and our social systems and infrastructure are taken for granted, just like the ability to walk or speak is taken for granted. So rich kids with a college degree and some irrelevant office space style job their daddy could buy them would be voting, while orphans growing up eating at soup kitchens would not.
Some people do take advantage of a welfare state. Others take advantage of a privelliged lifestyle. This doesn't make either group very qualified in my opinion. I would like to say that anyone on SSI can't vote too, because, hey, at some point in your life you are too young to be allowed a vote, a job, an ability to speak your mind in a relevant way (Sucks being self aware when you're 8 years old). At another point in life you are too old to think rationally for the greater good and just vote based on your own old biases, set in your ways, and usually only concerned with how much you can get during your retirement.
Retardation being a diagnosed medical condition based on an approximate IQ score is equally unfair. If a 70 is a 'dummy' to someone with the average 100, then what do you think an average 100 is to a 130? who sets the bar on what is considered 'too stupid'... because if it were up to Noam Chomsky or Steven Hawking (just as an example, not a big fan) then I doubt any of us would be alowed to vote.
Kids are very perceptive, very smart, and untainted by social expectations and ground in ideas that they take for granted. Maybe they should be the only ones allowed to vote. It is their future after all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/17 20:47:51
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
Guitardian wrote:This doesn't make either group very qualified in my opinion.
This point is exactly what qualifies the vast majority of people voting powers. No single group can understand the needs of an entire country, hence, allowing for a voting system that accepts that, appears a very solid compromise. Nearly all of us need the right to vote, for this system to make any sense. If there is change to be had, it would preferably come in the form of short term dictatorships, which come with a great deal of inherent problems. If it worked I would support it, only as a very short term solution, often for the purposes of fixing what is clearly broken.
We can't agree on who that dictator should be, so I still support AF for dictator. It would be amusing on many levels.
I understand that there are limits to who should be able to vote, but there is a point at which those limits go beyond rational; instead becoming oppressive and ridiculous. Convicts and children should not be granted voting powers, for very clear reasons. Stretching that argument to pick out more demographics, opens it to crazy interpretations and narrow-mindedness. Neither of which are necessary to a good, short term dictator.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
which is the scariest thing of all....
That doesn't particularly scare me, honestly. I don't know if its simple jading, or the result of my current place in society, but what our leaders do or do not believe is of little importance to me. The chances of catastrophe are slim, and I'm fully capable of escaping catastrophe in the event that it does occur.
Never thought that a torn ACL would be a good thing.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kragura wrote:I consistently find myself agreeing with your post bar one minor detail. I as a communist and as have all the communists i know spent long amounts of time pondering the question huge numbers of theories ideas and hypothesis have been put forward comrades can argue for days about whether china stopped being communist in 1979 or in 1978. whether the soviet union began it's degeneration after Lenin Stalin Khrushchev or Breznev and whether Cuba is still socialist. this I think is one of the greatest threats to the far left today rampant sectarianism and and overall stubbornness over the ideas you imply they don't have.
You could do what real life Communist leaders have done and kill them, or send to reeducation camps, until you get the hegemony of belief you seek.
Good comment, Ahtman, with a lot of sad truth behind it. I'm neighbors with a family whose father was sent to a "reeducation " camp in Laos. They made the hard decision to escape the country and were almost discovered and killed by Communists as they made their way to the border. The father got out of the camp after a lengthy confignment and also escaped Laos with stories of people put into the camp for dissent routinely put to death on a day by day basis. Gitmo and other prisons have nothing to compare with the stories that came out of his experience with Communist "reeducation". I also worked with Cambodians that had similar stories.
list than irresponsible people.
