I don't believe there needs to be restraints on voting. I think enacting such restraints would only lead to revolt and further the distancing between the upper, middle and lower class. Everyone should be allowed to vote without hindrance.
If there is a particularly large portion of the populace that is stupid then the answer isn't to disallow their participation in democracy but to fix the educational system of the country to better learn critical thinking.
The comments on this thread are moronic. The way to stop corruption, is to let the corrupt choose who gets to vote for them?
There can be no compromise on the right to vote. If you give the government the power to decide who votes and who doesn't, the government will make sure those who vote keep it as it is, irrelevant of public opinion. "For the people, by the people," doesn't work if the government is choosing the people.
A republic where the government chooses who gets to participate in the republic simply isn't a republic. The policies by proposed by members here would strongly resemble the policies in places like Egypt and Russia.
If the population is uneducated, then it's on the burden of the school system, the news, and the politicans to make them educated. That ignorant masses would otherwise throw them out should be ample motivation for politicans to fix this. If it's not, then those politicians will be thrown out for those who might give a crap about an educated electorate.
And instead of defending the rich getting to decide policy regardless of what people want....
Honestly one of the better arguments for the free market is that it subtly filters competent people into positions of power.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The comments on this thread are moronic. The way to stop corruption, is to let the corrupt choose who gets to vote for them?There can be no compromise on the right to vote. If you give the government the power to decide who votes and who doesn't, the government will make sure those who vote keep it as it is, irrelevant of public opinion. "For the people, by the people," doesn't work if the government is choosing the people.
A republic where the government chooses who gets to participate in the republic simply isn't a republic. The policies by proposed by members here would strongly resemble the policies in places like Egypt and Russia.
If the population is uneducated, then it's on the burden of the school system, the news, and the politicans to make them educated. That ignorant masses would otherwise throw them out should be ample motivation for politicans to fix this. If it's not, then those politicians will be thrown out for those who might give a crap about an educated electorate.
And instead of defending the rich getting to decide policy regardless of what people want....
Let's call it what it actually is, the practice of an oligarchy. If you believe we should be an oligarchy rather than a republic, then say so, otherwise let the republic be what a republic is supposed to be, a republic.
Well when you just list out all the pros of one side without bothering to cross-examine the other side's arguments then of course it'll sound moronic, lmao. The one attempt at a rebuttal you make is that we can fix the education problem, which is soooooo easy to do, right? And the issue isn't merely education.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Honestly one of the better arguments for the free market is that it subtly filters competent people into positions of power. I mean, not perfectly by any means.
Far from it, imo.
The general pattern seems to be: Competent person builds empire, attracts hoards of vultures, and eventually gold diggers displace visionaries picking at the bones until the whole thing collapses..
Corporate raiders are one example of this decay. Happens wherever the money is, it seems.
Originally posted by cdtm
Far from it, imo.The general pattern seems to be: Competent person builds empire, attracts hoards of vultures, and eventually gold diggers displace visionaries picking at the bones until the whole thing collapses..
Corporate raiders are one example of this decay. Happens wherever the money is, it seems.
Still better than politics, tbh.
Originally posted by BackFire
I don't believe there needs to be restraints on voting. I think enacting such restraints would only lead to revolt and further the distancing between the upper, middle and lower class. Everyone should be allowed to vote without hindrance.If there is a particularly large portion of the populace that is stupid then the answer isn't to disallow their participation in democracy but to fix the educational system of the country to better learn critical thinking.
Neither party wants voters to be intelligent and well versed in critical thinking.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well when you just list out all the pros of one side without bothering to cross-examine the other side's arguments then of course it'll sound moronic, lmao. The one attempt at a rebuttal you make is that we can fix the education problem, which is soooooo easy to do, right? And the issue isn't merely education.
The one attempt at a rebuttal you make is that we can fix the education problem, which is soooooo easy to do, right?
No, of course it's not easy. That doesn't mean we should sacrifice principles for convenience.
And if you think the education system isn't adequate, and we have a voting system where those who aren't adequately educated can't vote, then why would politicians elected only by the well educated have any incentive to educate an uneducated populace that might not vote for them?
The issue with only letting the more fortunate vote, is that only the more fortunate will ever be represented in spite of the less fortunate needing more help.
So aside from a practice of oligarchy undermining the principles behind a republic, it'll also make the supposed reason we need an oligarchy, inadequate education, worse.
And the issue isn't merely education.
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with this oligarchy of yours?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Every single point I made directly addresses something someone has said. You weren't the only focus of this post, hence why I referred to the thread in general rather than just you. My "only rebuttal" was the only rebuttal I made for you as you made a grand total of one point.
I...never said you were addressing me exclusively, I said that your entire case involves pointing out the very obvious problems with a differential voting system (abuse of power + perverse incentives) while only vaguely addressing part of the other side's case. You would have to explain why the need to defeat perverse incentives beats the need to have competent voters.
No, of course it's not easy. That doesn't mean we should sacrifice principles for convenience.And if you think the education system isn't adequate, and we have a voting system where those who aren't adequately educated can't vote, then why would politicians elected only by the well educated have any incentive to educate an uneducated populace that might not vote for them?
The issue with only letting the more fortunate vote, is that only the more fortunate will ever be represented in spite of the less fortunate needing more help.
So aside from a practice of oligarchy undermining the principles behind a republic, it'll also make the supposed reason we need an oligarchy, inadequate education, worse.
You can apply my reasoning regarding education to any of the other things said. Politicans who are kept in power by virtue of only a few being sufficiently well informed to vote will make sure that there's only a few sufficiently well informed to vote. Not only are you proposing we sacrifice our principles, but you're proposing that we make the issues forcing us to sacrifice our principles work.
You're assuming that the issues brought up against the general population voting are malleable and not, say, some people just being dumb. Even if everything were 100% environmentally determined what, is your solution to quickly move towards a super-hyper-competent society to preempt the criticisms?
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with this oligarchy of yours?
Actually the only position I made was that the free market is better at selecting for competence, not that success in the free market should dictate voting rights.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Actually the only position I made was that the free market is better at selecting for competence, not that success in the free market should dictate voting rights. [/B]
I was under the impression you were referring to how those with economic power influence politicians.
I...never said you were addressing me exclusively, I said that your entire case involves pointing out the very obvious problems with a differential voting system (abuse of power + perverse incentives) while only vaguely addressing part of the other side's case. You would have to explain why the need to defeat perverse incentives beats the need to have competent voters.
A government should represent the interests of all the people it expects to abide by it's laws and pay taxes. By only having "competent" voters vote, the government is only allowing some of it's members representation despite expecting all it's members to abide by it's laws. To me, this seems rather terrible on principle. In a system where only "competent" people are allowed to vote, politicians will ensure those who might vote against them remain incompetent. Hence not only would restrictions like this be bad on principle, but they would make the issues that make this bad on principle even worse. Your also setting a precedent that politicians can choose who votes and who doesn't and who qualifies as competent. Politicians could decide competence is no longer about being competent but rather about how would vote for them which ends up completely defeating the purpose of this sacrifice of principle.
You're assuming that the issues brought up against the general population voting are malleable and not, say, some people just being dumb.
Even if everything were 100% environmentally determined what, is your solution to quickly move towards a super-hyper-competent society to preempt the criticisms?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Discuss your constraints and prerequisites.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
[BI'm not even going to dip into the hilariously retarded debate about privatizing everything. [/B]
Originally posted by Tzeentch
A ridiculous notion.If you pay taxes then you have the right to dictate, on some level, where and how your money is being spent. If you pay taxes then you've already purchased the right to vote. Full stop.
I'm not even going to dip into the hilariously retarded debate about privatizing everything.
What about the people that don't pay taxes?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Is that a yes?