Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modern Civics
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 226 of 236 (648528)
01-16-2012 10:51 AM


Fascism
The term "fascism" is being tossed around a lot lately, and has degenerated to being used to mean "anything I don't like."
There is a comprehensive article on what fascism actually is on Wiki:
Fascism - Wikipedia
Makes good reading.

  
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

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 228 of 236 (648551)
01-16-2012 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Jon
01-16-2012 11:51 AM


Re: Right to Vote
I think being able to decide how our lives are lived is a fundamental human right.
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. The right to self-governance is universal and the US Constitution merely RECOGNIZES that right. After a few revisions from the original but still....
I also believe democracy should be restricted.
Sure but I meant in the sense that the democratic process be limited to the elite/educated/rich/property owners etc. I have no beef with the concept of a democratic republic.
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.
You could also make the point that the "stupid" folks who are having their rights taken away may not put up with it. The concept of an open democracy was not something that was ordained by a cultured elite, it was fought for BY those very people who were being disenfranchised. I wonder how those who are suggesting that we keep certain people from the polls propose that such a such a policy would be socially sustainable even IF it did make things better.
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.
AND our institutions are screwed up which is where the outrage should be addressed. A 100% free market media is broken when you can predictably change the outcome of a political situation with TV commercials. Blaming people for why systems are broken is not what is going to solve our problems. Fix the system not the people. People are not fixable.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Jon, posted 01-16-2012 11:51 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Jon, posted 01-16-2012 2:43 PM Jazzns has 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

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 230 of 236 (648563)
01-16-2012 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Jon
01-16-2012 2:43 PM


Re: Right to Vote
I disagree. People are fixable.
I didn't mean people in the individual sense I mean people in the mob sense. The reason that corporate influence in politics is so dangerous is because it works. We as a population are influenced by media despite the fact as individuals we decry the crappiness of the media. The fact of the matter is, the founders of democracy did not have the problem of designing a system that takes into account the human response, in aggregate, to sophisticated mass marketing by entities with an unlimited voice.
Yes individuals can be educated and motivated to participate, I said as much the post before when I join you in sorrow over our fellow poster's tendency to want to punish instead of support our neighbors.
Overall, I was motivated to speak up in order to support you against an invalid attack claiming that your sensibilities were only American. Call it voting, call it more broadly self-determination, it doesn't matter. What matters is that your opponents were wrong and you could have called them on it.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Jon, posted 01-16-2012 2:43 PM Jon has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 231 of 236 (648586)
01-16-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jon
01-13-2012 6:14 PM


Re: Dat's Perdi' Fascist of You...
And now we've stepped beyond simply interfering with others' exercise of their constitutional rights and into the realm of deciding that people's votes should be weighted differently based on whether or not they agree with li'l Perdi'.
Fascist
I don't care if people agree with me or not. They can take the information, come to a different conclusion, and vote however they want. I don't want to control the vote, I want to make sure people are making informed decisions rather than randomly checking a box or pulling a lever.
Do you really want a government chosen by chance, rather than by the actual goals of the populace?
Who the FUCK cares what is important to the populace!? Voting isn't about the populace; it's about the individual, and only what is important to the individual should matter when the individual goes to exercise his/her/its rights.
Wrotten fascist.
Totally wrong! If it was about the individual, each individual would get the person they voted for representing them. But seeing as how we tally votes and choose a winner based on the preference of the populace, your argument seems to be totally wrong.
And here I thought you were being a fascist when all you were really doing was being a...
Sneaky fascist
You like to throw the word fascist around. In fact, it seems to be your biggest argument. Could you care to explain where I have advocated a single party-totalitarian regime? An outlawing of liberalism or conservatism? Perhaps anything that a fascist would want?
Wah wah... being a dutiful citizen is so much work... boo hoo.
Lazy fascist
Whereas you're just lazy. Can you come up with a better description of a non-fascist than fascist? Didn't think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jon, posted 01-13-2012 6:14 PM Jon has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 232 of 236 (648587)
01-16-2012 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Jon
01-16-2012 9:02 AM


Re: Dat's Perdi' Fascist of You...
No. For example, I think there are far too many issues that are put to public vote. I think we'd benefit by reducing the number of things available to vote on.
You want to take away a person's right to vote?
Fascist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Jon, posted 01-16-2012 9:02 AM Jon has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 233 of 236 (648588)
01-16-2012 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Jon
01-16-2012 11:51 AM


Re: Right to Vote
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.
Weird. Sounds like you're saying that informed people make better decisions for the good of all than those who vote soley based on what they think is best for them?
Fascist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Jon, posted 01-16-2012 11:51 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by frako, posted 01-16-2012 7:04 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 234 of 236 (648589)
01-16-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Jon
01-16-2012 11:51 AM


Re: Right to Vote
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.
Who is advocating this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Jon, posted 01-16-2012 11:51 AM Jon has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 235 of 236 (648591)
01-16-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Butterflytyrant
01-15-2012 7:40 PM


Re: Dat's Perdi' Fascist of You...
People need to be controlled. We often wont do the right thing unless we are forced to do it. Thats why we have to have police. People have to be forced not to drive drunk in order to protect other people from being killed. People are arseholes.
I'll agree that dictatorships can be more efficient at enforcing a specific desirable policy than is consensus building in a democracy. But I still don't want to live in a country ruled by a dictator. I don't trust them to come up with the best policies in the first place.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-15-2012 7:40 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 236 of 236 (648595)
01-16-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Perdition
01-16-2012 6:26 PM


Re: Right to Vote
Weird. Sounds like you're saying that informed people make better decisions for the good of all than those who vote soley based on what they think is best for them?
We had a referendum on pensions a while back raising the age at witch you are eligable for a state pension by 3 years.
An uninformed individual voting for what is "best" for them would vote NO as 80% did.
Thing is since the last time the age at witch the pension age was established the average life span rose by at least 5 years. Not to mention that the baby boom generation is the one that is getting the pensions now days and there a whole lot of them. Without a reform sooner or later the funds for the pensions will run out so instead of working 3 years more to get your pension you wont get one. Ok thats the worst case scenario, what will happen is a drastic fall in the money you recieve and a large part of it covered by tax Euro's, just so you dont die from starvation(yea we bastard socialist countries dont leave people to die if their luck runs out), forcing the new generation to have less tax money to spend on things like education or other stuff that raises the prosperity of a country.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Perdition, posted 01-16-2012 6:26 PM Perdition 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