Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Hmmm, imagine entire US cities where those without Spanish speaking skills are second class citizens. Some people say they exist in Florida now...
Dan Chisholm<br />SCJP 1.4<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.danchisholm.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Try my mock exam.</a>
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
But doesn't anybody find it unsettling that a medically senile, retarded person on crack cocaine with a history on criminal convictions that knows nothing about any issues except that they always vote for the Democratic candidate has an equal voice as you do in determining the future of our society and the world ?
It's not an equal voice. Said individual has an excellent chance of being in jail, lost, or too strung out on crack to be able to show up at the polls.
I'll agree that the idea of this person deciding the fate of the nation is unsettling. But (a) he's a pretty small minority so the influence of his demographic should be minimal, and (b) many of the possible schemes to disenfranchise him, I find much more unsettling.
[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
In principle, having the most trustworthy, responsible and intelligent people deciding important societal matters is not such a bad idea.
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
herb slocomb wrote:
However, individuals acting through governments establish various conditions on voting already such as age and criminal convictions. Would you say this is entirely inappropriate and without any justification?
Originally posted by Herb Slocomb:
Perhaps a combination of factors are needed to determine eligibility to vote. But doesn't anybody find it unsettling that a medically senile, retarded person on crack cocaine with a history on criminal convictions that knows nothing about any issues except that they always vote for the Democratic candidate has an equal voice as you do in determining the future of our society and the world ?
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Actually I think you have it exactly backwards. One the under 80 crowd is gone, then the rest can vote out the other small minority, those over 130. In fact, you can carefully control this so that the only people eligible to vote would be those at the peak of the bell curve.Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
It can be done in incremental steps. Right now, IQ 80 and above are the majority, by a fairly large margin. (I sure hope anyway.) They can vote to remove everyone under 80. Then with the 80-and-under crowd gone, in the next election the average IQ of voters might be, say, 110.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Democracy is very dangerous. It would be so much better to live in a world controlled by an intellectual elite that decides what is best for all of us, wouldn't it?Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Voting for constitutional amendments or electing fanatical leaders such as a Hitler is not dangerous???
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Actually I think you have it exactly backwards. One the under 80 crowd is gone, then the rest can vote out the other small minority, those over 130. In fact, you can carefully control this so that the only people eligible to vote would be those at the peak of the bell curve.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I believe that the governments and the societies are the neccessary evil that will by their nature try to dominate and oppress the individuals. To preserve the primacy of an individual over its first derivative (the government and society), those derivatives should be given very limited powers, and the individuals should have some means of control over them. The voting is one of these controlling mechanisms.
In the former USSR, the dissidends that disagreed with the government policies were routinely labeled as "insane" and were denied their rights. This is perhaps the best argument against revoking the voting priviledges based on a person IQ or mental health in democratic societies.
If the government has the power to determine my eligibility to vote based on my sanity, John Ashcroft can easily make a case that I am insane just because I like to do it doggy style while the Attorny General himself and the society in general consider the missionary position the only sane choice.
Eugene.
Originally posted by John Dunn:
We mustn't forget that the US was built by folks who were considered criminal, fanactical, treasonist, lower-class, unworthy, etc, etc. in the countries from which they fled.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The fact is that I have the right to vote and how I choose to utilize that vote and how prepared or unprepared I am to cast that vote is none of your business.
Is the perosn with 160 IQ who flips a coin because he can't make up his mind making a better decision than the person with a 70 IQ who studies as much as he can and chooses a candidate that supports Special Olympics?
Reminds me of a Harlan Ellison story. In order to make society more equal it is decided that attractive people will have to wear ugly masks, smart people will have to wear headphones that play constant annoyong sounds, athletic people will have cumbersome weights tied to their legs, etc. A couple of attractive, athletic, smart people decide to launch a rebellion but in the end they are killed... on live television... to the cheers of the crowd.Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Yeah. Though there might be a misconception here - when Thomas says "peak of the bell curve" he's talking about the large number of people in the middle. Peak = highest point = the part of the curve with highest probability. Which for a bell curve is in the middle. Not quite the engineered "perfect" society - more like an engineered "society for regular Joes". Dunno if you interpreted it that way or not - there's at least some "Brave New World" flavor in either case.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
The fact that society and possibly the world will change because your irresponsible vote is none of myh business?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Do you mean felons??? If so, I would restrict it to convicted felons until AFTER they are out and have served their probation.
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
That said, if your idea of "minimum standards of mental competence" is limited to testing the ability to follow simple instructions on a voting ballot, I could probably support that.
herb slocomb wrote:
John, you sound like an evil, unprincipled man to deny all these human beings their basic human right to vote.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Here's another elaboration : since voting is becoming increasingly electronic we could set it up so that a few simple multiple choice questions would have to be successful answered before proceeding to the actual voting itself. The questions could be simple and measure the ability to follow directions. Hard to argue with that, since if you can't follow simple directions that would show you could also not follow voting instructions, therefore mentally incompetent to cast a vote by definition. Of course, I'd like to add a few extras such as basic literacy and an understanding of our democratic insititutions and traditions. Nothing fancy, just show a basic awareness of how our govt operates. Do we want people totally ignorant of democracy itself trying to fumble around and pretend to be democratic?
Dan Chisholm<br />SCJP 1.4<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.danchisholm.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Try my mock exam.</a>
Originally posted by Herb Slocomb:
John, you sound like an evil, unprincipled man
Wow Herb, I am genuinely flattered. I see I have deeply touched you and I am truly pleased.
All the best,
John
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
People, I think Herb was being ironical with his "evil" comment!
[...] On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor.As the electrifying news of the Boston "tea party" spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own.'
When the Bostonians refused to pay for the property they had destroyed, George III and Lord North decided on a policy of coercion, to be applied only against Massachusetts, the socalled Coercive Acts. In these four acts of 1774, Parliament closed the port of Boston, drastically reduced the powers of selfgovernment in the colony [...]
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
1773:
American basketball players under team captain Samuel Adams in Boston turned their back to British flag, because they did not like changes in the british tax laws.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/teaparty/bostonxx.htm
more details:
Every citizen should have the right to protest against tax laws he considers injust.
Would you say that Paul Krugman does not understand the concept of property rights?
He critizices tax cuts, too.
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/021403.html
more analysis
[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by John Dunn:
great photo depicting an American Tradition
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Those without a understanding or respect for our democratic traditions/philosophies etc can be a threat to them when allowed to vote.
Herb, you are wrong. Thinking our democratic system should be abolished is a perfectly valid opinion. Despising America and her values and culture is a perfectly valid opinion. Americans don't have to agree with what America stands for in order to vote. We don't even require that you believe in the electoral process to vote. America thrives on diversity of opinion.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Cleary, if enough people believe that our democracy is garbage and vote to install a fascist/communist regime where there is no voting, then democracy is not only threatned, it is eliminated.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog