Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modern Civics
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 236 (646831)
01-06-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
01-06-2012 4:58 PM


So not knowing how state and local government works means I have no valid opinion on whether a proposed garbage dump should be located in my backyard? Ignorance of how government works completely invalidates my opinion on a woman's right to chose abortion?
Wouldn't this work equally well as an argument against citizenship tests for immigrants? I too don't want a garbage dump in my back yard, just give me the vote already. If that is what you propose, then that's consistent, but if it isn't then I'd like you to explain the difference.
Personally I don't think the suggestion is that outrageous. Anyone who wanted to vote has the option of learning this stuff. Anyone who can't be bothered probably didn't feel that strongly about voting in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2012 4:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2012 4:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 01-07-2012 5:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 30 of 236 (647021)
01-07-2012 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jon
01-07-2012 5:28 AM


People who vote don't vote because they feel strongly about voting, they vote because they feel strongly about the issue they are voting on.
Well, read "voting on the issue they're voting on" for "voting". I knida took it for granted that people only vote on the things that they vote on.
Suppose you're worried about the garbage dump in your back yard, and you want to vote for a mayoral candidate who's against it. Someone says: "But before we let you vote for a mayor, you've got to know whether the mayor of this town is subject to term limits".
If you decide that you can't be bothered to learn that in order to be qualified to vote, how much did you care in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 01-07-2012 5:28 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 01-08-2012 12:10 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 236 (647023)
01-07-2012 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
01-07-2012 4:08 AM


I haven't given citizenship tests much thought. I don't see the point of making sure that immigrants know information that most adult citizens probably have either forgotten or never knew.
Well, at least that's consistent.
We could say that about many artificial barriers to voting.
But most "artificial barriers to voting" don't have that much of a rationale. Whereas there is at least something to be said for the idea that people should have some basic idea of how democracy works before we let them join in.
I should say that I'm not terribly keen on the idea, I just don't think it's as bad as you paint it either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2012 4:08 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 01-08-2012 12:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 236 (647421)
01-09-2012 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Perdition
01-09-2012 3:57 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
Well, to be pedantic, there's the Bill of Rights...
That's not clear. For example, when the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." it doesn't go on to say: "Oh, but Congress can do those things so long as the victims aren't citizens, it can prohibit their free exercise like billy-o".
There are some references in the B.o.R. to "the people", but I have never seen that this is interpreted as citizens only, and I'm fairly sure it isn't.
Anything that requires a social security number could be construed as a right for being a citizen...such as social security.
I'm not a citizen, but I have an S.S.N.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 3:57 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 4:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 236 (647444)
01-09-2012 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Perdition
01-09-2012 4:53 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
Well, how about the case of the defense bill that President Obama signed. It allows for unlimited detainment of anyone suspected of being a terrorist. This includes American citizens ...
Well if this is the case it doesn't confer any rextra rights on citizens.
Another example is running for office. You have to be a citizen to run for political office.
Yes. And at least the same conditions necessary to vote should be met to hold office.
I was not aware of this. Is it because, by working in America, you are contributing to SS, and so are allowed, quite rightly, to benefit from it?
No, you get an S.SN. with your green card, i.e. at a point when you shouldn't have been working yet. So that you can do all the things that one does with one's social security number.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 4:53 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 5:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 236 (647466)
01-09-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Perdition
01-09-2012 5:17 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
Yes, I was just pointing out that citizens don't get many extra rights besides voting. In fact one of the questions on the citizenship test is what's the most important benefit of citizenship? And the official, correct answer is the vote. The Bill of Rights I have already.
I understand, in a democracy, people will be elected that disagreew ith me because I disagree with the people voting, and I'm OK with that. What I have a hard time with is the people who agree with me (or my opponents) and yet vote counter to their interests because they don't take the time to understand that they're voting against their interests.
Well, this is true. When I was eighteen I and the other first-time voters in my class were given a quiz on the positions of the major parties. One of the questions was: "Which is the only party that wants to raise the basic rate of income tax?" And I was the only person who got it right. Anyone else basing their vote on that one way or the other would have voted for the wrong party.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 5:17 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 6:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 70 of 236 (647478)
01-09-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Perdition
01-09-2012 6:12 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
And this is entirely my point. Taxes just happens to be one of the most widely reported reasons for voting for a candidate, and most people are woefully ignorant about even which party will do what to their taxes, let alone a particular person.
I guess we could stop teabaggers from voting unless they know whether their taxes have gone up or down since Obama took office. Though this is not as much fun as my other idea of feeding them to giant carnivorous goats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 6:12 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 194 of 236 (648269)
01-14-2012 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Butterflytyrant
01-13-2012 8:57 PM


Re: Dat's Perdi' Fascist of You...
Peoples votes should be weighted by their knowledge and understanding of the issue being voted on. This makes sense. Look at human civilisation like a big business. The people who know about accounting make the accounting decisions. The people who know about the law make the legal decisions. If you dont know something, you have a research and development group who find out.
In my work we rarely ask the cleaners to make finance decisions. It would not make sense for all of the departments to vote on subjects that only one group know anything about.
But the problem here is that people have different interests. I, for example, am exceptionally smart, and it is in my interest that everyone else on this forum should tangibly acknowledge this fact by becoming my slaves. But you're not going to, because you in fact believe that your interests are as valid as mine even though you can never hope to aspire to my god-like intellect.
And this is I think a permanent argument against any form of meritocracy. The people who possess merit also possess self-interest. And it is in their self-interest that their merit should be rewarded over and above what it would legitimately earn.
You cite business organizations, and these are a case in point. The people who get the highest pay, the managers, the paper-pushers, get the big bucks in a way that seems swollen out of all proportion to the benefits they confer on the company. Is it just a coincidence that they are also the people whose job it is to set employees' pay scales? If you put any group of people in charge of anything, are they going to fairly assess their own interests?
And I dont have a problem with some elements of fascism, particularly exalting the nation over the individual.
But what is the nation for?
This is where ideologues lose their way. What is the nation for? What is capitalism for? What is communism for? What is democracy for? Did God mention them on the stone tablets he gave Moses?
Surely the only excuse for any social institution is that at least on average it leaves the individuals happier than they would be if it didn't exist. How else, in the end, are we to judge the worth of the institution? If, for example, we can make "the nation" strong and prosperous and free, and yet most of the people in it are abject penurious slaves, then fuck "the nation". The value of the abstraction lies only in the good that it can do for individuals --- where else could it lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 8:57 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-15-2012 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 218 of 236 (648483)
01-16-2012 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Butterflytyrant
01-15-2012 7:33 PM


Re: Dat's Perdi' Fascist of You...
This problem does not go away in a democracy. I would say it is just as much a problem in a democracy. The USA is a democracy. The current financial crisis seems to be caused by people, including politicians acting in their own self interest.
However, in a democracy, you have at least a chance of getting the interests of the broad mass of the people put above the interests of a few. If instead you put power in the hands of a few, then you're pretty much screwed from the get-go.
We would need to find some people who are extremely altristic. Or have an independant body set their pay.
The biggest problem we have seems to be that people are arseholes. I dont know how to fix that.
Ah, you want a philosopher-king. I volunteer.
I'm not sure that "altruistic" quite describes me, but at least I'd be even-handed in my reign of terror.
Is democracy doing this? How do we judge it?
By and large people do seem to be better off in democracies than dictatorships.
But we need individuals to be responsible citizens in order for this idea of democracy to work. People need to be equally invested in fullfilling their responsibilities as they are to demanding their rights.
Yes, well, people don't like fulfilling their responsibilities. If they did, they wouldn't be called responsibilities, they'd be called hobbies.
Like I said to Coyote, when was the last time you say someone out with a banner screaming at the TV cameras about their responsibilities?
Why would they need to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-15-2012 7:33 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-16-2012 7:51 AM Dr Adequate 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