Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Votes for children and the mentally ill!

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?
lannan13
Posts: 23,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 12:03:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

This is just like the 3/5 compromise. It would encourage parents to have 30 some odd kids so they could vote that many times. (yes that's an exaggeration)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 4:34:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 12:03:01 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
This is just like the 3/5 compromise.

The big difference is that the slave-owner relationship is evil but the child-parent relationship is okay and unavoidable. Same with patient-carer relationships - potentially good anyway.

It would encourage parents to have 30 some odd kids so they could vote that many times. (yes that's an exaggeration)

Having an extra vote is not such a big deal for an individual and would be negligible compared with the cost and inconvenience of pregnancy, childbirth and raising a child. Also the right to vote would revert to the child as soon as she could write, so I don't see a scheme like this affecting the birth rate at all.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:53:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

What is the purpose of the vote? Part of that purpose is to demonstrate responsibility. Neither children nor the mentally incapacitated are responsible for their own care. Same for prisoners. None of them can vote and I don't see a problem with that.
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?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:20:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:53:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

What is the purpose of the vote? Part of that purpose is to demonstrate responsibility. Neither children nor the mentally incapacitated are responsible for their own care. Same for prisoners. None of them can vote and I don't see a problem with that.

Voting isn't to demonstrate responsibility, it's to elect a representative of the people. People who are ill and children are also people and so their preferences should be counted. If they are incapable of voting for themselves, someone should be appointed to vote on their behalf.

There are no grounds to exclude people because they are cared for by others. Everyone is dependent on others and on society in some way. It's arbitrary to exclude those votes.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 7:50:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 3:20:48 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:53:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

What is the purpose of the vote? Part of that purpose is to demonstrate responsibility. Neither children nor the mentally incapacitated are responsible for their own care. Same for prisoners. None of them can vote and I don't see a problem with that.

Voting isn't to demonstrate responsibility, it's to elect a representative of the people.

It's to transfer responsibility for community issues onto a representative. If you do not have a conception of what it means to be responsible, you cannot be expected to engage in this transfer.

People who are ill and children are also people and so their preferences should be counted. If they are incapable of voting for themselves, someone should be appointed to vote on their behalf.

There are no grounds to exclude people because they are cared for by others. Everyone is dependent on others and on society in some way. It's arbitrary to exclude those votes.

There are grounds to exclude people because they CANNOT care for themselves. I would not want someone with severe Alzheimer's to vote.
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?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 10:01:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.
"Isn't Iraq where them Arabs (Eh-Raaaaabbbs) live? Are you a terrist, son?!" - An answer I got when I asked this exact question to an older gent at the State Fair
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 10:02:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Would you, right now, transfer 100% of your belongings to a mentally ill person or 3 year old child, and have them decide what happens to that wealth from there? Do you think this would result in a desirable outcome? If not, then what difference does it make changing that number from 100%, to 10% or even 1% in principle?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:34:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Do you really want the Duggers to have that many votes?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 3:34:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Do you really want the Duggers to have that many votes?

I can see it now if this policy took place. An Amish-Mormon alliance takes over the United States through sheer fertility.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:59:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because children are idiots and the mentally ill are retarded.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 4:21:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 3:40:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:34:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Do you really want the Duggers to have that many votes?

I can see it now if this policy took place. An Amish-Mormon alliance takes over the United States through sheer fertility.

Exactly. It's a more insidious threat than the gay agenda and the New World Order.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 5:23:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 10:01:34 AM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.
"Isn't Iraq where them Arabs (Eh-Raaaaabbbs) live? Are you a terrist, son?!" - An answer I got when I asked this exact question to an older gent at the State Fair

The south/midwest, I take it?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 3:45:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:53:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

What is the purpose of the vote? Part of that purpose is to demonstrate responsibility. Neither children nor the mentally incapacitated are responsible for their own care. Same for prisoners. None of them can vote and I don't see a problem with that.

I agree, but just FYI, a Hong Kong court has ruled that denying prisoners' rights to vote is unconstitutional.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:33:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 10:02:02 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Would you, right now, transfer 100% of your belongings to a mentally ill person or 3 year old child, and have them decide what happens to that wealth from there? Do you think this would result in a desirable outcome? If not, then what difference does it make changing that number from 100%, to 10% or even 1% in principle?

I don't want to transfer my belongings to anyone. That doesn't prove anything. It's about what's fair, not what I personally want. It should be one person one vote.

Those people who really can't vote (small babies, people in comas etc.) would have their guardians vote for them, in the same way that those guardians manage their finances and other affairs. If I had to have someone look after my belongings, I think a sensible guardian type would be as good as anyone else.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.

Good. Why must the government represent everyone?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:37:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:35:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.

Good. Why must the government represent everyone?

Because everyone's forced to live according to the government's rules. Why should certain types of people be privileged over others?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:43:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 7:50:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:20:48 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:53:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

What is the purpose of the vote? Part of that purpose is to demonstrate responsibility. Neither children nor the mentally incapacitated are responsible for their own care. Same for prisoners. None of them can vote and I don't see a problem with that.

Voting isn't to demonstrate responsibility, it's to elect a representative of the people.

It's to transfer responsibility for community issues onto a representative. If you do not have a conception of what it means to be responsible, you cannot be expected to engage in this transfer.

People who can't care for themselves already have guardians for other matters, and those guardians can vote on their behalf.

People who are ill and children are also people and so their preferences should be counted. If they are incapable of voting for themselves, someone should be appointed to vote on their behalf.

There are no grounds to exclude people because they are cared for by others. Everyone is dependent on others and on society in some way. It's arbitrary to exclude those votes.

There are grounds to exclude people because they CANNOT care for themselves. I would not want someone with severe Alzheimer's to vote.

I'm going to give you a theoretical, artificial example, because I know you like that.

There's a village of 20 people in the mountains. 8 of them do farming and they also take farm surplus down to the market in the valley a few times a week to exchange for other stuff. 6 villagers are either small children, insane, or very ill, and the remaining 6 spend their time farming, cooking, and caring for the 6 people who need care.

Every Sunday, there's a meeting and they vote on village matters. The 8 market goers want to pull down the tent the children, sick people and carers live in so they can cut it up and make attractive market-going outfits for themselves. Even though there's only 8 market people, and 12 people in the tent, if the children and sick people are excluded, the 8 market people have the majority and can do what they want. That's not fair. The children and sick people should have some say, or people should be able to speak up on their behalf and that should have some weight.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:37:26 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:35:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.

Good. Why must the government represent everyone?

Because everyone's forced to live according to the government's rules. Why should certain types of people be privileged over others?

Because certain types of people are better suited to rule than other. Egalitarian rule is inevitably incompetent rule.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:44:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:37:26 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:35:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.

Good. Why must the government represent everyone?

Because everyone's forced to live according to the government's rules. Why should certain types of people be privileged over others?

Because certain types of people are better suited to rule than other. Egalitarian rule is inevitably incompetent rule.

Participation in democracy isn't ruling. It's picking who gets to rule. It would be different if we had a system of randomly assigning people to government based, like with the military draft or juries.

"Better suited" to rule is a subjective opinion. Every person subjected to government should have the opportunity to contribute to choosing those best suited to rule.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:53:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 3:34:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Do you really want the Duggers to have that many votes?

They're going to when they grow up anyway.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:54:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:51:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Participation in democracy isn't ruling. It's picking who gets to rule. It would be different if we had a system of randomly assigning people to government , like with the military draft or juries.

fixed
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:58:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:51:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:44:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:37:26 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:35:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.

Good. Why must the government represent everyone?

Because everyone's forced to live according to the government's rules. Why should certain types of people be privileged over others?

Because certain types of people are better suited to rule than other. Egalitarian rule is inevitably incompetent rule.

Participation in democracy isn't ruling. It's picking who gets to rule. It would be different if we had a system of randomly assigning people to government based, like with the military draft or juries.

In a democracy, the ability to make the crucial decisions rests with the people. This means that the people rule, either directly or through proxy (representation).


"Better suited" to rule is a subjective opinion.

It is not.

Nero or Marcus Aurelius?

Abd al-Rahman or al-Mu'tamid?

Paul III or Martin IV?

Success of their realm is the objective standard by which all rulers are measured.

Every person subjected to government should have the opportunity to contribute to choosing those best suited to rule.

Why?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 10:08:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:58:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:51:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:44:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:37:26 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:35:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.

Good. Why must the government represent everyone?

Because everyone's forced to live according to the government's rules. Why should certain types of people be privileged over others?

Because certain types of people are better suited to rule than other. Egalitarian rule is inevitably incompetent rule.

Participation in democracy isn't ruling. It's picking who gets to rule. It would be different if we had a system of randomly assigning people to government based, like with the military draft or juries.

In a democracy, the ability to make the crucial decisions rests with the people. This means that the people rule, either directly or through proxy (representation).

Yeah, but you don't have to be a good ruler yourself to vote effectively for someone to represent your interests, which is what you said before.


"Better suited" to rule is a subjective opinion.

It is not.

Nero or Marcus Aurelius?

Abd al-Rahman or al-Mu'tamid?

Paul III or Martin IV?

Success of their realm is the objective standard by which all rulers are measured.

"Success of their realm" Do you mean economic and military success? Because there's no reason to assume that people wouldn't sacrifice some part of economic and military success in exchange for equality, preserving the environment, civil rights or any other thing. And why shouldn't they? Preferring economic and military success is not any more objective than any other preference.

Every person subjected to government should have the opportunity to contribute to choosing those best suited to rule.

Why?

Because otherwise the government will have the incentive to prefer the interests of those who do vote over those who don't, which is unfair.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 10:16:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 10:08:43 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:58:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:51:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:44:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:37:26 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:35:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:34:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:54:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

Because we have enough people voting as it is, especially mentally ill people. The last thing we need are more incompetent voices in government.

Though, as far as the kids go, at least more of them would may able to find Iraq on a map than the adult population of my country.

If anything, the definition of mentally ill should be expanded to keep more people out of the voting booth.

If certain types of people are excluded from voting, then the government doesn't properly represent those people.

Good. Why must the government represent everyone?

Because everyone's forced to live according to the government's rules. Why should certain types of people be privileged over others?

Because certain types of people are better suited to rule than other. Egalitarian rule is inevitably incompetent rule.

Participation in democracy isn't ruling. It's picking who gets to rule. It would be different if we had a system of randomly assigning people to government based, like with the military draft or juries.

In a democracy, the ability to make the crucial decisions rests with the people. This means that the people rule, either directly or through proxy (representation).

Yeah, but you don't have to be a good ruler yourself to vote effectively for someone to represent your interests, which is what you said before.

But you aren't voting for someone to 'represent your interests', you are voting for someone to rule. To wield power over the direction of a nation. Which is why the body of voters rules the country in a democracy.



"Better suited" to rule is a subjective opinion.

It is not.

Nero or Marcus Aurelius?

Abd al-Rahman or al-Mu'tamid?

Paul III or Martin IV?

Success of their realm is the objective standard by which all rulers are measured.

"Success of their realm" Do you mean economic and military success? Because there's no reason to assume that people wouldn't sacrifice some part of economic and military success in exchange for equality, preserving the environment, civil rights or any other thing. And why shouldn't they? Preferring economic and military success is not any more objective than any other preference.

Yes it is, considering the fact that if a nation is not at least militarily, economically, or diplomatically competent it will lose its agency to another foreign power and be unable to serve its people in any capacity, essentially delivering them into suzerainty with it. If people do sacrifice those things then they are utterly foolish, and the fact that so many are willing to do so is precisely why they shouldn't be given a political voice.

Every person subjected to government should have the opportunity to contribute to choosing those best suited to rule.

Why?

Because otherwise the government will have the incentive to prefer the interests of those who do vote over those who don't, which is unfair.

They won't have an incentive, they will simply lack one type of disincentive.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 10:43:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:43:06 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:50:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:20:48 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:53:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

What is the purpose of the vote? Part of that purpose is to demonstrate responsibility. Neither children nor the mentally incapacitated are responsible for their own care. Same for prisoners. None of them can vote and I don't see a problem with that.

Voting isn't to demonstrate responsibility, it's to elect a representative of the people.

It's to transfer responsibility for community issues onto a representative. If you do not have a conception of what it means to be responsible, you cannot be expected to engage in this transfer.

People who can't care for themselves already have guardians for other matters, and those guardians can vote on their behalf.

True...

People who are ill and children are also people and so their preferences should be counted. If they are incapable of voting for themselves, someone should be appointed to vote on their behalf.

There are no grounds to exclude people because they are cared for by others. Everyone is dependent on others and on society in some way. It's arbitrary to exclude those votes.

There are grounds to exclude people because they CANNOT care for themselves. I would not want someone with severe Alzheimer's to vote.

I'm going to give you a theoretical, artificial example, because I know you like that.

There's a village of 20 people in the mountains. 8 of them do farming and they also take farm surplus down to the market in the valley a few times a week to exchange for other stuff. 6 villagers are either small children, insane, or very ill, and the remaining 6 spend their time farming, cooking, and caring for the 6 people who need care.

Every Sunday, there's a meeting and they vote on village matters. The 8 market goers want to pull down the tent the children, sick people and carers live in so they can cut it up and make attractive market-going outfits for themselves. Even though there's only 8 market people, and 12 people in the tent, if the children and sick people are excluded, the 8 market people have the majority and can do what they want. That's not fair. The children and sick people should have some say, or people should be able to speak up on their behalf and that should have some weight.

The more I think about this the more I think you have a point. There are shareholder proxy votes, why not for actual votes too?
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?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 11:11:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 10:43:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:43:06 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:50:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:20:48 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:53:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:33:38 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Of course, children and the mentally ill should be able to vote! If they can't actually vote because they're a newborn or whatever, then their carers/guardians should vote on their behalf. Why isn't this a thing already?

What is the purpose of the vote? Part of that purpose is to demonstrate responsibility. Neither children nor the mentally incapacitated are responsible for their own care. Same for prisoners. None of them can vote and I don't see a problem with that.

Voting isn't to demonstrate responsibility, it's to elect a representative of the people.

It's to transfer responsibility for community issues onto a representative. If you do not have a conception of what it means to be responsible, you cannot be expected to engage in this transfer.

People who can't care for themselves already have guardians for other matters, and those guardians can vote on their behalf.

True...

People who are ill and children are also people and so their preferences should be counted. If they are incapable of voting for themselves, someone should be appointed to vote on their behalf.

There are no grounds to exclude people because they are cared for by others. Everyone is dependent on others and on society in some way. It's arbitrary to exclude those votes.

There are grounds to exclude people because they CANNOT care for themselves. I would not want someone with severe Alzheimer's to vote.

I'm going to give you a theoretical, artificial example, because I know you like that.

There's a village of 20 people in the mountains. 8 of them do farming and they also take farm surplus down to the market in the valley a few times a week to exchange for other stuff. 6 villagers are either small children, insane, or very ill, and the remaining 6 spend their time farming, cooking, and caring for the 6 people who need care.

Every Sunday, there's a meeting and they vote on village matters. The 8 market goers want to pull down the tent the children, sick people and carers live in so they can cut it up and make attractive market-going outfits for themselves. Even though there's only 8 market people, and 12 people in the tent, if the children and sick people are excluded, the 8 market people have the majority and can do what they want. That's not fair. The children and sick people should have some say, or people should be able to speak up on their behalf and that should have some weight.

The more I think about this the more I think you have a point. There are shareholder proxy votes, why not for actual votes too?

Accountability. How can you tell for certain that was the wishes of the tended too? The purpose of a vote is to (usually) demonstrate informed opinion translating into government office. Children, the comatose, the mentally deficient... there is no way for certain to ensure that the vote placed is truly representative of the un-able's wishes.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...