Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Limited Democracy

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 5:46:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the context of this thread "limited" refers to a limit based on intellectual ability. Since pretty much all democracies are limited by age and criminal status.

What are people's thoughts on a limited democracy that basically required a "voting licence" just like driving a car or flying a plane?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 6:18:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Easily abused, easily done badly, and doesn't work. The abuse and impotence of government or collective regulation on this area, by private, civic, or governmental bodies, is well documented. Things like Galton's ox demonstrate that while individuals are not amazingly intelligent alone, individuals on group can be very effective in government elections.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 7:01:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 6:18:35 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Easily abused, easily done badly, and doesn't work. The abuse and impotence of government or collective regulation on this area, by private, civic, or governmental bodies, is well documented. Things like Galton's ox demonstrate that while individuals are not amazingly intelligent alone, individuals on group can be very effective in government elections.

Galton's ox does not directly relate to things such as law. Now, if we had a system where everyone stated what tax rate they thought was best and we took the average of the people, that may work. But we are talking about a 50.1% becoming absolute. We are also not comparing to a single individual, but the average of everyone compared to the average of "experts."

We can look at the Beat The Insiders football game to see the difference (I'm out of time until later today so I only got through week 5) but the average of the experts is 48 - 29 while the average of everyone playing (who are all football fans and so somewhat knowledgeable) is 46 - 31. Only marginally worse, but still worse. That is more comparative to what such a limited democracy would be like.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of intelligence) and why?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of intelligence) and why?

The why is simple.
I think it was Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:12:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:05:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of ) and why?

The why is simple.
I think it was Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

What's his point? Unless you're talking to someone who really knows their political ideologies, I doubt that the average voter will see much of a problem with democracy.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:51:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:12:31 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:05:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of ) and why?

The why is simple.
I think it was Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

What's his point? Unless you're talking to someone who really knows their political ideologies, I doubt that the average voter will see much of a problem with democracy.

He means the conversation would reveal their incompetence.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 9:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:51:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:12:31 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:05:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of ) and why?

The why is simple.
I think it was Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute with the average voter."

What's his point? Unless you're talking to someone who really knows their political ideologies, I doubt that the average voter will see much of a problem with democracy.

He means the conversation would reveal their incompetence.

Yeah, pure democracy is at the mercy of the incompetence.

To quote the antagonist from Skyfall: "A person is intelligent, but people are stupid".
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:10:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 9:17:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:51:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:12:31 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:05:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of ) and why?

The why is simple.
I think it was Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute with the average voter."

What's his point? Unless you're talking to someone who really knows their political ideologies, I doubt that the average voter will see much of a problem with democracy.

He means the conversation would reveal their incompetence.

Yeah, pure democracy is at the mercy of the incompetence.

To quote the antagonist from Skyfall: "A person is intelligent, but people are stupid".

They stole that from Men in Black (who probably stole it from someone else).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:37:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:28:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
What makes government a legitimate authority over those it governs is the fact that the governed have a say.

I would disagree, since that would mean that the government is not a legitimate authority for minors. That would also negate all other forms of authority by ownership. However, I would also say that voting is not the only way to have a say and that with no restrictions that cannot be overcome, no one is prevented from voting by anything other than themselves.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 11:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:37:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:28:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
What makes government a legitimate authority over those it governs is the fact that the governed have a say.

I would disagree, since that would mean that the government is not a legitimate authority for minors. That would also negate all other forms of authority by ownership. However, I would also say that voting is not the only way to have a say and that with no restrictions that cannot be overcome, no one is prevented from voting by anything other than themselves.

And I would counter by asserting that the government doesn't need to be a legitimate authority over minors. Granting children the authority to decide what is good for them has proven to be generally counter productive to their well being. That is why parents get the final say. That is authority by force, but we can pretty much unanimously agree it is necessary.

To advocate for the concept of a "limited" democracy is to utilize the same reasoning for society. That would work if elections were dictated by the intelligence level of the voters, but I don't believe that. Rather, it is dictated by greed and self interests. So if we want a society that is best for everyone then we need everyone to have a say in the process, unless we really believe that the voters of a particular segment of a society will vote for what is best for everyone as opposed to what is best for themselves. I find confidence in the latter to be absurd. And to anyone who disagrees tell me; Would you support a limited democracy if it meant that you are not qualified to vote?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:14:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 11:30:24 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:37:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:28:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
What makes government a legitimate authority over those it governs is the fact that the governed have a say.

I would disagree, since that would mean that the government is not a legitimate authority for minors. That would also negate all other forms of authority by ownership. However, I would also say that voting is not the only way to have a say and that with no restrictions that cannot be overcome, no one is prevented from voting by anything other than themselves.

And I would counter by asserting that the government doesn't need to be a legitimate authority over minors. Granting children the authority to decide what is good for them has proven to be generally counter productive to their well being. That is why parents get the final say. That is authority by force, but we can pretty much unanimously agree it is necessary.

Then what is the value of being "legitimate." I always took it as if it isn't legitimate, then there is no reason to follow or obey it. If you hold that a government can be illegitimate but should still be followed, then it doesn't matter if it is legitimate or not.

Also, parents are not the "final say," as we do have CPS. The government allows parents to be in control, but it still has the authority to step in when it deeps necessary. This also only supports my argument further. If you believe it is perfectly fine to deny voting ability to minors on the grounds that they are not wise enough to make a long-term informed decision, then there is no logical reason to have age be the deciding line. Any kind of aptitude test would be more accurate (though I of course would grant that it is still imperfect) to take the vote away from those that cannot figure out what is best for them and give it to those that can.


To advocate for the concept of a "limited" democracy is to utilize the same reasoning for society. That would work if elections were dictated by the intelligence level of the voters, but I don't believe that. Rather, it is dictated by greed and self interests. So if we want a society that is best for everyone then we need everyone to have a say in the process.

Do you believe our current system (not just the voting system, but all our laws, regulations, economy, etc) is what is best for everyone, or at least best for all voters?

Unless we really believe that the voters of a particular segment of a society will vote for what is best for everyone as opposed to what is best for themselves. I find confidence in the latter to be absurd.

Believe it or not, many voters do believe that what they are doing is best for all, or at least people other than themselves. People that vote to raise their own taxes are not doing it for themselves. People that vote to remove regulations from industries of which they have no interest are not doing it for themselves. Many are, and many honestly believe that what is best for them is best for the country as well.

And to anyone who disagrees tell me; Would you support a limited democracy if it meant that you are not qualified to vote?

Bit of a pointless question, as it is easy for any supporter to say "of course I would" but it is entirely different when the real choice is in front of them. However, I will say that I do not vote on everything that arrives in our mail (Oregon does voting by mail). We get things for local bonds to fund our library and we don't vote since we plan on moving to a different town with a better school district for when our daughter grows up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 8:09:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:10:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 9:17:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:51:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:12:31 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:05:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of ) and why?

The why is simple.
I think it was Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute with the average voter."

What's his point? Unless you're talking to someone who really knows their political ideologies, I doubt that the average voter will see much of a problem with democracy.

He means the conversation would reveal their incompetence.

Yeah, pure democracy is at the mercy of the incompetence.

To quote the antagonist from Skyfall: "A person is intelligent, but people are stupid".

They stole that from Men in Black (who probably stole it from someone else).

Well... that still leaves the "where" and "how" part of my original question still unanswered.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 2:33:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 8:09:21 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:10:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 9:17:01 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:51:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:12:31 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:05:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/29/2013 7:37:40 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, where and how do you draw the line (of ) and why?

The why is simple.
I think it was Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute with the average voter."

What's his point? Unless you're talking to someone who really knows their political ideologies, I doubt that the average voter will see much of a problem with democracy.

He means the conversation would reveal their incompetence.

Yeah, pure democracy is at the mercy of the incompetence.

To quote the antagonist from Skyfall: "A person is intelligent, but people are stupid".

They stole that from Men in Black (who probably stole it from someone else).

Well... that still leaves the "where" and "how" part of my original question still unanswered.

That is a the secondary question. You must first ask "is this how we want to go about it" if "yes" you can then proceed to the logistics and specifics. If "no" then those don't really matter much. So first, is it a justifiable path to venture down?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 12:56:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like the Ore/Double_R convo on governmental legitimacy. Keep it up!
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 2:54:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.

Maybe. I just know most anarchists are for decentralized decision making is all.

Though while we're on the subject, I've been seeing anarchism in a different conceptual light as of late. That is, not as something necessarily tied to geographical space. Something of an attitude, and personally speaking, an adjustment. Reading, analyzing, strategizing and rebelling against illegitimate micro and macro-casms of power within society. It concerns a space perhaps (though not of the spatio-temporal variety)---but space viewed as a hypothetical "place" (within dogmas, edicts, habits, institutional mechanisms, cultures, customs, whathaveyou) from which power springs, channels, and flourishes. Anarchism, to me, concerns the analysis and (usually) opposition to these sorts of channels of power on a broader scale than just opposition towards macrocasms of power within society (States, capitalism).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 2:55:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 2:54:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.

Maybe. I just know most anarchists are for decentralized decision making is all.

Though while we're on the subject, I've been seeing anarchism in a different conceptual light as of late. That is, not as something necessarily tied to geographical space. Something of an attitude, and personally speaking, an adjustment. Reading, analyzing, strategizing and rebelling against illegitimate micro and macro-casms of power within society. It concerns a space perhaps (though not of the spatio-temporal variety)---but space viewed as a hypothetical "place" (within dogmas, edicts, habits, institutional mechanisms, cultures, customs, whathaveyou) from which power springs, channels, and flourishes. Anarchism, to me, concerns the analysis and (usually) opposition to these sorts of channels of power on a broader scale than just opposition towards macrocasms of power within society (States, capitalism).

So it is just the typical teenage and young adult rebellion that you need to go through before you accept reality?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 2:57:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 2:55:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:54:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.

Maybe. I just know most anarchists are for decentralized decision making is all.

Though while we're on the subject, I've been seeing anarchism in a different conceptual light as of late. That is, not as something necessarily tied to geographical space. Something of an attitude, and personally speaking, an adjustment. Reading, analyzing, strategizing and rebelling against illegitimate micro and macro-casms of power within society. It concerns a space perhaps (though not of the spatio-temporal variety)---but space viewed as a hypothetical "place" (within dogmas, edicts, habits, institutional mechanisms, cultures, customs, whathaveyou) from which power springs, channels, and flourishes. Anarchism, to me, concerns the analysis and (usually) opposition to these sorts of channels of power on a broader scale than just opposition towards macrocasms of power within society (States, capitalism).

So it is just the typical teenage and young adult rebellion that you need to go through before you accept reality?

If you choose to look at it that way I can't stop you.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 3:04:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 2:57:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:55:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:54:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.

Maybe. I just know most anarchists are for decentralized decision making is all.

Though while we're on the subject, I've been seeing anarchism in a different conceptual light as of late. That is, not as something necessarily tied to geographical space. Something of an attitude, and personally speaking, an adjustment. Reading, analyzing, strategizing and rebelling against illegitimate micro and macro-casms of power within society. It concerns a space perhaps (though not of the spatio-temporal variety)---but space viewed as a hypothetical "place" (within dogmas, edicts, habits, institutional mechanisms, cultures, customs, whathaveyou) from which power springs, channels, and flourishes. Anarchism, to me, concerns the analysis and (usually) opposition to these sorts of channels of power on a broader scale than just opposition towards macrocasms of power within society (States, capitalism).

So it is just the typical teenage and young adult rebellion that you need to go through before you accept reality?

If you choose to look at it that way I can't stop you.

What I mean is that most teenagers go through a period of rebelling against authority only to later accept and become a part of it. It is a part of life that most people go through (though I never went through it, but I have a weird family history that kind of makes me more of an exception).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not meaning that as a slam or anything, though I suppose that it can appear that way. But it is a part of growing up that many go through.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 10:33:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 3:04:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:57:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:55:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:54:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.

Maybe. I just know most anarchists are for decentralized decision making is all.

Though while we're on the subject, I've been seeing anarchism in a different conceptual light as of late. That is, not as something necessarily tied to geographical space. Something of an attitude, and personally speaking, an adjustment. Reading, analyzing, strategizing and rebelling against illegitimate micro and macro-casms of power within society. It concerns a space perhaps (though not of the spatio-temporal variety)---but space viewed as a hypothetical "place" (within dogmas, edicts, habits, institutional mechanisms, cultures, customs, whathaveyou) from which power springs, channels, and flourishes. Anarchism, to me, concerns the analysis and (usually) opposition to these sorts of channels of power on a broader scale than just opposition towards macrocasms of power within society (States, capitalism).

So it is just the typical teenage and young adult rebellion that you need to go through before you accept reality?

If you choose to look at it that way I can't stop you.

What I mean is that most teenagers go through a period of rebelling against authority only to later accept and become a part of it. It is a part of life that most people go through (though I never went through it, but I have a weird family history that kind of makes me more of an exception).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not meaning that as a slam or anything, though I suppose that it can appear that way. But it is a part of growing up that many go through.

I'm not denying that that sort of thing exists. I do however vehemently oppose yer equivocation of that phenomena with an entire social-political philosophy. That sort of reductionism is not only offensive but doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the line of thoughts I'm referring to traces back to mostly middle-aged scholars and philosophers I.e., Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, etc.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:23:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 10:33:52 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 3:04:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:57:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:55:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:54:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.

Maybe. I just know most anarchists are for decentralized decision making is all.

Though while we're on the subject, I've been seeing anarchism in a different conceptual light as of late. That is, not as something necessarily tied to geographical space. Something of an attitude, and personally speaking, an adjustment. Reading, analyzing, strategizing and rebelling against illegitimate micro and macro-casms of power within society. It concerns a space perhaps (though not of the spatio-temporal variety)---but space viewed as a hypothetical "place" (within dogmas, edicts, habits, institutional mechanisms, cultures, customs, whathaveyou) from which power springs, channels, and flourishes. Anarchism, to me, concerns the analysis and (usually) opposition to these sorts of channels of power on a broader scale than just opposition towards macrocasms of power within society (States, capitalism).

So it is just the typical teenage and young adult rebellion that you need to go through before you accept reality?

If you choose to look at it that way I can't stop you.

What I mean is that most teenagers go through a period of rebelling against authority only to later accept and become a part of it. It is a part of life that most people go through (though I never went through it, but I have a weird family history that kind of makes me more of an exception).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not meaning that as a slam or anything, though I suppose that it can appear that way. But it is a part of growing up that many go through.

I'm not denying that that sort of thing exists. I do however vehemently oppose yer equivocation of that phenomena with an entire social-political philosophy. That sort of reductionism is not only offensive but doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the line of thoughts I'm referring to traces back to mostly middle-aged scholars and philosophers I.e., Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, etc.

I wasn't equivocating the entire philosophy. I was merely making an observation on how you describe you recent adjustment to opposing all forms of authority that you find illegitimate.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:44:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:23:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 10:33:52 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 3:04:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:57:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:55:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:54:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/1/2013 2:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 12:56:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:37:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think large scale elections are always inefficient and prone to abuse. When democracy is decentralized, ID or not, it's the best way to improve quality. People are better educated and energized with issues that concern them closer to home, and have less hidden complications to distort an educated vote.

Ssshhhh. No anarchists allowed.

If one is just anti federal government and state government and really anything larger than a city block, are they anarchists, or miniarchists? I have the feeling that most anarchists are just miniarchists that take a more extreme label to exemplify their rebellion to the larger governments. And I'm only changing the topic because the thread is mostly dead anyway.

Maybe. I just know most anarchists are for decentralized decision making is all.

Though while we're on the subject, I've been seeing anarchism in a different conceptual light as of late. That is, not as something necessarily tied to geographical space. Something of an attitude, and personally speaking, an adjustment. Reading, analyzing, strategizing and rebelling against illegitimate micro and macro-casms of power within society. It concerns a space perhaps (though not of the spatio-temporal variety)---but space viewed as a hypothetical "place" (within dogmas, edicts, habits, institutional mechanisms, cultures, customs, whathaveyou) from which power springs, channels, and flourishes. Anarchism, to me, concerns the analysis and (usually) opposition to these sorts of channels of power on a broader scale than just opposition towards macrocasms of power within society (States, capitalism).

So it is just the typical teenage and young adult rebellion that you need to go through before you accept reality?

If you choose to look at it that way I can't stop you.

What I mean is that most teenagers go through a period of rebelling against authority only to later accept and become a part of it. It is a part of life that most people go through (though I never went through it, but I have a weird family history that kind of makes me more of an exception).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not meaning that as a slam or anything, though I suppose that it can appear that way. But it is a part of growing up that many go through.

I'm not denying that that sort of thing exists. I do however vehemently oppose yer equivocation of that phenomena with an entire social-political philosophy. That sort of reductionism is not only offensive but doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the line of thoughts I'm referring to traces back to mostly middle-aged scholars and philosophers I.e., Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, etc.

I wasn't equivocating the entire philosophy. I was merely making an observation on how you describe you recent adjustment to opposing all forms of authority that you find illegitimate.


1) I didn't say authority, I said power. Authority is a top-down exercise of a specific domain of power. It's a type but only a subset.
2) "that you find illegitimate." I'm sure everyone finds some forms of power illegitimate. Nazism is a good common starting point there. So tying that kind of attitude down to teenage rebellion ignores the broader tendency I'm describing.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 1:50:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 1:14:58 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:30:24 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:37:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:28:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
What makes government a legitimate authority over those it governs is the fact that the governed have a say.

I would disagree, since that would mean that the government is not a legitimate authority for minors. That would also negate all other forms of authority by ownership. However, I would also say that voting is not the only way to have a say and that with no restrictions that cannot be overcome, no one is prevented from voting by anything other than themselves.

One could argue that legitimacy does not come from minors, so this would not be an issue.

And I would counter by asserting that the government doesn't need to be a legitimate authority over minors. Granting children the authority to decide what is good for them has proven to be generally counter productive to their well being. That is why parents get the final say. That is authority by force, but we can pretty much unanimously agree it is necessary.

Then what is the value of being "legitimate." I always took it as if it isn't legitimate, then there is no reason to follow or obey it. If you hold that a government can be illegitimate but should still be followed, then it doesn't matter if it is legitimate or not.

Also, parents are not the "final say," as we do have CPS. The government allows parents to be in control, but it still has the authority to step in when it deeps necessary. This also only supports my argument further. If you believe it is perfectly fine to deny voting ability to minors on the grounds that they are not wise enough to make a long-term informed decision, then there is no logical reason to have age be the deciding line. Any kind of aptitude test would be more accurate (though I of course would grant that it is still imperfect) to take the vote away from those that cannot figure out what is best for them and give it to those that can.

IMHO the problem with aptitude vs age is that the former is much more easily corruptible, whereas age, even though it may not be anywhere close to the "best" standard, is much less subject to corruption.

Essentially, think about what kind of test would gauge "aptitude" and whether or not these tests would be rewritten with the change of the party in power.

Could something this important to the electoral process be truly "independent" from political influence? I sincerely doubt it.

To advocate for the concept of a "limited" democracy is to utilize the same reasoning for society. That would work if elections were dictated by the intelligence level of the voters, but I don't believe that. Rather, it is dictated by greed and self interests. So if we want a society that is best for everyone then we need everyone to have a say in the process.

Do you believe our current system (not just the voting system, but all our laws, regulations, economy, etc) is what is best for everyone, or at least best for all voters?

Unless we really believe that the voters of a particular segment of a society will vote for what is best for everyone as opposed to what is best for themselves. I find confidence in the latter to be absurd.

Believe it or not, many voters do believe that what they are doing is best for all, or at least people other than themselves. People that vote to raise their own taxes are not doing it for themselves. People that vote to remove regulations from industries of which they have no interest are not doing it for themselves. Many are, and many honestly believe that what is best for them is best for the country as well.

And to anyone who disagrees tell me; Would you support a limited democracy if it meant that you are not qualified to vote?

Bit of a pointless question, as it is easy for any supporter to say "of course I would" but it is entirely different when the real choice is in front of them. However, I will say that I do not vote on everything that arrives in our mail (Oregon does voting by mail). We get things for local bonds to fund our library and we don't vote since we plan on moving to a different town with a better school district for when our daughter grows up.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 8:40:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 1:50:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/30/2013 1:14:58 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:30:24 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:37:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:28:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
What makes government a legitimate authority over those it governs is the fact that the governed have a say.

I would disagree, since that would mean that the government is not a legitimate authority for minors. That would also negate all other forms of authority by ownership. However, I would also say that voting is not the only way to have a say and that with no restrictions that cannot be overcome, no one is prevented from voting by anything other than themselves.

One could argue that legitimacy does not come from minors, so this would not be an issue.

And I would counter by asserting that the government doesn't need to be a legitimate authority over minors. Granting children the authority to decide what is good for them has proven to be generally counter productive to their well being. That is why parents get the final say. That is authority by force, but we can pretty much unanimously agree it is necessary.

Then what is the value of being "legitimate." I always took it as if it isn't legitimate, then there is no reason to follow or obey it. If you hold that a government can be illegitimate but should still be followed, then it doesn't matter if it is legitimate or not.

Also, parents are not the "final say," as we do have CPS. The government allows parents to be in control, but it still has the authority to step in when it deeps necessary. This also only supports my argument further. If you believe it is perfectly fine to deny voting ability to minors on the grounds that they are not wise enough to make a long-term informed decision, then there is no logical reason to have age be the deciding line. Any kind of aptitude test would be more accurate (though I of course would grant that it is still imperfect) to take the vote away from those that cannot figure out what is best for them and give it to those that can.

IMHO the problem with aptitude vs age is that the former is much more easily corruptible, whereas age, even though it may not be anywhere close to the "best" standard, is much less subject to corruption.

Essentially, think about what kind of test would gauge "aptitude" and whether or not these tests would be rewritten with the change of the party in power.

Essentially, no. I would see it as more of a logic aptitude test. Those need not be rewritten hardly ever. At most just update words to modern words.


Could something this important to the electoral process be truly "independent" from political influence? I sincerely doubt it.

Corruption (on large scales) occurs when rules are not properly set out. We can see that the government tries to worm around the constitution, but it can only go so far before being struck back. But you have things like redistricting that have virtually no meaningful guidelines and those are subject to horrendous corruption.


To advocate for the concept of a "limited" democracy is to utilize the same reasoning for society. That would work if elections were dictated by the intelligence level of the voters, but I don't believe that. Rather, it is dictated by greed and self interests. So if we want a society that is best for everyone then we need everyone to have a say in the process.

Do you believe our current system (not just the voting system, but all our laws, regulations, economy, etc) is what is best for everyone, or at least best for all voters?

Unless we really believe that the voters of a particular segment of a society will vote for what is best for everyone as opposed to what is best for themselves. I find confidence in the latter to be absurd.

Believe it or not, many voters do believe that what they are doing is best for all, or at least people other than themselves. People that vote to raise their own taxes are not doing it for themselves. People that vote to remove regulations from industries of which they have no interest are not doing it for themselves. Many are, and many honestly believe that what is best for them is best for the country as well.

And to anyone who disagrees tell me; Would you support a limited democracy if it meant that you are not qualified to vote?

Bit of a pointless question, as it is easy for any supporter to say "of course I would" but it is entirely different when the real choice is in front of them. However, I will say that I do not vote on everything that arrives in our mail (Oregon does voting by mail). We get things for local bonds to fund our library and we don't vote since we plan on moving to a different town with a better school district for when our daughter grows up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 8:55:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 8:40:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 1:50:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

IMHO the problem with aptitude vs age is that the former is much more easily corruptible, whereas age, even though it may not be anywhere close to the "best" standard, is much less subject to corruption.

Essentially, think about what kind of test would gauge "aptitude" and whether or not these tests would be rewritten with the change of the party in power.

Essentially, no. I would see it as more of a logic aptitude test. Those need not be rewritten hardly ever. At most just update words to modern words.

But then word could get out of what the answer key was...

You could say that you create a new test every year, but what if the answer key got out before voting day? Or what if certain questions were found to be discriminatory against a certain learning ailment or another? Would that negate the vote? Our legal system is quite creative with this kind of thing...

Could something this important to the electoral process be truly "independent" from political influence? I sincerely doubt it.

Corruption (on large scales) occurs when rules are not properly set out. We can see that the government tries to worm around the constitution, but it can only go so far before being struck back. But you have things like redistricting that have virtually no meaningful guidelines and those are subject to horrendous corruption.

True as this may be, I think age would be subject to much less corruptibility than either district borders or aptitude. It's not anywhere close to an accurate gauge of "suitability", but it is certainly very difficult to corrupt. If politicians were found to be illicitly getting minors to vote, I would imagine that would be an incredible scandal, with a bunch of baggage about victim-hood, morally reprehensible attempts at conniving the impressionable, etc...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 4:35:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 1:14:58 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:30:24 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:37:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:28:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
What makes government a legitimate authority over those it governs is the fact that the governed have a say.

I would disagree, since that would mean that the government is not a legitimate authority for minors. That would also negate all other forms of authority by ownership. However, I would also say that voting is not the only way to have a say and that with no restrictions that cannot be overcome, no one is prevented from voting by anything other than themselves.

And I would counter by asserting that the government doesn't need to be a legitimate authority over minors. Granting children the authority to decide what is good for them has proven to be generally counter productive to their well being. That is why parents get the final say. That is authority by force, but we can pretty much unanimously agree it is necessary.

Then what is the value of being "legitimate." I always took it as if it isn't legitimate, then there is no reason to follow or obey it. If you hold that a government can be illegitimate but should still be followed, then it doesn't matter if it is legitimate or not.

I only said that it doesn't need to be legitimate to minors. As far as adults are concerned, it is legitimate to them. That in addition to what has already been sad is the exact formula society needs to function in such a way that is oriented towards improving the lives of everyone.

And as far as your objection to why being illegitimate to minors is not a contradiction, I would say it is not for the same reasons as why we treat children differently in every other sense. If you reported your child missing and the police found him walking down the street, they would detain him until you could arrive to pick him up regardless of whether the child wanted to go home with you or not. They would in a sense, treat him as if he were your property. If we apply the same thinking to a scenario of one adult over another, the term slavery would come to mind.

We don't treat children the same way as adults in anything involving responsibility. Government participation is no different.

Also, parents are not the "final say," as we do have CPS. The government allows parents to be in control, but it still has the authority to step in when it deeps necessary. This also only supports my argument further.

I never said Parents are the end all be all when it comes to raising children, I merely pointed out the fact that the decisions of their children are not what ultimately decide the conditions of their well being.

If you believe it is perfectly fine to deny voting ability to minors on the grounds that they are not wise enough to make a long-term informed decision, then there is no logical reason to have age be the deciding line. Any kind of aptitude test would be more accurate (though I of course would grant that it is still imperfect) to take the vote away from those that cannot figure out what is best for them and give it to those that can.

There is a very big difference between stopping someone from participating in politics because they do not meet the necessary conditions to vote, and stopping someone from participating in politics because they do not meet the necessary conditions to vote yet.

To advocate for the concept of a "limited" democracy is to utilize the same reasoning for society. That would work if elections were dictated by the intelligence level of the voters, but I don't believe that. Rather, it is dictated by greed and self interests. So if we want a society that is best for everyone then we need everyone to have a say in the process.

Do you believe our current system (not just the voting system, but all our laws, regulations, economy, etc) is what is best for everyone, or at least best for all voters?

Best for all voters? Of course not. "Best for everyone" is an overall concept.

Unless we really believe that the voters of a particular segment of a society will vote for what is best for everyone as opposed to what is best for themselves. I find confidence in the latter to be absurd.

Believe it or not, many voters do believe that what they are doing is best for all, or at least people other than themselves. People that vote to raise their own taxes are not doing it for themselves. People that vote to remove regulations from industries of which they have no interest are not doing it for themselves. Many are, and many honestly believe that what is best for them is best for the country as well.

Sure, many people do what is best for others then for themselves. Do you really have confidence that the *majority* of people will vote that way?

And to anyone who disagrees tell me; Would you support a limited democracy if it meant that you are not qualified to vote?

Bit of a pointless question, as it is easy for any supporter to say "of course I would" but it is entirely different when the real choice is in front of them. However, I will say that I do not vote on everything that arrives in our mail (Oregon does voting by mail). We get things for local bonds to fund our library and we don't vote since we plan on moving to a different town with a better school district for when our daughter grows up.

It's not a pointless question. The purpose is to challenge those who support the concept to think about what their true motivations are. I have a hard time believing anyone would say that the intelligence/education requirement to vote should be above their own.