Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sophosarchia

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:48:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have been asked a number of times in the past about what Sophosarchia is but never got around to it, so I figured, what the hey, why not now?

Sophosarchia is a governmental philosophy (such as democracy, republic, constitutional, or dictatorship) that many would classify as a form of limited democracy. Now, many people hear "limited democracy" and instantly freak out, after all, most of us have been raised that democracy is ideal and so more democracy = good, and less democracy = bad. But we are already in a limited democracy, be it a constitutional democracy. What we can do with the democracy is limited by the constitution (if the vote of the people and the constitution butt heads, the constitution wins, e.g. Prop 8).

The way in which Sophosarchia limits democracy is that only the "knowledgeable" are allowed to vote. There are two key points to this.

1) Measurements of "knowledge" must measure direct intelligence. Many might argue that these can have indirect racial impacts. If african americans are not as knowledgeable, they will disproportionately be not allowed to vote. However, so long as the measurements are directly measuring knowledge, this is acceptable within the philosophy. Things that attempt to INDIRECTLY measure knowledge would be a violation and so, not fall under the philosophy (such as saying, kids are less knowledgeable, so you have to be at least X years old, that is directly measuring age in an attempt to indirectly measure knowledge)

2) Every citizen must be allowed, every election, to attempt to show that they are knowledgeable or not. As such, no one would be restricted to not have an opportunity.

If these factors change, then the system has degraded into something else (probably a different form of democracy). Since the term "knowledge" is very loose, so long as #1 is upheld, there can be a wide array of measurements that could mean a number of factions within Sophosarchia that each have their own view of how to do things (just like their are in every ideology) as well as what system it would work best in.

Such a system would be compatible with most political ideologies, such as conservatism, liberalism, progressivism (I know, not a word, just wanted to keep with the "ism"s), and some branches of libertarianism.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:18:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:48:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I have been asked a number of times in the past about what Sophosarchia is but never got around to it, so I figured, what the hey, why not now?

Sophosarchia is a governmental philosophy (such as democracy, republic, constitutional, or dictatorship) that many would classify as a form of limited democracy. Now, many people hear "limited democracy" and instantly freak out, after all, most of us have been raised that democracy is ideal and so more democracy = good, and less democracy = bad. But we are already in a limited democracy, be it a constitutional democracy. What we can do with the democracy is limited by the constitution (if the vote of the people and the constitution butt heads, the constitution wins, e.g. Prop 8).

The way in which Sophosarchia limits democracy is that only the "knowledgeable" are allowed to vote. There are two key points to this.

1) Measurements of "knowledge" must measure direct intelligence. Many might argue that these can have indirect racial impacts. If african americans are not as knowledgeable, they will disproportionately be not allowed to vote. However, so long as the measurements are directly measuring knowledge, this is acceptable within the philosophy. Things that attempt to INDIRECTLY measure knowledge would be a violation and so, not fall under the philosophy (such as saying, kids are less knowledgeable, so you have to be at least X years old, that is directly measuring age in an attempt to indirectly measure knowledge)

2) Every citizen must be allowed, every election, to attempt to show that they are knowledgeable or not. As such, no one would be restricted to not have an opportunity.

If these factors change, then the system has degraded into something else (probably a different form of democracy). Since the term "knowledge" is very loose, so long as #1 is upheld, there can be a wide array of measurements that could mean a number of factions within Sophosarchia that each have their own view of how to do things (just like their are in every ideology) as well as what system it would work best in.

Such a system would be compatible with most political ideologies, such as conservatism, liberalism, progressivism (I know, not a word, just wanted to keep with the "ism"s), and some branches of libertarianism.

I think this would be too susceptible to corruption. Instead, I think we should allow all citizens to vote, but use eugenics to ensure that citizens are smart enough for it to work.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:44:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:27:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Knowledge restrictions? Talk about a pretext for eugenics....

Nothing inherently wrong with that. Just depends on how it is done. But no, it is not a precoursor for eugenics.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:51:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:18:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:48:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I have been asked a number of times in the past about what Sophosarchia is but never got around to it, so I figured, what the hey, why not now?

Sophosarchia is a governmental philosophy (such as democracy, republic, constitutional, or dictatorship) that many would classify as a form of limited democracy. Now, many people hear "limited democracy" and instantly freak out, after all, most of us have been raised that democracy is ideal and so more democracy = good, and less democracy = bad. But we are already in a limited democracy, be it a constitutional democracy. What we can do with the democracy is limited by the constitution (if the vote of the people and the constitution butt heads, the constitution wins, e.g. Prop 8).

The way in which Sophosarchia limits democracy is that only the "knowledgeable" are allowed to vote. There are two key points to this.

1) Measurements of "knowledge" must measure direct intelligence. Many might argue that these can have indirect racial impacts. If african americans are not as knowledgeable, they will disproportionately be not allowed to vote. However, so long as the measurements are directly measuring knowledge, this is acceptable within the philosophy. Things that attempt to INDIRECTLY measure knowledge would be a violation and so, not fall under the philosophy (such as saying, kids are less knowledgeable, so you have to be at least X years old, that is directly measuring age in an attempt to indirectly measure knowledge)

2) Every citizen must be allowed, every election, to attempt to show that they are knowledgeable or not. As such, no one would be restricted to not have an opportunity.

If these factors change, then the system has degraded into something else (probably a different form of democracy). Since the term "knowledge" is very loose, so long as #1 is upheld, there can be a wide array of measurements that could mean a number of factions within Sophosarchia that each have their own view of how to do things (just like their are in every ideology) as well as what system it would work best in.

Such a system would be compatible with most political ideologies, such as conservatism, liberalism, progressivism (I know, not a word, just wanted to keep with the "ism"s), and some branches of libertarianism.

I think this would be too susceptible to corruption. Instead, I think we should allow all citizens to vote, but use eugenics to ensure that citizens are smart enough for it to work.

I absolutely understand to concern in that regards. Such as "who is qualified to determine knowledge?"

The same could be asked of any ultimate governing entity. What made the founding fathers qualified to write the constitution? Whatelse anyone qualified to make amendments to it now? Truly, nothing does. The FFs were a group of like minded (like minded enough, they of course weren't complwtely the same) who did there best with no ulterior motives.

The issue that I see through history is that nearly all forms of suppression and violence are caused by rallying the uneducated through fear or other emotions that are not logical.

If politicians cannot just put a picture of an 1880's Mexican stereotype gangster and say "think of the children, keep them out of our country" (or various other utterly depressing political ploys) in order to push their agenda, they will have less success manipulating the government and as such, less success manipulating our tax dollars.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:55:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would think Dumb people would rightly have cause for dissatisfaction with such a system, since they'd have no representation whatsoever.

and dumbness (I would think) can run in geographic areas... as well
causing the relative disenfranchisement of one area compared to another...

and it's all well and good to say that you'd rather have smart people making the important decisions, but if the people who live in Manhattan get 10X the vote of the people who live in the bronx, that might just end up landing in the people of the Bronx getting unjustly shafted when the manhattanites vote only for things beneficial to Manhattan.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:55:22 PM, mortsdor wrote:
I would think Dumb people would rightly have cause for dissatisfaction with such a system, since they'd have no representation whatsoever.


and dumbness (I would think) can run in geographic areas... as well
causing the relative disenfranchisement of one area compared to another...

and it's all well and good to say that you'd rather have smart people making the important decisions, but if the people who live in Manhattan get 10X the vote of the people who live in the bronx, that might just end up landing in the people of the Bronx getting unjustly shafted when the manhattanites vote only for things beneficial to Manhattan.

I suppose that particular issue might be mended by fixing a set votes for a given population, and weighing votes to match that alotted for the given population.

However, dumness also runs in other relevant patterns among a populace that may be more difficult to address, and would similarly allow for potential of certain people being relatively ignored.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 5:11:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:55:22 PM, mortsdor wrote:
I would think Dumb people would rightly have cause for dissatisfaction with such a system, since they'd have no representation whatsoever.

That would depend on if you believed that "dumb" people (I would, of course, never use such a word to describe them) always stay dumb. After all, according to the guide lines, they can re-test to gain the ability. It is not too hard to study up and make yourself more knowledgeable about any subject if you really want to.



and dumbness (I would think) can run in geographic areas... as well
causing the relative disenfranchisement of one area compared to another...

and it's all well and good to say that you'd rather have smart people making the important decisions, but if the people who live in Manhattan get 10X the vote of the people who live in the bronx, that might just end up landing in the people of the Bronx getting unjustly shafted when the manhattanites vote only for things beneficial to Manhattan.

I would personally speculate that if the overly emotional and unknowledgeable voters were not voting, there would be far less "vote for what I want" results.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:33:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

I like your polar bear.
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:38:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:33:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

I like your polar bear.

lol thanks :)
Tsar of DDO
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:42:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is "direct knowledge," - political knowledge, or advanced political opinions, or what? How will this be quantified? How will an acceptable quantity of knowledge be determined? And how is this not just giving richer people, who are likely to be better educated, more rights?
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 10:51:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

That's is categorically false. We already have a limited democracy, as pointed out. The ability to vote is restricted based on age and criminal status. Saying "everyone has a right to vote" is not representative of our current system. Stating that democracies change and that is okay is an appeal to novelty. Though I could just argue that is should be the next change.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 11:19:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:42:42 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
What is "direct knowledge," - political knowledge, or advanced political opinions, or what? How will this be quantified? How will an acceptable quantity of knowledge be determined? And how is this not just giving richer people, who are likely to be better educated, more rights?

That was poor wording on my part and I do apologize. I did not mean "measure direct intellegence" but rather "directly measure intellegence," as opposed to measuring other factors in hopes that they indirectly measure intellegence or knowledge, such as the current age restriction. I don't think it to too far of a stretch to say that the average over 17 year old is more knowledgable than the average below 18 year old, but applying an age restriction in order to filter out those without knowledge would be an indirect measurement and a violation of the philosophy.

Now, I intentionally left "how" it is measured blank, because I don not pretend to assume that my thoughts on it are the only possible ways to do it, so it is open for alternatives. However, my personal thoughts would be an evaluation that focused solely upon the understanding of logic and recognizing fallacies. I've also gone back and forth on evaluating a basic understanding on how the government functions, however that may cause the evaluation process to constantly be in need of updates which risks access for manipulation, while logic does not change, so there will not be need for constant changes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:06:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:51:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:18:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:48:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I have been asked a number of times in the past about what Sophosarchia is but never got around to it, so I figured, what the hey, why not now?

Sophosarchia is a governmental philosophy (such as democracy, republic, constitutional, or dictatorship) that many would classify as a form of limited democracy. Now, many people hear "limited democracy" and instantly freak out, after all, most of us have been raised that democracy is ideal and so more democracy = good, and less democracy = bad. But we are already in a limited democracy, be it a constitutional democracy. What we can do with the democracy is limited by the constitution (if the vote of the people and the constitution butt heads, the constitution wins, e.g. Prop 8).

The way in which Sophosarchia limits democracy is that only the "knowledgeable" are allowed to vote. There are two key points to this.

1) Measurements of "knowledge" must measure direct intelligence.

What does this mean? What kind of knowledge are we talking about? Business? Political? Social? Cultural? Do you just have to show competence in one area? I mean the ideal would be to have knowledge about it all, but at that point we are talking about a select few people. There are to many kinds of knowledge out there.

Many might argue that these can have indirect racial impacts. If african americans are not as knowledgeable, they will disproportionately be not allowed to vote. However, so long as the measurements are directly measuring knowledge, this is acceptable within the philosophy.

African Americans may not have the kind of knowledge the government tests for, but they may have knowledge of other kind which is equally as useful in a given society; even felons have knowledge which, while it may not fall under your definition of useful knowledge, could be useful in the analysis of military dictatorships and how internal politics work.

Things that attempt to INDIRECTLY measure knowledge would be a violation and so, not fall under the philosophy (such as saying, kids are less knowledgeable, so you have to be at least X years old, that is directly measuring age in an attempt to indirectly measure knowledge)

2) Every citizen must be allowed, every election, to attempt to show that they are knowledgeable or not. As such, no one would be restricted to not have an opportunity.

Who designs this test? What are they testing exactly?


If these factors change, then the system has degraded into something else (probably a different form of democracy). Since the term "knowledge" is very loose, so long as #1 is upheld, there can be a wide array of measurements that could mean a number of factions within Sophosarchia that each have their own view of how to do things (just like their are in every ideology) as well as what system it would work best in.

So, how would anything happen? Everything would be bogged down in the determining-who-should-vote stage. Regardless, we need one measurement to determine who can vote or not; not a million or else the politicians are blatantly choosing their own voters based on how districts are drawn (which could still happen); factions of one would develop.


Such a system would be compatible with most political ideologies, such as conservatism, liberalism, progressivism (I know, not a word, just wanted to keep with the "ism"s), and some branches of libertarianism.

I think this would be too susceptible to corruption. Instead, I think we should allow all citizens to vote, but use eugenics to ensure that citizens are smart enough for it to work.

I absolutely understand to concern in that regards. Such as "who is qualified to determine knowledge?"

The same could be asked of any ultimate governing entity. What made the founding fathers qualified to write the constitution? Whatelse anyone qualified to make amendments to it now? Truly, nothing does. The FFs were a group of like minded (like minded enough, they of course weren't complwtely the same) who did there best with no ulterior motives.

The constitution was a governing document. It laid out the rights that citizens enjoyed. You are determining how the elected officials who act under that document will be selected (unless of course knowledgable citizens will be approving all decisions; that changes things slightly.) Two very different things. You are simultaneously providing profit-motivated actors a position, and something they can manipulate to keep that position (many congress people serve for decades). People who rise far up the political ladder are generally greedier, more cut-throat, and more willing to do what they must to keep their power. It takes a certain kind of personality to win political office, sadly that personality is generally found in the not-so-good people. Nice people do not become political power players. There are exceptions, but they do not redefine the rule. Why are we giving these people the authority to determine how they are selected?

The issue that I see through history is that nearly all forms of suppression and violence are caused by rallying the uneducated through fear or other emotions that are not logical.

How does your system change anything? It's not as if the uneducated will cease to exist. If anything, you are going to see some populist leader rise up leading to political instability. The uneducated will not like the fact they can't vote, or will be manipulated into believing that by some populist leader. It may even devolve into civil war (disenfranchising or not enfranchising a significant portion of the population will do that.) Educated people can still push people towards violence and suppression. This does not stop a government entity from encouraging suppression and violence or actively suppressing and committing acts of violence itself. And educated people themselves can be rallied towards suppression and violence. China is a good example. Very well-educated, college students participated in the purges -- after Mao Zedong announced a new "campaign" and mobilized the country behind him -- of those denounced as "rightists" by the Chinese Communist Party during the post-revolutionary period, and most acutely, during the Cultural Revolution.

If politicians cannot just put a picture of an 1880's Mexican stereotype gangster and say "think of the children, keep them out of our country" (or various other utterly depressing political ploys) in order to push their agenda, they will have less success manipulating the government and as such, less success manipulating our tax dollars.

They still can though and since we have a smaller electorate, each individual being manipulated matters much more. Fear is a powerful emotion; even to the educated. Emotions can cause even the most educated and most intelligent people to make irrational decisions. And politicians are experts at manipulating emotions (that's basically their job: manipulating as many people as they can into voting for them at the polls.)
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:17:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 10:51:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

That's is categorically false. We already have a limited democracy, as pointed out. The ability to vote is restricted based on age and criminal status. Saying "everyone has a right to vote" is not representative of our current system.

I suppose that's one view to take, although the age of majority and criminal status are not really "impediments" to individuals' right to vote. Children have the right to vote; it is only that they cannot exercise that right until they turn 18. In the same way, criminals 'had' the right to vote, but they lost the right to exercise through volitional acts of their own (read: committing crimes).

The debate about whether kids and convicted criminals should be allowed to vote vote certainly isn't settled, but the fact that we don't allow babies to cast ballots or open the polls in prison doesn't mean that a democracy is not "sufficiently democratic." So, while I applaud your concern for children and criminals as "underrepresented minorities," it's a generally misplaced sentiment.

Stating that democracies change and that is okay is an appeal to novelty.

And so.... your point is? The fact that Americans watch entertainment-news to get their information is not a reason why the polls should only be open to those who can pass certain tests.

Though I could just argue that is should be the next change.

You could, and I'll argue that it's been tried before, to disastrous ends ;)
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 1:42:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 8:17:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:51:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

That's is categorically false. We already have a limited democracy, as pointed out. The ability to vote is restricted based on age and criminal status. Saying "everyone has a right to vote" is not representative of our current system.

I suppose that's one view to take, although the age of majority and criminal status are not really "impediments" to individuals' right to vote. Children have the right to vote; it is only that they cannot exercise that right until they turn 18. In the same way, criminals 'had' the right to vote, but they lost the right to exercise through volitional acts of their own (read: committing crimes).

That's just semantics. I could easily say that everyone has the right to vote, but only those that pass a "test" are allowed to exercise it.


The debate about whether kids and convicted criminals should be allowed to vote vote certainly isn't settled, but the fact that we don't allow babies to cast ballots or open the polls in prison doesn't mean that a democracy is not "sufficiently democratic." So, while I applaud your concern for children and criminals as "underrepresented minorities," it's a generally misplaced sentiment.

Stating that democracies change and that is okay is an appeal to novelty.

And so.... your point is? The fact that Americans watch entertainment-news to get their information is not a reason why the polls should only be open to those who can pass certain tests.

My point is that your initial claim that things change and change is good is lacking logic.


Though I could just argue that is should be the next change.

You could, and I'll argue that it's been tried before, to disastrous ends ;)

So has democracy, it has failed before, numerous times, does that mean that all democracy is a failure? Of course, I would love to see your examples of where this system has been tried and has failed, on any large scale.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 1:58:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:06:54 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:51:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:18:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:48:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I have been asked a number of times in the past about what Sophosarchia is but never got around to it, so I figured, what the hey, why not now?


The way in which Sophosarchia limits democracy is that only the "knowledgeable" are allowed to vote. There are two key points to this.

1) Measurements of "knowledge" must measure direct intelligence.

What does this mean? What kind of knowledge are we talking about? Business? Political? Social? Cultural? Do you just have to show competence in one area? I mean the ideal would be to have knowledge about it all, but at that point we are talking about a select few people. There are to many kinds of knowledge out there.

This is open to the individual Sophosarchist to determine. The philosophy does not have a set knowledge. For me, it is a moderate ability to use logic and recognize poor logic. But different Sophosarchists may have different views.

Many might argue that these can have indirect racial impacts. If african americans are not as knowledgeable, they will disproportionately be not allowed to vote. However, so long as the measurements are directly measuring knowledge, this is acceptable within the philosophy.

African Americans may not have the kind of knowledge the government tests for, but they may have knowledge of other kind which is equally as useful in a given society; even felons have knowledge which, while it may not fall under your definition of useful knowledge, could be useful in the analysis of military dictatorships and how internal politics work.

That is very true, which is why I believe in a minimal test that doesn't go over individual topics.


Things that attempt to INDIRECTLY measure knowledge would be a violation and so, not fall under the philosophy (such as saying, kids are less knowledgeable, so you have to be at least X years old, that is directly measuring age in an attempt to indirectly measure knowledge)

2) Every citizen must be allowed, every election, to attempt to show that they are knowledgeable or not. As such, no one would be restricted to not have an opportunity.

Who designs this test? What are they testing exactly?


If these factors change, then the system has degraded into something else (probably a different form of democracy). Since the term "knowledge" is very loose, so long as #1 is upheld, there can be a wide array of measurements that could mean a number of factions within Sophosarchia that each have their own view of how to do things (just like their are in every ideology) as well as what system it would work best in.

So, how would anything happen? Everything would be bogged down in the determining-who-should-vote stage. Regardless, we need one measurement to determine who can vote or not; not a million or else the politicians are blatantly choosing their own voters based on how districts are drawn (which could still happen); factions of one would develop.

That is true, it would need to be a single test, rather than each county doing it their own way.


Such a system would be compatible with most political ideologies, such as conservatism, liberalism, progressivism (I know, not a word, just wanted to keep with the "ism"s), and some branches of libertarianism.

I think this would be too susceptible to corruption. Instead, I think we should allow all citizens to vote, but use eugenics to ensure that citizens are smart enough for it to work.

I absolutely understand to concern in that regards. Such as "who is qualified to determine knowledge?"

The same could be asked of any ultimate governing entity. What made the founding fathers qualified to write the constitution? Whatelse anyone qualified to make amendments to it now? Truly, nothing does. The FFs were a group of like minded (like minded enough, they of course weren't complwtely the same) who did there best with no ulterior motives.

The constitution was a governing document. It laid out the rights that citizens enjoyed. You are determining how the elected officials who act under that document will be selected (unless of course knowledgable citizens will be approving all decisions; that changes things slightly.) Two very different things. You are simultaneously providing profit-motivated actors a position, and something they can manipulate to keep that position (many congress people serve for decades). People who rise far up the political ladder are generally greedier, more cut-throat, and more willing to do what they must to keep their power. It takes a certain kind of personality to win political office, sadly that personality is generally found in the not-so-good people. Nice people do not become political power players. There are exceptions, but they do not redefine the rule. Why are we giving these people the authority to determine how they are selected?

I would disagree. These people use the uneducated and emotional as tools they manipulate to gain and maintain power. I suggest taking that took away from them.


The issue that I see through history is that nearly all forms of suppression and violence are caused by rallying the uneducated through fear or other emotions that are not logical.

How does your system change anything? It's not as if the uneducated will cease to exist. If anything, you are going to see some populist leader rise up leading to political instability. The uneducated will not like the fact they can't vote, or will be manipulated into believing that by some populist leader. It may even devolve into civil war (disenfranchising or not enfranchising a significant portion of the population will do that.) Educated people can still push people towards violence and suppression. This does not stop a government entity from encouraging suppression and violence or actively suppressing and committing acts of violence itself. And educated people themselves can be rallied towards suppression and violence. China is a good example. Very well-educated, college students participated in the purges -- after Mao Zedong announced a new "campaign" and mobilized the country behind him -- of those denounced as "rightists" by the Chinese Communist Party during the post-revolutionary period, and most acutely, during the Cultural Revolution.

I'm not suggesting that knowledgable people are perfect and will never make mistakes, only that they will make fewer than the open population. in order for a civil war, or populist leader to really gain any movement, that would require a majority of people to be unable to vote. To prevent this, it creates an incentive for the voters to make as many people educated as possible, which has the additional benefits of helping the economy as well as overall happiness in people's lives.


If politicians cannot just put a picture of an 1880's Mexican stereotype gangster and say "think of the children, keep them out of our country" (or various other utterly depressing political ploys) in order to push their agenda, they will have less success manipulating the government and as such, less success manipulating our tax dollars.

They still can though and since we have a smaller electorate, each individual being manipulated matters much more. Fear is a powerful emotion; even to the educated. Emotions can cause even the most educated and most intelligent people to make irrational decisions. And politicians are experts at manipulating emotions (that's basically their job: manipulating as many people as they can into voting for them at the polls.)

It will be harder for them. The reason they don't currently target the knowledgeable is because th
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:06:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What does this mean? What kind of knowledge are we talking about?

This is open to the individual Sophosarchist to determine. The philosophy does not have a set knowledge. For me, it is a moderate ability to use logic and recognize poor logic. But different Sophosarchists may have different views.

If the political philosophy cannot be implemented, what is the point of it's development? We're trying to determine how society and government should be structured. You propose a broad easily interpretable and manipulated system by the test makers.


That is very true, which is why I believe in a minimal test that doesn't go over individual topics.

If it is only a logic test, then how does this change anything? Someone can be logical and still be ignorant about politics. Someone can be uneducated and dumb, but still be logical. Formal logic is useless without actual information. Take physicists. Very logical people. May not know the first thing about governing. Doctors. Very logical. Very smart. May know nothing about government.

2) Every citizen must be allowed, every election, to attempt to show that they are knowledgeable or not. As such, no one would be restricted to not have an opportunity.

If these factors change, then the system has degraded into something else (probably a different form of democracy). Since the term "knowledge" is very loose, so long as #1 is upheld, there can be a wide array of measurements that could mean a number of factions within Sophosarchia that each have their own view of how to do things (just like their are in every ideology) as well as what system it would work best in.

So, how would anything happen? Everything would be bogged down in the determining-who-should-vote stage. Regardless, we need one measurement to determine who can vote or not; not a million or else the politicians are blatantly choosing their own voters based on how districts are drawn (which could still happen); factions of one would develop.

That is true, it would need to be a single test, rather than each county doing it their own way.

Who will create the test? Elected officials (who generally want to keep power at all costs)?

Such a system would be compatible with most political ideologies, such as conservatism, liberalism, progressivism (I know, not a word, just wanted to keep with the "ism"s), and some branches of libertarianism.

I think this would be too susceptible to corruption. Instead, I think we should allow all citizens to vote, but use eugenics to ensure that citizens are smart enough for it to work.

I absolutely understand to concern in that regards. Such as "who is qualified to determine knowledge?"

The same could be asked of any ultimate governing entity. What made the founding fathers qualified to write the constitution? Whatelse anyone qualified to make amendments to it now? Truly, nothing does. The FFs were a group of like minded (like minded enough, they of course weren't complwtely the same) who did there best with no ulterior motives.

The constitution was a governing document. It laid out the rights that citizens enjoyed. You are determining how the elected officials who act under that document will be selected (unless of course knowledgable citizens will be approving all decisions; that changes things slightly.) Two very different things. You are simultaneously providing profit-motivated actors a position, and something they can manipulate to keep that position (many congress people serve for decades). People who rise far up the political ladder are generally greedier, more cut-throat, and more willing to do what they must to keep their power. It takes a certain kind of personality to win political office, sadly that personality is generally found in the not-so-good people. Nice people do not become political power players. There are exceptions, but they do not redefine the rule. Why are we giving these people the authority to determine how they are selected?

I would disagree. These people use the uneducated and emotional as tools they manipulate to gain and maintain power. I suggest taking that took away from them.

They also gerrymander ("select their own voters.") Power-hungry individuals will still be able to use the uneducated and emotional (we are all emotional creatures though) as political pawns (how they will be used, well that's a lengthy topic).

The issue that I see through history is that nearly all forms of suppression and violence are caused by rallying the uneducated through fear or other emotions that are not logical.

How does your system change anything? It's not as if the uneducated will cease to exist. If anything, you are going to see some populist leader rise up leading to political instability. The uneducated will not like the fact they can't vote, or will be manipulated into believing that by some populist leader. It may even devolve into civil war (disenfranchising or not enfranchising a significant portion of the population will do that.) Educated people can still push people towards violence and suppression. This does not stop a government entity from encouraging suppression and violence or actively suppressing and committing acts of violence itself. And educated people themselves can be rallied towards suppression and violence. China is a good example. Very well-educated, college students participated in the purges -- after Mao Zedong announced a new "campaign" and mobilized the country behind him -- of those denounced as "rightists" by the Chinese Communist Party during the post-revolutionary period, and most acutely, during the Cultural Revolution.

I'm not suggesting that knowledgable people are perfect and will never make mistakes, only that they will make fewer than the open population. in order for a civil war, or populist leader to really gain any movement, that would require a majority of people to be unable to vote. To prevent this, it creates an incentive for the voters to make as many people educated as possible, which has the additional benefits of helping the economy as well as overall happiness in people's lives.

Your proposal will take quite a bit of time and it doesn't take a majority to cause political instability. In most revolutions and civil wars, just a tiny fraction of the population actively participate. All it takes is a very charismatic leader to use discontent to their advantage. Take China: only a small minority actively participated during their revolutionary period. Same deal in Russia. Same deal in the US. Same thing happened in much of western Europe.

If politicians cannot just put a picture of an 1880's Mexican stereotype gangster and say "think of the children, keep them out of our country" (or various other utterly depressing political ploys) in order to push their agenda, they will have less success manipulating the government and as such, less success manipulating our tax dollars.

They still can though and since we have a smaller electorate, each individual being manipulated matters much more. Fear is a powerful emotion; even to the educated. Emotions can cause even the most educated and most intelligent people to make irrational decisions. And politicians are experts at manipulating emotions (that's basically their job: manipulating as many people as they can into voting for them at the polls.

If you're in a country of 100 people and 10 educated people are eligible to vote. To sway an election, a politician must really only manipulate 1 or 2 people through emotion. That's not unreasonable. I think 1 to 2% of educated people can be manipulated. Also, what stops the educated people who now have absolute political power from immediately using political power to oppress the uneducated to ensure they remain the only political actor? Authoritarian and totalitarian regim
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:42:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 1:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:17:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:51:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

That's is categorically false. We already have a limited democracy, as pointed out. The ability to vote is restricted based on age and criminal status. Saying "everyone has a right to vote" is not representative of our current system.

I suppose that's one view to take, although the age of majority and criminal status are not really "impediments" to individuals' right to vote. Children have the right to vote; it is only that they cannot exercise that right until they turn 18. In the same way, criminals 'had' the right to vote, but they lost the right to exercise through volitional acts of their own (read: committing crimes).

That's just semantics. I could easily say that everyone has the right to vote, but only those that pass a "test" are allowed to exercise it.

Actually, it's not semantics. It's hugely conceptually different. The age of majority is not an impediment to voting rights. In a similar way, the fact that convicted felons cannot vote does not mean that they never had the right. With children, they will have the right to vote once they meet the age of majority. With felons, they once had the right to vote because of actions that they took which cost them that right -again: "committing crimes for which they were convicted."

So... your point is pretty much dead in the water.

The debate about whether kids and convicted criminals should be allowed to vote vote certainly isn't settled, but the fact that we don't allow babies to cast ballots or open the polls in prison doesn't mean that a democracy is not "sufficiently democratic." So, while I applaud your concern for children and criminals as "underrepresented minorities," it's a generally misplaced sentiment.

Stating that democracies change and that is okay is an appeal to novelty.

And so.... your point is? The fact that Americans watch entertainment-news to get their information is not a reason why the polls should only be open to those who can pass certain tests.

My point is that your initial claim that things change and change is good is lacking logic.

When I said "things change," I was referring to a specific kind of thing: how people access their political information. I grant you that there are some problems with entertainment-media pretending to be news, but the immanent issue is whether those problems justify restricting the right to vote -which they (those problems) do not.

Not everyone has equal access to quality information. There are huge income gaps between those who consume print media, for example, and those who consume visual media. Those of the former category tend to be wealthier, and those of the latter case tend to be considerably less so. Even still, just because people have access to media of a higher quality does not mean that they are going to spend time digesting it.

However, realize (and I'm sort of surprised that this point is apparently lost upon you) that I am not saying that "change" of the specific kind I was talking about (again, entertainment media) is "good" in any way. It's better than, say, outright Goebbels-style indoctrination, but it's not "good" in the sense that punditry is overlapping with hard journalism in insidious, probably detrimental ways. So, at least on that point, we agree.

Though I could just argue that is should be the next change.

You could, and I'll argue that it's been tried before, to disastrous ends ;)

So has democracy, it has failed before, numerous times, does that mean that all democracy is a failure? Of course, I would love to see your examples of where this system has been tried and has failed, on any large scale.

I'm not sure where you got that idea... or what you're even talking about here...
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 7:59:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:06:07 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
What does this mean? What kind of knowledge are we talking about?

This is open to the individual Sophosarchist to determine. The philosophy does not have a set knowledge. For me, it is a moderate ability to use logic and recognize poor logic. But different Sophosarchists may have different views.

If the political philosophy cannot be implemented, what is the point of it's development? We're trying to determine how society and government should be structured. You propose a broad easily interpretable and manipulated system by the test makers.

As said, my personal views are much narrower, but just like "democracy" have a very wide definition that has a number of different sub groups within. You can't just say a society runs by democracy and call it accurate enough.


That is very true, which is why I believe in a minimal test that doesn't go over individual topics.

If it is only a logic test, then how does this change anything? Someone can be logical and still be ignorant about politics. Someone can be uneducated and dumb, but still be logical. Formal logic is useless without actual information. Take physicists. Very logical people. May not know the first thing about governing. Doctors. Very logical. Very smart. May know nothing about government.

They don't need to. That's the point. They only need to understand how logic works to help counter most forms of political manipulation. This is not an attempt to make sure only "experts" are voting. Just to remove the tools of the manipulators. This will make it a better and safer political landscape for those "few good politicians" you mentioned earlier.


That is true, it would need to be a single test, rather than each county doing it their own way.

Who will create the test? Elected officials (who generally want to keep power at all costs)?

Let's take a trip back to 1787, when a group of guys were sitting down and coming up with the structure of a new government and something called the constitution. What made them the "trustworthy" folks that they wouldn't just tweet the constitution to their own benefit and political power?

The easy answer, as it is with all governments is risks of revolution. If the people in power screw over the rest of the people, they will be forced out with guns, rather than votes.


The constitution was a governing document. It laid out the rights that citizens enjoyed. You are determining how the elected officials who act under that document will be selected (unless of course knowledgable citizens will be approving all decisions; that changes things slightly.) Two very different things. You are simultaneously providing profit-motivated actors a position, and something they can manipulate to keep that position (many congress people serve for decades). People who rise far up the political ladder are generally greedier, more cut-throat, and more willing to do what they must to keep their power. It takes a certain kind of personality to win political office, sadly that personality is generally found in the not-so-good people. Nice people do not become political power players. There are exceptions, but they do not redefine the rule. Why are we giving these people the authority to determine how they are selected?

I would disagree. These people use the uneducated and emotional as tools they manipulate to gain and maintain power. I suggest taking that took away from them.

They also gerrymander ("select their own voters.") Power-hungry individuals will still be able to use the uneducated and emotional (we are all emotional creatures though) as political pawns (how they will be used, well that's a lengthy topic).

Not to the same degree they currently do.


The issue that I see through history is that nearly all forms of suppression and violence are caused by rallying the uneducated through fear or other emotions that are not logical.

How does your system change anything? It's not as if the uneducated will cease to exist. If anything, you are going to see some populist leader rise up leading to political instability. The uneducated will not like the fact they can't vote, or will be manipulated into believing that by some populist leader. It may even devolve into civil war (disenfranchising or not enfranchising a significant portion of the population will do that.) Educated people can still push people towards violence and suppression. This does not stop a government entity from encouraging suppression and violence or actively suppressing and committing acts of violence itself. And educated people themselves can be rallied towards suppression and violence. China is a good example. Very well-educated, college students participated in the purges -- after Mao Zedong announced a new "campaign" and mobilized the country behind him -- of those denounced as "rightists" by the Chinese Communist Party during the post-revolutionary period, and most acutely, during the Cultural Revolution.

I'm not suggesting that knowledgable people are perfect and will never make mistakes, only that they will make fewer than the open population. in order for a civil war, or populist leader to really gain any movement, that would require a majority of people to be unable to vote. To prevent this, it creates an incentive for the voters to make as many people educated as possible, which has the additional benefits of helping the economy as well as overall happiness in people's lives.

Your proposal will take quite a bit of time and it doesn't take a majority to cause political instability. In most revolutions and civil wars, just a tiny fraction of the population actively participate. All it takes is a very charismatic leader to use discontent to their advantage. Take China: only a small minority actively participated during their revolutionary period. Same deal in Russia. Same deal in the US. Same thing happened in much of Western Europe.

I would disagree. The key to revolution is about what options one has. It only occurs when a significant number of people believe they have no other legitimate options. So long as no one is brandished as a non-voter, they can always aquire the ability to vote (it just takes some effort and learning). The people only have to believe that they can gain the ability to vote through their efforts (that, of course, is impacted by the difficulties of the evaluation, if the testing is too hard, it can lead to revolt. A simple balance can be reached)


If you're in a country of 100 people and 10 educated people are eligible to vote. To sway an election, a politician must really only manipulate 1 or 2 people through emotion. That's not unreasonable. I think 1 to 2% of educated people can be manipulated. Also, what stops the educated people who now have absolute political power from immediately using political power to oppress the un

Lost the rest of that at 8000 characters. Can they still potentially manipulate them? Probably. However let's consider this, 100 voters, with 30 being "uneducated" and 70 being educated. If a politican can manipulate 10 of the uneducated and 15 of the educated, that gives him a 25% swing that he can do. If the uneducated are taken out, his power of manipulation is reduced to about 21%. He can still manipulate, just not as well. Mathematically, so long as the "uneducated" are easier to manipulate than the "educated," removing the uneducated will weaken the power of the manipulators.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:20:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 5:42:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:17:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:51:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

That's is categorically false. We already have a limited democracy, as pointed out. The ability to vote is restricted based on age and criminal status. Saying "everyone has a right to vote" is not representative of our current system.

I suppose that's one view to take, although the age of majority and criminal status are not really "impediments" to individuals' right to vote. Children have the right to vote; it is only that they cannot exercise that right until they turn 18. In the same way, criminals 'had' the right to vote, but they lost the right to exercise through volitional acts of their own (read: committing crimes).

That's just semantics. I could easily say that everyone has the right to vote, but only those that pass a "test" are allowed to exercise it.

Actually, it's not semantics. It's hugely conceptually different. The age of majority is not an impediment to voting rights. In a similar way, the fact that convicted felons cannot vote does not mean that they never had the right. With children, they will have the right to vote once they meet the age of majority. With felons, they once had the right to vote because of actions that they took which cost them that right -again: "committing crimes for which they were convicted."


No, there is no different between "everyone has the right to vote, but cannot utilize it until they are 18" and "everyone has the right to vote but they cannot utilize it until they pass a test." Both are "everyone has a right to vote, but they cannot utilize it until..." I only argue that one form of "until..." is better than the other. There is no conceptual or fundamental difference.

So... your point is pretty much dead in the water.

The debate about whether kids and convicted criminals should be allowed to vote vote certainly isn't settled, but the fact that we don't allow babies to cast ballots or open the polls in prison doesn't mean that a democracy is not "sufficiently democratic." So, while I applaud your concern for children and criminals as "underrepresented minorities," it's a generally misplaced sentiment.

Stating that democracies change and that is okay is an appeal to novelty.

And so.... your point is? The fact that Americans watch entertainment-news to get their information is not a reason why the polls should only be open to those who can pass certain tests.

My point is that your initial claim that things change and change is good is lacking logic.

When I said "things change," I was referring to a specific kind of thing: how people access their political information. I grant you that there are some problems with entertainment-media pretending to be news, but the immanent issue is whether those problems justify restricting the right to vote -which they (those problems) do not.

I have no problem with how people choose to get their info, that is a projection that you placed. I would never recommend taking away someone's ability to vote based on what channels they watched on their TV.


Not everyone has equal access to quality information. There are huge income gaps between those who consume print media, for example, and those who consume visual media. Those of the former category tend to be wealthier, and those of the latter case tend to be considerably less so. Even still, just because people have access to media of a higher quality does not mean that they are going to spend time digesting it.

However, realize (and I'm sort of surprised that this point is apparently lost upon you) that I am not saying that "change" of the specific kind I was talking about (again, entertainment media) is "good" in any way. It's better than, say, outright Goebbels-style indoctrination, but it's not "good" in the sense that punditry is overlapping with hard journalism in insidious, probably detrimental ways. So, at least on that point, we agree.

Though I could just argue that is should be the next change.

You could, and I'll argue that it's been tried before, to disastrous ends ;)

So has democracy, it has failed before, numerous times, does that mean that all democracy is a failure? Of course, I would love to see your examples of where this system has been tried and has failed, on any large scale.

I'm not sure where you got that idea... or what you're even talking about here...

You said that my suggested change has been tried before to disastrous ends. I said show me. But I also stated that from a logical standpoint that doesn't really matter anyway, since cherry picked anecdotes are not, I'm and of themselves, a rational argument. But I'd still like to see your examples.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:36:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 8:20:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:42:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:17:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:51:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

That's is categorically false. We already have a limited democracy, as pointed out. The ability to vote is restricted based on age and criminal status. Saying "everyone has a right to vote" is not representative of our current system.

I suppose that's one view to take, although the age of majority and criminal status are not really "impediments" to individuals' right to vote. Children have the right to vote; it is only that they cannot exercise that right until they turn 18. In the same way, criminals 'had' the right to vote, but they lost the right to exercise through volitional acts of their own (read: committing crimes).

That's just semantics. I could easily say that everyone has the right to vote, but only those that pass a "test" are allowed to exercise it.

Actually, it's not semantics. It's hugely conceptually different. The age of majority is not an impediment to voting rights. In a similar way, the fact that convicted felons cannot vote does not mean that they never had the right. With children, they will have the right to vote once they meet the age of majority. With felons, they once had the right to vote because of actions that they took which cost them that right -again: "committing crimes for which they were convicted."


No, there is no different between "everyone has the right to vote, but cannot utilize it until they are 18" and "everyone has the right to vote but they cannot utilize it until they pass a test."

So.... the passing of time is the exact same thing as taking a test? Are you serious right now? One is something that will 'necessarily happen without any affirmative act' and the other is a 'requirement of an affirmative act'.

Both are "everyone has a right to vote, but they cannot utilize it until..." I only argue that one form of "until..." is better than the other. There is no conceptual or fundamental difference.

No, Ore. See above.

So... your point is pretty much dead in the water.

The debate about whether kids and convicted criminals should be allowed to vote vote certainly isn't settled, but the fact that we don't allow babies to cast ballots or open the polls in prison doesn't mean that a democracy is not "sufficiently democratic." So, while I applaud your concern for children and criminals as "underrepresented minorities," it's a generally misplaced sentiment.

Stating that democracies change and that is okay is an appeal to novelty.

And so.... your point is? The fact that Americans watch entertainment-news to get their information is not a reason why the polls should only be open to those who can pass certain tests.

My point is that your initial claim that things change and change is good is lacking logic.

When I said "things change," I was referring to a specific kind of thing: how people access their political information. I grant you that there are some problems with entertainment-media pretending to be news, but the immanent issue is whether those problems justify restricting the right to vote -which they (those problems) do not.

I have no problem with how people choose to get their info, that is a projection that you placed. I would never recommend taking away someone's ability to vote based on what channels they watched on their TV.

You kind of made that the basis of your point...

Not everyone has equal access to quality information. There are huge income gaps between those who consume print media, for example, and those who consume visual media. Those of the former category tend to be wealthier, and those of the latter case tend to be considerably less so. Even still, just because people have access to media of a higher quality does not mean that they are going to spend time digesting it.

However, realize (and I'm sort of surprised that this point is apparently lost upon you) that I am not saying that "change" of the specific kind I was talking about (again, entertainment media) is "good" in any way. It's better than, say, outright Goebbels-style indoctrination, but it's not "good" in the sense that punditry is overlapping with hard journalism in insidious, probably detrimental ways. So, at least on that point, we agree.

Though I could just argue that is should be the next change.

You could, and I'll argue that it's been tried before, to disastrous ends ;)

So has democracy, it has failed before, numerous times, does that mean that all democracy is a failure? Of course, I would love to see your examples of where this system has been tried and has failed, on any large scale.

I'm not sure where you got that idea... or what you're even talking about here...

You said that my suggested change has been tried before to disastrous ends. I said show me.

Oh, sorry... didn't realize that was what you wanted:

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

^For your general edification.

But I also stated that from a logical standpoint that doesn't really matter anyway, since cherry picked anecdotes are not, I'm and of themselves, a rational argument. But I'd still like to see your examples.

Hmmm... so, the whole "literacy test" thing to keep black people from voting is just "anecdotal evidence"?

I think not, but I suppose that each implementation of a literacy test could constitute mere "anecdotal evidence."
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:04:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 8:36:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:20:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:42:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:42:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:17:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:51:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2014 10:31:09 AM, YYW wrote:
As citizens of a democracy, we all have the responsibility to be informed. That much is goes without question. Whether the government has the right to determine who is sufficiently informed is another matter entirely.

Restricting voter access is inconsistent with every major political ideology in the United States, and most fringe ideologies as well which still have a democratic basis (like democratic socialism). The principle is that all people, regardless of their merits, have an equal right to chose by whatever measure they like, the person who they vote for on the ballot. The rule is that to impose any kind of impediment to that end is inherently undemocratic.

The concern for "unintelligent" people casting votes is totally misplaced. Indeed, the polity has changed (presidential speeches are less academic, American voters get their news from entertainment-orineted sources and there are other problems), but democracies themselves change over time and that's ok.

That's is categorically false. We already have a limited democracy, as pointed out. The ability to vote is restricted based on age and criminal status. Saying "everyone has a right to vote" is not representative of our current system.

I suppose that's one view to take, although the age of majority and criminal status are not really "impediments" to individuals' right to vote. Children have the right to vote; it is only that they cannot exercise that right until they turn 18. In the same way, criminals 'had' the right to vote, but they lost the right to exercise through volitional acts of their own (read: committing crimes).

That's just semantics. I could easily say that everyone has the right to vote, but only those that pass a "test" are allowed to exercise it.

Actually, it's not semantics. It's hugely conceptually different. The age of majority is not an impediment to voting rights. In a similar way, the fact that convicted felons cannot vote does not mean that they never had the right. With children, they will have the right to vote once they meet the age of majority. With felons, they once had the right to vote because of actions that they took which cost them that right -again: "committing crimes for which they were convicted."


No, there is no different between "everyone has the right to vote, but cannot utilize it until they are 18" and "everyone has the right to vote but they cannot utilize it until they pass a test."

So.... the passing of time is the exact same thing as taking a test? Are you serious right now? One is something that will 'necessarily happen without any affirmative act' and the other is a 'requirement of an affirmative act'.

One is ageist and a violation of rights (you cannot be discriminated on basis of age) and the other is not.


Both are "everyone has a right to vote, but they cannot utilize it until..." I only argue that one form of "until..." is better than the other. There is no conceptual or fundamental difference.

No, Ore. See above.

So... your point is pretty much dead in the water.

The debate about whether kids and convicted criminals should be allowed to vote vote certainly isn't settled, but the fact that we don't allow babies to cast ballots or open the polls in prison doesn't mean that a democracy is not "sufficiently democratic." So, while I applaud your concern for children and criminals as "underrepresented minorities," it's a generally misplaced sentiment.

Stating that democracies change and that is okay is an appeal to novelty.

And so.... your point is? The fact that Americans watch entertainment-news to get their information is not a reason why the polls should only be open to those who can pass certain tests.

My point is that your initial claim that things change and change is good is lacking logic.

When I said "things change," I was referring to a specific kind of thing: how people access their political information. I grant you that there are some problems with entertainment-media pretending to be news, but the immanent issue is whether those problems justify restricting the right to vote -which they (those problems) do not.

I have no problem with how people choose to get their info, that is a projection that you placed. I would never recommend taking away someone's ability to vote based on what channels they watched on their TV.

You kind of made that the basis of your point...

Please show where I said that, thanks.

Not everyone has equal access to quality information. There are huge income gaps between those who consume print media, for example, and those who consume visual media. Those of the former category tend to be wealthier, and those of the latter case tend to be considerably less so. Even still, just because people have access to media of a higher quality does not mean that they are going to spend time digesting it.

However, realize (and I'm sort of surprised that this point is apparently lost upon you) that I am not saying that "change" of the specific kind I was talking about (again, entertainment media) is "good" in any way. It's better than, say, outright Goebbels-style indoctrination, but it's not "good" in the sense that punditry is overlapping with hard journalism in insidious, probably detrimental ways. So, at least on that point, we agree.

Though I could just argue that is should be the next change.

You could, and I'll argue that it's been tried before, to disastrous ends ;)

So has democracy, it has failed before, numerous times, does that mean that all democracy is a failure? Of course, I would love to see your examples of where this system has been tried and has failed, on any large scale.

I'm not sure where you got that idea... or what you're even talking about here...

You said that my suggested change has been tried before to disastrous ends. I said show me.

Oh, sorry... didn't realize that was what you wanted:

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

^For your general edification.

But I also stated that from a logical standpoint that doesn't really matter anyway, since cherry picked anecdotes are not, I'm and of themselves, a rational argument. But I'd still like to see your examples.

Hmmm... so, the whole "literacy test" thing to keep black people from voting is just "anecdotal evidence"?

I think not, but I suppose that each implementation of a literacy test could constitute mere "anecdotal evidence."

You probably don't realize it, but none of those amont to Sophosarchia, they never even attempted to. Please re-read point number 1. Not a single one of those was ever meant to improve voting. That is why the 1965 voting rights act only banned literacy tests that were intentionally discriminative (after all, they were only done by southern states after 1860). But I suppose you'd argue against democracy because Nazi Germany had one, Facist Italy had one, Vietnam had one, ect.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:48:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But intelligent people are more likely to believe in dumb things. Dumb people are forced to live in the constrains of reality where they can't use rationalization and strong argumentation to confirm their biases. While intelligent people can believe the most insane thing and still find arguements to support its favor. See: The Soviet Union.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:41:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:48:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The way in which Sophosarchia limits democracy is that only the "knowledgeable" are allowed to vote

If I may, I'd like to put forward something of a reinterpretation of your position, or an addition to it.

Essentially, I think two elements you could add to your philosophy here is a preference for the decentralisation of power, and a preference for greater participation in democracy.

Those who are more directly involved in a community should have more power, because they will know more about what is happening. Central government it seems would be far more sensibly composed of delegates from semi-autonomous communities, which would mean that not only would the decisions made in communities be made on a better understanding, but the decisions of the central government would be made on a better understanding, since the delegates would understand better what is happening in the communities they represent. Similarly, lively participation by the members of a community in the decision-making undertaken by that community would make them far more knowledgeable and wise, and the decisions reached would have been ones debated by this energetic, participatory process.

What I mean, then, is politics would be far more intelligent if the people in communities could participate in decision-making for their community, producing stimulating intellectual debate on topics, a more engaged and knowledgeable public, and more engaged and knowledgeable politicians.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:42:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:48:28 AM, darkkermit wrote:
But intelligent people are more likely to believe in dumb things. Dumb people are forced to live in the constrains of reality where they can't use rationalization and strong argumentation to confirm their biases. While intelligent people can believe the most insane thing and still find arguements to support its favor. See: The Soviet Union.

Like buying lottery tickets?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:41:55 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:48:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The way in which Sophosarchia limits democracy is that only the "knowledgeable" are allowed to vote

If I may, I'd like to put forward something of a reinterpretation of your position, or an addition to it.

Essentially, I think two elements you could add to your philosophy here is a preference for the decentralisation of power, and a preference for greater participation in democracy.

Those who are more directly involved in a community should have more power, because they will know more about what is happening. Central government it seems would be far more sensibly composed of delegates from semi-autonomous communities, which would mean that not only would the decisions made in communities be made on a better understanding, but the decisions of the central government would be made on a better understanding, since the delegates would understand better what is happening in the communities they represent. Similarly, lively participation by the members of a community in the decision-making undertaken by that community would make them far more knowledgeable and wise, and the decisions reached would have been ones debated by this energetic, participatory process.

What I mean, then, is politics would be far more intelligent if the people in communities could participate in decision-making for their community, producing stimulating intellectual debate on topics, a more engaged and knowledgeable public, and more engaged and knowledgeable politicians.

I understand what you are suggesting and for the most part, I agree. As I stated, Sophosarchia is broader than just my view of it. I would prefer smaller, more local governments (as in, the federal government being completely gone, but that is a different topic). What you have described would be libertarian Sophosarchia. It would be sophosarchia applied to libertarian ideals. That is perfectly reasonable and is only if the only ways I could be classified as a minarchist. But I intentionally left it broader, to be able to include more than just the libertarian branch of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:05:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 1:42:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2014 12:48:28 AM, darkkermit wrote:
But intelligent people are more likely to believe in dumb things. Dumb people are forced to live in the constrains of reality where they can't use rationalization and strong argumentation to confirm their biases. While intelligent people can believe the most insane thing and still find arguements to support its favor. See: The Soviet Union.

Like buying lottery tickets?

Can still be considered rational if increasing marginal returns from money. value of money spent on lottery ticket< value of lottery winnings*probability of winning.

And a lot of people bought into this arguement and is extensively argued in the Friedman-Savage utility function. And these were both really smart people.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...