9 ms·

Can we not think of a way to refine the system of "idiots voting" without being accused of the false dichotomy of wanting to go back to a monarchy?

by boon 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago
Good luck with that conversation. Any form of "removing idiots" from the voting pool will give comparisons to the Literacy Test, and you will be literally compared to a slave-driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test False dichotomies are the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps if you knew the history of this country, you'd know that you aren't gonna get very far on this subject. I welcome you to try, but from a political / historical point of view, there is too much bad blood in this discussion for people to discuss it sanely.
- boon 13y ago
  You're talking to someone whose political ideals already get me called "racist" and "slave driver". Oddly enough, I do not support racism nor slavery (quite the opposite). And I know the history — why do you think I brought the point up? (Come on, now.) But the point we're trying to make here is philosophical, not practical: If people are too uneducated to participate in a free market economy, why do we allow them to vote?
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Because the opposite is worse. An organization who controls who and what votes is far scarier than letting idiots vote. We in America have destroyed any organization (government led, or whatever) that attempts to limit the number of voters. Mind you, who should decide who can and can't vote? The free market? The Government? The answer is no one. The right to vote is considered sacred and that is a good thing. No one can or should deny others the ability to vote. EDIT: I'm surprised that I have to lecture you on this. I thought you were a libertarian? Aren't you all for personal rights and liberty? The freedom to vote is absolutely essential, and a holy right regardless of your political background. But it is THAT much more important if you're a self-proclaimed libertarian. Personal freedom is the king of the Libertarian philosophy.
    - boon 13y ago
      "The freedom to vote." That isn't a natural right. That is born out of the system of governance that we've decided is best. There is no natural right to vote — not in the same way we have a natural right to speech or defense or anything else of that manner. Democracy is dangerous. Our founding fathers despised true democracies, which is why they founded this country as a Constitutional Republic, and notably one that not everyone could vote. Many call them racist and sexist, and no doubt that was part of it, but they also understood that having a bunch of uneducated people voting could be disastrous. NO ONE should be allowed to vote your natural rights away, yet you see this in democracies all the time. You're right, though, the trick is figuring out an acceptable way to proof voting privileges. Even the word "democracy" didn't come into popular use until the progressive era. So yes, when we follow true Constitutionalism, voting is important because we should be selecting our leaders to uphold that limited government. But in our current system, we've given government so much power that we allow people to elect leaders that are going to give them the most, all whilst selling off the power they have taken from us to companies that want to protect their business model. And once again, you really need to stop doing the whole, "I'm surprised you aren't smarter" bit.
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        YOU are the one who believes "Eventually the actors in the economy figure out how to route around the damage being done." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7219852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7219852 Your own argument against voting defeats your own statement. You don't even trust your fellow citizen the right to vote, and yet you believe that citizens are smart enough to "route around damages" being done to the economy. Listen here. I'm the one bringing up anti-market and pro-communist points against you. The fact that YOU are the one who wishes to limit voting is deeply ironic.
        boon 13y ago
        My quote was within the context of a free market. Democracies are anathema to anarcho-capitalist societies, because NO ONE should be able to vote to force you to do something you choose not to. Again, this is the pure governance/political theory I'm using to explain why I'm not being ironic in my thinking. I never said I had thought of a good way to test voting. I only said that I thought it strange that we were attacked for suggesting that we even think about it — particularly when this "right" to vote is actually only a privilege granted by our various constitutions, and not a true, natural right.
  - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
    Because they are affected by the decisions that politicians make.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    You keep saying "we"; I don't think you've really thought it through. The idiots are part of we; and they're allowed to vote because they'd never vote away their own right to vote. To imply anyone allows them to vote is to imply someone has the authority to stop it.
gnaritas 13y ago
Nope. But I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Preventing people from voting is authoritarian.
- boon 13y ago
  Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    That's not an answer to my question or a good faith reply. I asked for a third option, you implied you had one, either you do or you don't. This isn't a school lesson, I'm not your pupil, do not Socratic method me. If you have something to say, say it.
    - boon 13y ago
      If you're afraid of where the question goes, don't answer.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        If you're afraid to offer a third option, then don't answer.
        boon 13y ago
        I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do. Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with. However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.

Can we not think of a way to refine the system of "idiots voting" without being accused of the false dichotomy of wanting to go back to a monarchy?

by boon 13y ago

Can we not think of a way to refine the system of "idiots voting" without being accused of the false dichotomy of wanting to go back to a monarchy?

dragontamer 13y ago

Good luck with that conversation. Any form of "removing idiots" from the voting pool will give comparisons to the Literacy Test, and you will be literally compared to a slave-driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test False dichotomies are the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps if you knew the history of this country, you'd know that you aren't gonna get very far on this subject. I welcome you to try, but from a political / historical point of view, there is too much bad blood in this discussion for people to discuss it sanely.

boon 13y ago
You're talking to someone whose political ideals already get me called "racist" and "slave driver". Oddly enough, I do not support racism nor slavery (quite the opposite). And I know the history — why do you think I brought the point up? (Come on, now.) But the point we're trying to make here is philosophical, not practical: If people are too uneducated to participate in a free market economy, why do we allow them to vote?
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Because the opposite is worse. An organization who controls who and what votes is far scarier than letting idiots vote. We in America have destroyed any organization (government led, or whatever) that attempts to limit the number of voters. Mind you, who should decide who can and can't vote? The free market? The Government? The answer is no one. The right to vote is considered sacred and that is a good thing. No one can or should deny others the ability to vote. EDIT: I'm surprised that I have to lecture you on this. I thought you were a libertarian? Aren't you all for personal rights and liberty? The freedom to vote is absolutely essential, and a holy right regardless of your political background. But it is THAT much more important if you're a self-proclaimed libertarian. Personal freedom is the king of the Libertarian philosophy.
  - boon 13y ago
    "The freedom to vote." That isn't a natural right. That is born out of the system of governance that we've decided is best. There is no natural right to vote — not in the same way we have a natural right to speech or defense or anything else of that manner. Democracy is dangerous. Our founding fathers despised true democracies, which is why they founded this country as a Constitutional Republic, and notably one that not everyone could vote. Many call them racist and sexist, and no doubt that was part of it, but they also understood that having a bunch of uneducated people voting could be disastrous. NO ONE should be allowed to vote your natural rights away, yet you see this in democracies all the time. You're right, though, the trick is figuring out an acceptable way to proof voting privileges. Even the word "democracy" didn't come into popular use until the progressive era. So yes, when we follow true Constitutionalism, voting is important because we should be selecting our leaders to uphold that limited government. But in our current system, we've given government so much power that we allow people to elect leaders that are going to give them the most, all whilst selling off the power they have taken from us to companies that want to protect their business model. And once again, you really need to stop doing the whole, "I'm surprised you aren't smarter" bit.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      YOU are the one who believes "Eventually the actors in the economy figure out how to route around the damage being done." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7219852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7219852 Your own argument against voting defeats your own statement. You don't even trust your fellow citizen the right to vote, and yet you believe that citizens are smart enough to "route around damages" being done to the economy. Listen here. I'm the one bringing up anti-market and pro-communist points against you. The fact that YOU are the one who wishes to limit voting is deeply ironic.
      - boon 13y ago
        My quote was within the context of a free market. Democracies are anathema to anarcho-capitalist societies, because NO ONE should be able to vote to force you to do something you choose not to. Again, this is the pure governance/political theory I'm using to explain why I'm not being ironic in my thinking. I never said I had thought of a good way to test voting. I only said that I thought it strange that we were attacked for suggesting that we even think about it — particularly when this "right" to vote is actually only a privilege granted by our various constitutions, and not a true, natural right.
- Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
  Because they are affected by the decisions that politicians make.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  You keep saying "we"; I don't think you've really thought it through. The idiots are part of we; and they're allowed to vote because they'd never vote away their own right to vote. To imply anyone allows them to vote is to imply someone has the authority to stop it.

gnaritas 13y ago

Nope. But I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Preventing people from voting is authoritarian.

boon 13y ago
Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  That's not an answer to my question or a good faith reply. I asked for a third option, you implied you had one, either you do or you don't. This isn't a school lesson, I'm not your pupil, do not Socratic method me. If you have something to say, say it.
  - boon 13y ago
    If you're afraid of where the question goes, don't answer.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      If you're afraid to offer a third option, then don't answer.
      - boon 13y ago
        I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do. Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with. However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.