Also: barring anyone the right to vote creates an oligarchy.



For the record: I favor lowering the voting age. How far would be up to debate but I think 18 is too high. It excludes people who are perfectly capable to vote but are prevented from doing so.

And felons can't vote and that is absolutely bullshit.

And retards can't vote, I also think that is wrong. Unfortunately if you cannot communicate with them you cannot really glean their vote, so that bar is understandable, but if they can communicate they should be able to vote.


You may scoff, but this is my belief. All men ARE equal, until proven otherwise (which, by the way, will never happen).

And to avoid a fallacy you may jump to:

You can be different and still be equal.

(And yes, I'm aware that we are preominantly Christian here in the US, but that doesn't make us a "Christian State" the way a lot of these folks who take the phrase "One Nation Under GOD" spin it...it'd be like saying we're a Caucasian state, we may be mostly Caucasian, but to say we're a "White State" is to imply we stand for whites and only whites, or whites on top of everyone else...and that';s simply not true, at least that's not what we're SUPPOSED to be like...and we're a ttapestry of many races and cultures--hell, where I live, whites and Latinos are about tied, and actually in parts of where I live it's far more Latino...we're a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, and so to make the claim that we were founded to be and thus should be pro-Christian and anti-gay is absurd and a gross misunderstanding the likes of which I would like to see banished from those who get the vote.)

@obiwan "I'm not saying anyone's votes should count for more, but I AM that WHO gets to vote should perhaps not extend to everyone--is this unfair? Depends on who gets the vote.

I don't discriminate here on race, and I don't do so on gender. Not on religion,. ethnicity, background, culture, education level, lifestyle, or any of that.

I discriminate only agaisnt two things--namely, ignorance and stupidity.

If you are so ignorant of your own history that you couldn't pass an entrance citizenship test if you had one?
No vote.
If you are stupid as to honestly ask why a government needs any taxes at all whatsoever to run and field an army and the like?
No vote."

How is that any different than Heinlein's fantasy goverment other than how you decide who votes?

To adress one point:

As a PERSON the retard and Einstein are equal, yes.

But in their capacity to VOTE?

If someone's existence is low-functioning autism and they are cosntantly trying to hurt themselves...is this person qualified to make a decision who my, your, our leaders should be to proctect this nation when they (though NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN) can't proctect or help themselves?

I'm sorry, but I have to say no.

The man who's a vegetable and is braindead--should he vote agaisnt gay marriage?

No.

THAT is what I mean by inequality, or at least a very basic example, and, again, the more operative one being--if you don't know our hisotry and are not an informed voter...well, you shouldn't, then, BE a voter.

And I don't know Heinlen's fantasy government, sorry...

And I have to disagree with you on felons voting; to me, somehow, if you murder someone, you're just not qualified to make a rational decision on who should be our next leader...that's not ENTIRELY logical, but there is some sense to that, I think.

@obiwan The one you said was not a democracy by any stretch of imagination. You know in "Starship Troopers". Sounds like you reject his ideal based on what you like about your own.

Also felons should be able to vote after they have served their time. There are also many crimes that do not involve murder. Also ask your self how many people have come with a hairs breath of commiting man slaughter because they where texting or using their cell phone while driving. One bad mistake does mean a person incompetent, or evil.

It also sounds like you consider people stupid and who should vote based on if they disagree with you on paticular topics. That is the kind of arrogance that is causing today's problems, and borders on fascism.

So, obi, it sounds like you'd like to remove the franchise from people based on some classification you can't define.

Great. Why don't you just let *me* decide who should and should not vote, that'll take care of the problem, right?

The first person who loses the vote, of course, is... you.

@warspite:

"It also sounds like you consider people stupid and who should vote based on if they disagree with you on paticular topics. That is the kind of arrogance that is causing today's problems, and borders on fascism."

I just gave an example--ie, gay marriage--where I said that is NOT the case, you are free to disagree with me and vote no on gay marriage; what I have a problem with is when folks do so because of an erroneous statement or understanding of our history, again, like saying "America is and always has been a Christian state" or that we were "founded" on the principles of Christ and all that.



Also, for schnicks and giggles...give it a try, a quick, fun test...http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Everyone seems dead-set on apinting me as an authoritarian facist, and yet I socred slightly left for the economy and mid-to-far individual (libertarian) over state (authoritarian.)

So with that in mind, let me reiterate--when I say not all folks are equal and not all deserve the vote, I am NOT doing so for authoritarian, "state-power" reasons, but rather because I view individuals on their individual merit! I do NOT treat everyone equally, do not see everyone equally, and, more vitally, I do not count everyone equally in terms of ABILITY and UNDERSTANDING!

The same way I'd say that I am NOT equal, with my perfect English and Philosophy scores and adoration and quotations of Shakespeare, Nietzsche, and all the rest, as someone who cannot even tell me what a sonnet is or who Dante is, I, likewis, am NOT equal to the folks who are great Mathematics and Physics majors and minds on this site when I myself have trouble with anything beyond simble X/Y algebra!

Likewise, someone who thinks that Washington D.C. is located in Wastington STATE or doesn't know that Freedom of Speech does NOT cover shouting "Fire!" in a croweded theatre is simply not equipped to vote! They've been misinformed, they've missed a few lessons in history!

You can have an opinion about whether it was right or wrong of Columbus to do what he did to the natives after 1492, but to make the statement he discovered the world was round is FLAT OUT WRONG, Aristotle and many others did so before him--and that is a FACT, ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.

And if you do not have your FACTS straight then I simply cannot recognize your opinion, built upon those erroneous facts, as valid, let alone worth voicing in an election and shaping the future for the rest of us.

@strat:

What "classification I can't define?"

I just defined it!

Rather simply, too!

You don't know the facts, the undisputable facts about what you're talking about, I don't beleive you should be allowed to voice your opinion!

If you don't klnow Lincolnm was shot in 1865, you probably shouldn't have your voice heard at a National Appreciation for Abraham Lincoln Conference!

HOW is that hard to classify, and how is that disputable--or would you make the argument that if someone DIDN'T know John Wilkes Booth popped Honest Abe right behind the head/neck at Ford's Theatre in 1865 they should still be allowed to give their opinion on the event and the men?

So your definition is "people who don't know the things I consider important", is that right?

Would you like a list of the things that I think any reasonable person should know, and that you probably don't?

@ obiwanobiwan: "No "No Republicans vote for this bill!" standoffs like this summer.

THAT was one of the most shameful displays of partisan politics I've ever seen.

You can call the bill garbage, that's all well and good--but the moment you FORBID someone in your own party to voice their own opinion, the moment you say "vote the way you wish to and you lose your job" it ceases to be a democracy and becomes a CIRCUS...with NO ringleader."

Obiwan, have you heard of the concept of collective responsibility in political decision making? Your comments suggest you haven't.

The concept works like this: The party has its own internal policy-making processes. Through these, party members and politicians debate the party's policy. These processes lead to an 'official' position on a given issue. Once that official position has been arrived at, everyone in the party agrees to support that position, even if they did not support it during the policymaking process, on the basis that this is clearly the majority view, and for the party to campaign strongly it must have a unified approach.

That's what forms the basis for imposing party discipline on important bills, and it is a fairly widely-accepted practice. I'm not saying it's the best way, but I think you need to understand that there is a reasonable basis for a party to say "No Republicans can vote for this bill".

*I* think you should all once again bow to the British Empire. Leave the politics to us.

@obiwan It's not that we really think you are a fascist or a soviet, or do we disagree that to many people are ignorent of to many basic facts. It's that you do not seem to understand that after you start restricting peoples right to vote based on what you or anyone else call rational thinking you are on your way of creating such goverments. If you recall we had literacy requirements in the past in several southern states which were used to prevent blacks, and minorities from voting. What is to prevent your own ideals of screening qualified voters from being used in such a manner?

@ SynalonEtuul Sure let Brittannia rule the waves again and clean up the messes. Much of the messes in the Middle East and the third world started with you guys anyway.

I think anyone who can't list the full plot lines and characters/actors in each of the episodes of the Star Wars series should not be able to vote on any media issues.
And if you don't know the gauge of the bullet that was used to kill Lincoln, you can't vote on civil rights. Only if you know the preferred 17th century method of making gunpowder,will I allow you to vote on national defense issues.

And yes, we should allow 6 year olds to vote to select representatives to Congress. After all, they typically make reasonable choices if they are allowed to select what they want to eat for breakfast, and when they go to bed, so why should we be concerned over their capability to make reasonable choices on candidates? In fact, if you communicate, you should be able to RUN for congress also. I'm thinking of having my six year old run on the "put fruit loops in your brothers' ears" platform - he'll get a lot of votes from fellow six year olds....

I think anyone who doesn't understand the typical reaction of those who are disenfranchised -and hence do not feel the government represents them - when things get rough shouldn't be allowed to vote.

So, no voting for obi

I am a solipsist, and because I am the only person in the universe, I should be the only one that votes.

I have to say that if I DO want to ever become a philosopher or author like Nietzsche, I'm off to a fine start--

Already my points are being completely misunderstood.

@...at everyone, I guess, lol...

"people who don't know the things I consider important"

That was NOT my qualification, strat...

Again, I said if you do not know the history of your own natior nor what is entailed in the bill you are voting for, you should not be allowed, then to vote.

Sort of like if you don't know how a car works or how to drive one, you probably shouldn't get behind the wheel.

That is ALL I am saying with my limitation, that is IT--and, frankly, if you disagree, strat, I'm sure I can find a five-year old that wants to have some fun driving in a car but doesn't know how the damn thing works, how about we let him go for a spin down the Los Angeles Freeway system?

That is ALL I am saying--if you are not informed you cannot vote, and...well, really, are you REALLY going to make the argument that we should allow people to vote for a heath care bill if they do not know what health care even IS?

How about voting for President--aren you really saying that we should let folks who wouldn't know George Washington apart from George W. Bush vote for our next leader?

This is BASIC knowledge, I'm not requiring people to read Mill's "Utilitarianism" and "On Liberty" or Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" or Plato;s "The Republic" before they vote...just COMMON, NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE.

Again I use the driving example--you wouldn't someone who had no clue how a car worked or how to drive commandeer YOUR car, right?

Why, then, should we allow folks who don't know what "The Right to Bear Arms" means, let alone that it's an Ammendment and in the Bill of Rights, to vote on gun control laws?

Or people who have never driven in their life to vote on the age at which kids should drive?

What if this person speaks KLINGON, strat...what if Mr. Klingon wants to vote on a gun control bill and doesn't understand any English at all and has no clue about human customs other than apparently some captains like to dress in 1960s tight fitting clothes with high boots and shag a lot of alien women?



There is a certain amount of NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE--and that's all I'm asking for.

@Jamietuk99:

I known what collective responsibility is--I just find it a shameful practice that is a great symbol of so much of what I feel is wrong with the governing side of government at this time.

So yes, I know WHY they did what they did--I just don't agree with it.



I'll be away until at least 10:15pm or so Pacific time, folks (evening class...and some of you may get your wish and send me to hell--Dante's "Inferno!" lol) so be patient and I will respond.

Thank you.

(Again...there IS NECESSARY KNOWLEGE...I'm not asking that voters know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow here--African OR European...though the African swallow is non-migratory, so there's that then--but jsut what is simply needed, ie, I simply don't think that we should allow people to drive who have no clue how a car works and have never driven before, and, likewise, if you don't know a thing about what you're voting for, who you're voting for, or basic facts like, say, who the Democrats and Republicans are and being able to tell George Washington from George W. Bush, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, at least until you ACQUIRE that knowledge and necessary understanding.)

We understand the point you are making about NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE, Obi, but I think you are missing ours. The potential for abuse is huge depending on WHOM decides WHAT knowledge is necessary. Reference the comment about such rules being used to exclude Blacks from voting. Can't you see this requirement being manipulated? And...of course...once you lose the right to vote due to such a law.... it's rather hard to overturn a law which decides who can vote....

"There is a certain amount of NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE--and that's all I'm asking for."

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In other words, obi, how do you define 'necessary knowledge' - what *you* think is necessary may be vastly different than what someone else thinks.

I've deliberately tried not to 'go here', but.... seriously obi, I am willing to put my knowledge base against yours any day of the week. Do you want me to tell you that you just aren't up to stuff and will have to gain another decade of life experience before you can vote?

@obiwan I think you are trying so hard to convince others, that you are not really thinking about what is being said to you. A good philosopher needs to listen to and think about what is being said by others. A good example is your comment about the "Right to Bear Arms". There are many intelligent, and educated people who have different views as to what that means. So who gets to decide what the correct response is? Perhaps you need to consider what if it's someone that disagrees with your view. You could have your right to vote revoked.

Other people have already asked this, but I'd like to know your answer:

Who determines this "necessary knowledge?" Why do you think it won't be abused even more than the current system?

And, in regards to one quote:
"How about voting for President--aren you really saying that we should let folks who wouldn't know George Washington apart from George W. Bush vote for our next leader?
...
Again I use the driving example--you wouldn't someone who had no clue how a car worked or how to drive commandeer YOUR car, right?"

No, but I don't expect everyone who wants to drive to be able to give me a detailed history of the Model T, either.

Understanding History is important, but not if you're voting on Tax Cuts, Gay Marriage, or Pot. So, you see, right away we have a very different notion of "necessary knowledge."