Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,854 Year: 4,111/9,624 Month: 982/974 Week: 309/286 Day: 30/40 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modern Civics
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 236 (648524)
01-16-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Butterflytyrant
01-16-2012 12:49 AM


Re: Dat's Perdi' Fascist of You...
Do you think that the democracy in the USA currently allows people to do the right thing?
Of course it does; how does it not?
So when the people who dont give a fuck finally become the majority, where will we be?
Presumably the people who don't give a fuck don't give a fuck, and those who do can still go to the polls to vote.
Democracy is a top down appraoch.
By its very definition it is not.
Enslaving people minds? Forced votes? quasi democratic dictatorship? what the hell are you talking about?
The fascist hell you are proposing we all live in.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-16-2012 12:49 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 236 (648536)
01-16-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Jazzns
01-16-2012 10:37 AM


Re: Right to Vote
I think you can make your position stronger by arguing that voting is a HUMAN right.
I think being able to decide how our lives are lived is a fundamental human right. Voting is one of the ways governments see to it that their citizens can exercise that right. A government is, by its nature, a system of force that dictates to some degree the way people can and cannot live their lives. Thus, governments are by default violations of that fundamental human right. To limit the degree of this violation, a government must allow all of its citizens an ability to have some say in how that system of force is run.
Although I agree with you and encourage you, you might get more mileage by avoiding calling people fascist.
Well, I call them as I see them. And I certainly can't think of a better word for someone who preaches propaganda about putting the nation ahead of the individual and advocates running a country as though it were a large factory.
The people who believe that democracy should be restricted are well meaning because they see a true problem.
I also believe democracy should be restricted. As I said already, limiting the number of things that can be voted on is one way to restrict a democracy. In the US, we have a Constitution which can be changed, but the means by which it gets changed are rather laborious and do not lend themselves well to being an afternoon hobby by lawmakers (like going to war seems to be). And though we can change our Constitution in principle, there are still many things that never get put to a vote, such as term lengths for certain political offices, what political office is what (it would not be an easy task to amend the document to hand over all legislative authority to the President, for example). And so in these, and many other, ways our democracy is limited.
And this is for the good much of the time. Occasionally, for example, the placement of a new traffic light will get put to the vote of the nearby residents, but by and large city officials and engineers decide to swap out the stop sign for a safer form of traffic control without consulting everyone who might drive down that street. And this, of course, is for the benefit of everyone because the safety of all those motorists should not be determined by a few people living next to the intersection who don't want a light outside their bedroom window.
What is sad is that their visceral reaction is to punish their neighbor instead of helping them.
And that's what I see with a right-to-vote test. Instead of helping people make the decisions you think would help your country the most, you are simply trying to ban people who might make decisions you dislike. Quite frankly, just because you don't like how uneducated people vote, that is no moral justification for restricting their right to do so.
I have a couple of times now said that instead of stupid tests and the like, a true citizen will go out before the polls open and express their mind, attempt to educate the people to their ideals, and so forth. But a false citizen? A false citizen will just try to keep all the people they disagree with from voting through force, coercion or other immoral means. And thus we have advocates here for the 'you must be this tall to ride the roller coaster' voting tests and 'you can't vote until you listen to the political propaganda of every candidate on the ballot' entrance fees.
At least in the US, our problems are not because TOO MANY people are voting. Its the exact opposite.
Exactly. The problem isn't that the individuals are all up and voicing their own selfish opinions, it's because they are counting on the rest of the nation to do their thinking for them. They have literally put their trust in the rest above their faith in themselves; they've raised the nation above their own individualism.
And they have done this because, as I have already said, the fascist propaganda preached by people like Butterflytyrant has made them completely oblivious to their power as an individual to effect real changethey have lost hope in themselves.
Destroying the individual's faith in themself is really the building block of the fascist state.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Jazzns, posted 01-16-2012 10:37 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Jazzns, posted 01-16-2012 1:30 PM Jon has replied
 Message 233 by Perdition, posted 01-16-2012 6:26 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 234 by Perdition, posted 01-16-2012 6:27 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 229 of 236 (648561)
01-16-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Jazzns
01-16-2012 1:30 PM


Re: Right to Vote
Fix the system not the people. People are not fixable.
I disagree. People are fixable. Systems are too, and likely more easily than people. But there is really no way to fix the system without fixing the people.
If we want to allow the people to have a say in how their government is run, then we have to have a system that allows that. And if those people are 'broken', then they will make decisions reflecting that (our current situation). If, however, we want a system that works regardless of how broken the people are, then we must remove the people from the government, which is, as we both agree, a violation of a fundamental human right. Not to mention that this would represent an enforced change and so be ineffective (as I've said in another post).
So, while it may be easier to fix the system, doing so is not such a valid option. Fixing the people is the only realistic, workable, and morally acceptable solution.
Right but my point is that you were being attacked, IMO unfairly, because you were talking about it as a constitutional (i.e. US only) right.
Well, the Constitution lays out the means by which the people can be involved in governing themselves, namely through voting.
Voting is just one of the ways to ensure participation by the people and the primary method chosen in a democracy.
But yes, the right to decide what is best for oneself is a human right. And different political systems have different ways for their citizens to exercise this right.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Jazzns, posted 01-16-2012 1:30 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Jazzns, posted 01-16-2012 3:35 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024