NationStates Jolt Archive

I daresay he wouldn't get what he hoped for, but he's right. Why should everyone have the right to vote? If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about your governemnt, how it works and what challenges it faces then just go watch TV and play video games while people who are actually interested and informed make the decisions that will run your lives.

Can you name all three branches of government? Can you name even one? Do you know who your congressman is? Your senators? Do you even know how many senators each state gets? If you know the answers to these questions (and you probably do because you're a newspaper reader), you're in the minority.

In fact, the data have long been settled. A very high percentage of the U.S. electorate isn't very well qualified to vote, if by "qualified" you mean having a basic understanding of our government, its functions and its challenges. Almost half of the American public doesn't know that each state gets two senators. More than two-thirds can't explain the gist of what the Food and Drug Administration does.

Now, the point isn't to say that the American people are stupid, which is the typical knee-jerk reaction of self- absorbed political junkies. Rather, it's that millions of Americans just don't care about politics, much the same way that I don't care about cricket: They think it's boring. Ask me how cricket works and I'm likely to respond with the same blank, uncomprehending stare my old basset hound used to give me when I asked him to chase a Frisbee. Ask the typical American to explain, say, what a cloture vote is, and you'll get the same.

And yet, even to suggest that maybe some people just shouldn't vote is considered the height of un-Americanism. Indeed, as economist Bryan Caplan notes in his bracing new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter," there are few subjects on which Americans are more dogmatic and ideological.

Consider the hoary cliche, attributed to Democratic New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928: "All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy." As Caplan notes, this means that no evidence of any nature can ever, under any circumstances, be held against democracy: "A person who said, 'All the ills of the markets can be cured by more markets' would be lampooned as the worst sort of market fundamentalist. Why the double standard?"

One response is that democracy is at the core of our secular faith. But surely even democracy voluptuaries can appreciate that faith-based ideologies can be taken too far. We do not let children vote, yet no serious person would argue that our democratic values are significantly undermined because we bar 10-year-olds from the voting booth.

Voter turnout fanatics concerned with more than mere aggrandizement for the Democratic Party argue that voting is of itself a sign of civic health. But doesn't it matter why you vote?

Last summer, an Arizona activist went so far as to propose that every voter be enrolled in a state lottery, on the assumption that what our political system really lacks is more voters who need to be bribed with lottery tickets.

Some more serious people suggest that voting should be mandatory, believing that if the "disenfranchised" -- often code for dream Democratic voters -- cast ballots, the country would move profoundly to the left. John Kenneth Galbraith proclaimed in 1986: "If everybody in this country voted, the Democrats would be in for the next 100 years."

This last bit is almost certainly false. The evidence is that if every eligible voter voted, national elections would probably remain unchanged. "Simply put," political scientists Benjamin Highton and Raymond Wolfinger wrote in their 2001 article, "The Political Implications of Higher Turnout," in the British Journal of Political Science, U.S. "voters' preferences differ minimally from those of all citizens; outcomes would not change if everyone voted."

S o, maybe, just maybe, we have our priorities wrong. Perhaps cheapening the vote by requiring little more than an active pulse (Chicago famously waives this rule) has turned it into something many people don't value. Maybe the emphasis on getting more people to vote has dumbed-down our democracy by pushing participation onto people uninterested in such things. Maybe our society would be healthier if politicians aimed higher than the lowest common denominator. Maybe the opinions of people who don't know the first thing about how our system works aren't the folks who should be driving our politics, just as people who don't know how to drive shouldn't have a driver's license.

Instead of making it easier to vote, maybe we should be making it harder. Why not test people about the basic functions of government? Immigrants have to pass a test to vote; why not all citizens?

A voting test would point the arrow of civic engagement up, instead of down, sending the signal that becoming an informed citizen is a valued accomplishment. And if that's not a good enough reason, maybe this is: If you threaten to take the vote away from the certifiably uninformed, voter turnout will almost certainly get a boost.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg31jul31,0,5010759.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Because he's missing the point. Voting isn't a reward, it's a right.

I too wish Americans weren't so... ignorant. I'd put it differently but it'd be unfair. Americans are in general very ignorant people, domestically and internationally. But we can't just disenfranchise them because they choose not to care. All people have a right to have a say in how they are governed. That includes the right to protest, the right to run for office and the right to vote. Anything less is tyrannical.

After all, the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

The problem is, how are we going to decide who is and isn't intelligent enough to vote?

Because he's missing the point. Voting isn't a reward, it's a right.
Rights are not without limits, but you are technically correct in that it would be impossible to impose a working one on voting.

Are you seriously suggesting that only people who are qualified enough get to vote? That is not democracy, that is oligarchy.

Governments rule by consent of the governed. If only some of the governed may vote, then the government is only ruling by consent of the few, which is an oligarchical society IMO.

Are you seriously suggesting that only people who are qualified enough get to vote? That is not democracy, that is oligarchy.

Governments rule by consent of the governed. If only some of the governed may vote, then the government is only ruling by consent of the few, which is an oligarchical society IMO.

If oligarchy works, then it would be better for the country IMO, but sadly there is no conceivable way as of yet to make oligarchy work.

Because he's missing the point. Voting isn't a reward, it's a right.We've decide that it's a right because we've encoded it into the Constitution, but other right encoded into the Constitution aren't free of responsibility. We take the right to vote away from convicted felons. There are guns that you can only own if you have a permit and ways that you can only carry them if you have a permit. We have free speech and the right to assemble as spelled out in the First Amendment, but you can't go have a big protest in a park without actually paying for a permit to do it and showing that you can provide adequate security, etc...

I too wish Americans weren't so... ignorant. I'd put it differently but it'd be unfair. Americans are in general very ignorant people, domestically and internationally. But we can't just disenfranchise them because they choose not to care.It's actually not the people who choose not to care that bother me so much because they tend not to vote. I know I kind of made it sound that way in my OP and that it is eluded to in the article, but it is more about the people who do care but still don't take teh time to really read and learn about how our government functions. You know, the kind of person who knows the second amendment means that the government will pry his gun from his cold, dead fingers but who can't actually recite it and doesn't know how many amendments there are or what the Bill of Rights is, etc...


All people have a right to have a say in how they are governed. That includes the right to protest, the right to run for office and the right to vote. Anything less is tyrannical.

After all, the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

But I agree with the author. You're not talking about gravity, you're talking about an article of what amounts to a religious conviction. Maybe this conviction is wrong.

The problem is, how are we going to decide who is and isn't intelligent enough to vote?

Give potential voters the same test we give immigrants.

Give potential voters the same test we give immigrants.

How difficult will the test be?

Are you seriously suggesting that only people who are qualified enough get to vote? That is not democracy, that is oligarchy.

Governments rule by consent of the governed. If only some of the governed may vote, then the government is only ruling by consent of the few, which is an oligarchical society IMO.

the definition of an oligarchy is rule by a wealthy elite. I'm not suggesting that your financial means have anything to do with your right to vote. I'm suggesting that you should know enough about checks and balances to know that candidates up for election to executive office either in Federal or State elections regularly promise to get things done that they simply don't have the power to do... at least without a cooperative legislature, for example.

How difficult will the test be?

Here's the one immigrants take. At a glance I like it. :)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

Of course I think that being governed by a mass of ignorant people who cant figure out how to use a simple ballot and cant even name their congressman much less grasp the basic positions of the candidates they are voting for is just the best possible system of government.

In fact... why do we listen to doctors? We should just grab a bunch of people off the street and ask them to vote on what they think the problem is and shout out some possible treatments.

Space shuttle in need of repairs? We can just take a quick poll to see how we should fix it.

Yet somehow letting the ignorant masses choose the government based on quick sound bites is the best system?

Give potential voters the same test we give immigrants.

What an exercise in futility that would be. How would for instance someone's ability to correctly retain the year of Gustav Vasa's ascension, or insight into the judicial preview activities of the Council on Legislation be of value in a vote where the major issue can be anything from healthcare to fishery quotas?

The only way that your system of "testing" before voting would be of any value would be if the test happened before every vote and the test was focused on knowledge of the issue subject to the vote. That would of course itself be unworkable, and also even elitist bordering on the fascist since only people who know arbitrarily enough about something could vote on it, making those that don't know enough about, say, healthcare financial priorities have no way of affecting it but still have to find themselves at the mercy of the elite since they would have no option but to accept the hand they've been dealt by someone else and given no recourse in.

Well, no option apart from the inevitable revolution and strife such an unequal system would lead to... but the pointlessness of a voting test remains because all purpose it serves is to delude you into thinking you've done anything about the problem of voter apathy/ignorance when you haven't done anything about it at all. Like all populist quick fixes, nothing more than a show for the gallery that allows the problem to be covered over instead of solved.

Here's the one immigrants take. At a glance I like it. :)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

You can still no nothing about politics and pass that test however.

The problem is, how are we going to decide who is and isn't intelligent enough to vote?

Well, are they white?

Give potential voters the same test we give immigrants.

"Well, are they white?"

How difficult will the test be?

"Well, are they white?"



I'll be here all week!

What an exercise in futility that would be. How would for instance someone's ability to correctly retain the year of Gustav Vasa's ascension, or insight into the judicial preview activities of the Council on Legislation be of value in a vote where the major issue can be anything from healthcare to fishery quotas?

The only way that your system of "testing" before voting would be of any value would be if the test happened before every vote and the test was focused on knowledge of the issue subject to the vote. That would of course itself be unworkable, and also even elitist bordering on the fascist since only people who know arbitrarily enough about something could vote on it, making those that don't know enough about, say, healthcare financial priorities have no way of affecting it but still have to find themselves at the mercy of the elite since they would have no option but to accept the hand they've been dealt by someone else and given no recourse in.

Well, no option apart from the inevitable revolution and strife such an unequal system would lead to... but the pointlessness of a voting test remains because all purpose it serves is to delude you into thinking you've done anything about the problem of voter apathy/ignorance when you haven't done anything about it at all. Like all populist quick fixes, nothing more than a show for the gallery that allows the problem to be covered over instead of solved.

No that test would be stupid. I'm not suggesting that everyone has to care about the same thing. To some people fishing quotas may matter more than health care. I'm suggesting that people should at least be able to show that hey understand at least at a basic level how the government functions and something about history.

I daresay he wouldn't get what he hoped for, but he's right. Why should everyone have the right to vote? If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about your governemnt, how it works and what challenges it faces then just go watch TV and play video games while people who are actually interested and informed make the decisions that will run your lives.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg31jul31,0,5010759.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Firstly, I doubt that people who are completely apathetic about the government vote, so there's no danger there.
Secondly, I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government decided who was qualified to choose the government. In China, everyone has a say in who leads them...if you are a member of the party. That is, at best a meritocracy, and at worse, an oligarchy.

You can still no nothing about politics and pass that test however.

Not true. You'd at least have to have some functioning understanding of the governement and history to answer these questions:

46. Which countries were our enemies during World War II?

47. What are the 49th and 50th states of the Union?

48. How many terms can the President serve?

49. Who was Martin Luther King, Jr.?

50. Who is the head of your local government?

51. According to the Constitution, a person must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible to become President. Name one of these requirements.

52. Why are there 100 Senators in the Senate?

53. Who selects the Supreme Court justice?

54. How many Supreme Court justice are there?

55. Why did the Pilgrims come to America?

56. What is the head executive of a state government called?

57. What is the head executive of a city government called?

58. What holiday was celebrated for the first time by the Americans colonists?

59. Who was the main writer of the Declaration of Independence?

60. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

61. What is the basic belief of the Declaration of Independence?

62. What is the national anthem of the United States?

63. Who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner?

64. Where does freedom of speech come from?


I'll bet your average Bush voter couldn't answer half of these.

Of course I think that being governed by a mass of ignorant people who cant figure out how to use a simple ballot and cant even name their congressman much less grasp the basic positions of the candidates they are voting for is just the best possible system of government.

In fact... why do we listen to doctors? We should just grab a bunch of people off the street and ask them to vote on what they think the problem is and shout out some possible treatments.

Space shuttle in need of repairs? We can just take a quick poll to see how we should fix it.

Yet somehow letting the ignorant masses choose the government based on quick sound bites is the best system?

And yet, you've yet to explain to me why getting an appendectomy and determining whether, say, a law about gay marriage bear any relation to one another.

You are right in some sense: when it concerns matters of art, I'd rather have the analysis of a master of the art than the analysis of the masses. Justice, however, is not an art. It's a matter of giving to a person what he deserves and not giving to him what he does not deserve, and in this, you have yet to explain to me why the common man is any worse than the expert at doing so, because, idiot that I am, I see that as a function of practical wisdom and not technical expertise.

As a side note, we've tried to base voting on "expertise" before in policies summed up by the two phrases "Jim Crow" and "Grandfather Clause". I doubt Jonah Goldberg is racist, and yet I cannot see how he could possibly miss how easily limiting political power to "the best" can be twisted into limiting political power "of those we don't like".

Are you seriously suggesting that only people who are qualified enough get to vote? That is not democracy, that is oligarchy.

Governments rule by consent of the governed. If only some of the governed may vote, then the government is only ruling by consent of the few, which is an oligarchical society IMO.

But only some of the governed DO vote. Voter turnout in 2002? 37%.

If they do a test like this, it should be about the candidates. We need far less people like this:

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20041026confusedvoters.gif

Aside from Goldberg dissagreeing with most existing documents (which show that non-voters are significantly more likely to be pro-Democratic), I can't say I concur with him. If we're gonna have a Democracy, it should be our goal to have every citizen vote, elsewise the Democracy in question is a poor democracy indeed. Rather than disqualifying people from voting based on what they know, we need to do community outreach and school programs to get people even more civic education.

Rather than disqualifying people from voting based on what they know, we need to do community outreach and school programs to get people even more civic education.
Right, instead of creating a system that would be a good government but could also be an oligarchy, we should improve what we already have.

Aside from Goldberg dissagreeing with most existing documents (which show that non-voters are significantly more likely to be pro-Democratic), I can't say I concur with him. If we're gonna have a Democracy, it should be our goal to have every citizen vote, elsewise the Democracy in question is a poor democracy indeed. Rather than disqualifying people from voting based on what they know, we need to do community outreach and school programs to get people even more civic education.

I have no problem with that. Give them their civic education and do your community outreach and then, when you're done, give them a test and if they pass it let them vote. In that way, anyone who wants to vote can. They just have to get a little education first. Hell, make it free and tax payer supported.

I have no problem with that. Give them their civic education and do your community outreach and then, when you're done, give them a test and if they pass it let them vote. In that way, anyone who wants to vote can. They just have to get a little education first. Hell, make it free and tax payer supported.

I don't beleive in banning people from voting. If we're gonna have a Democracy, we should have a Democracy. Elsewise, there's no point, and we should just build a real meritocracy.

And yet, you've yet to explain to me why getting an appendectomy and determining whether, say, a law about gay marriage bear any relation to one another.

You are right in some sense: when it concerns matters of art, I'd rather have the analysis of a master of the art than the analysis of the masses. Justice, however, is not an art. It's a matter of giving to a person what he deserves and not giving to him what he does not deserve, and in this, you have yet to explain to me why the common man is any worse than the expert at doing so, because, idiot that I am, I see that as a function of practical wisdom and not technical expertise.

As a side note, we've tried to base voting on "expertise" before in policies summed up by the two phrases "Jim Crow" and "Grandfather Clause". I doubt Jonah Goldberg is racist, and yet I cannot see how he could possibly miss how easily limiting political power to "the best" can be twisted into limiting political power "of those we don't like".

It's not about justice. We're not talking about court cases here. Since you brought it up, however, how do you feel about all those snake handling Christians voting on who gets to appoint the heads of the NEA?

No that test would be stupid. I'm not suggesting that everyone has to care about the same thing. To some people fishing quotas may matter more than health care. I'm suggesting that people should at least be able to show that hey understand at least at a basic level how the government functions and something about history.

How does that solve the problem of political apathy or ignorance? All it does is exclude people from voting - it doesn't make anyone more informed on issues, and it doesn't motivate anyone to vote. You're not solving the problem - you're going "who cares about the problem? We'll exclude them!"

I don't beleive in banning people from voting. If we're gonna have a Democracy, we should have a Democracy. Elsewise, there's no point, and we should just build a real meritocracy.

What about a maritocracy. Then we can go live on boats.

How does that solve the problem of political apathy or ignorance? All it does is exclude people from voting - it doesn't make anyone more informed on issues, and it doesn't motivate anyone to vote. You're not solving the problem - you're going "who cares about the problem? We'll exclude them!"

No, just the opposite. I don't care about the apathetic. If you don't care, don't vote. If you do care, though, at least know something about history and politics. At least understand the organizing principles behind the three bracnches of governement. At least know how a bill becomes law. At least know that the president's cabinet isn't where he keeps his good china.

No, just the opposite. I don't care about the apathetic. If you don't care, don't vote. If you do care, though, at least know something about history and politics. At least understand the organizing principles behind the three bracnches of governement. At least know how a bill becomes law. At least know that the president's cabinet isn't where he keeps his good china.

Why? Because you say so? Because you think any of that has any bearing on my ability to make a stance on an issue irrelevant to those matters?

No, thanks.

I don't beleive in banning people from voting. If we're gonna have a Democracy, we should have a Democracy. Elsewise, there's no point, and we should just build a real meritocracy.

We don't have a democracy. Stop saying that. We have a republic. Democracy sounds a lot better, and I wish we had it, but tough shit, we don't. It's a republic.

Why? Because you say so? Because you think any of that has any bearing on my ability to make a stance on an issue irrelevant to those matters?

No, thanks.

Great.


If you elect me County Selectsmen I promise to outlaw abortion in this county!

Yes, I think it's important tio understand what you are voting for. The fact that people don't and can still vote is the reason for the sound bite democracy we have. It is the reason people vote for people who promise to do things they have no power to do. Take your stand on abortion and vote for the mayor who will outlaw or preserve it in your city.

It's how, by the way, that Karl Rove was able to get the biggest moron ever to grace the oval office elected, not once, but twice.

And yet, you've yet to explain to me why getting an appendectomy and determining whether, say, a law about gay marriage bear any relation to one another.
Gay marriage - an issue which is totally bereft of any semblance of 'justice'. You have a population using their bigotry to deny basic rights to people based on nothing more than sexual preference - do you think that banning mixed race marriages were just?

You are right in some sense: when it concerns matters of art, I'd rather have the analysis of a master of the art than the analysis of the masses.
Art? How incredibly irrelevant. It doesnt matter what one person thinks about something totally subjective. I happen to be talking about things that actually matter - like economics, medicine, scientific research, finance, trade agreements, and other such issues that actually have a tangible impact on everyone.

Justice, however, is not an art. It's a matter of giving to a person what he deserves and not giving to him what he does not deserve, and in this, you have yet to explain to me why the common man is any worse than the expert at doing so, because, idiot that I am, I see that as a function of practical wisdom and not technical expertise.
In a libertarian society, simple common sense 'justice' (provided you could somehow get a group of random people to look past their prejudices) would suffice. When government substantially meddles in every aspect of life, regulates everything from what medications we are allowed to take to whether or not we are allowed to have a job, and how we can do that job, the random person off the street is simply not capable of judging complex issues.

Why does knowing the number of Senators or the branches of government have anything to do with one's capability to choose the best candidate?

If they do a test like this, it should be about the candidates.

Maybe if elections were something more than marketing shows about "character" and "values", people would actually know the policy positions of the candidates.

But that would be, you know, democratic.

In fact... why do we listen to doctors?

Because we want to.

Your idea that democracy somehow implies the rejection of expertise is nonsensical. The relevant undemocratic analogy would be to a health care system where patients were the powerless victims of doctors who were forced upon them.

While it's true that rights are limited, we can't limit those who vote simply because we are trying to maintain our democracy - failing as we are. Because the outcome of the vote applies to every citizen, we can't only let some intellectually elite citizens be able to vote. That's oligarchy.

Not true. You'd at least have to have some functioning understanding of the governement and history to answer these questions:



I'll bet your average Bush voter couldn't answer half of these.

Neither would your average Kerry or Gore voter. ;)

I think that the voting age should be when you turn 16, or when you file a tax return - whichever is first.

I, however, do not believe that a test should be made to see if you can vote. If the government creates the test, then they can change it around so only those who agree with the current administration can be allowed to vote.

Why does knowing the number of Senators or the branches of government have anything to do with one's capability to choose the best candidate?

Because the socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or less educated tend tend to vote least. They also tend to fall in line with particular political ideologies, which in turn tend to criticize or stand against that of the dominant social class. Obviously, such people should not be allowed to vote at all.

The argument made in favor of the above is, of course, based on a dubious assumption...


Rather, it's that millions of Americans just don't care about politics, much the same way that I don't care about cricket: They think it's boring...


Naturally, the ONLY way to explain apathy is some individualized character flaw. The lack of access to education, wealth (and thus the ability to buy votes ["contribute to campaigns"]), or time (because single mom of four's 10 hour shift, 6 days a week job doesn't spare much) has absolutely nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing

Thus, properly dehumanized, it is totally easy to justify disenfranchisement of vast stretches of people and still be able to sleep at night.

But perhaps --- and I know this is crazy, but everyone try to stay with me now --- the solution to the problem is to educate people and pull them up to a socioeconomic level wherein they will have access to the time and resources needed to make informed decisions.

...

:eek: :eek: :eek:

...

As far as a "voting test" is concerned, it's been done before, including so called "literacy tests"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax#Tax_on_Voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#Voting_disfranchisement

..and it's all been struck down...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

Because he's missing the point. Voting isn't a reward, it's a right.

I too wish Americans weren't so... ignorant. I'd put it differently but it'd be unfair. Americans are in general very ignorant people, domestically and internationally. But we can't just disenfranchise them because they choose not to care. All people have a right to have a say in how they are governed. That includes the right to protest, the right to run for office and the right to vote. Anything less is tyrannical.

After all, the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

Yeah, but they end up voting for some guy with a good tie.

Why does knowing the number of Senators or the branches of government have anything to do with one's capability to choose the best candidate?

How can you choose a candidate wisely if you have no idea what power their office has or what checks on their office's power exist?

Because the socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or less educated tend tend to vote least. They also tend to fall in line with particular political ideologies, which in turn tend to criticize or stand against that of the dominant social class. Obviously, such people should not be allowed to vote at all.

The argument made in favor of the above is, of course, based on a dubious assumption...Actually, in my experience, and I will admit this is just my experience, many of the economically disadvataged are more educated than many of the advantaged. The people where I work, for example... You can't get a job here without a college degree and yet most of the people here could never pass the test a poor immigrant needs to pass in order to bcome a citizen. The fact that these people can vote scares me.



Naturally, the ONLY way to explain apathy is some individualized character flaw. The lack of access to education, wealth (and thus the ability to buy votes ["contribute to campaigns"]), or time (because single mom of four's 10 hour shift, 6 days a week job doesn't spare much) has absolutely nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing

Thus, properly dehumanized, it is totally easy to justify disenfranchisement of vast stretches of people and still be able to sleep at night.

But perhaps --- and I know this is crazy, but everyone try to stay with me now --- the solution to the problem is to educate people and pull them up to a socioeconomic level wherein they will have access to the time and resources needed to make informed decisions.GREAT! Let's make it free. I'm not being sarcastic, as I said before I don't think anyone's economic status should have anything to do with their ability to vote. We provide education to millions of imigrants at our schools and community colleges for free or very cheap, let's do the same for our citizens! :)

How can you choose a candidate wisely if you have no idea what power their office has or what checks on their office's power exist?

Easy. I read a platform and pick the one that best reflects what I want.

But, I suppose that I have to know every detail about how every piece of a car works before I am fully qualified to press a pedal or turn a wheel? I have to be an electrical engineer who can fully explain the workings of a motherboard, central processor, or hard drive before I am qualified to type a message on the internet?

Unless you're an electrical engineer, you're obviously unqualified and I demand that you stop using your computer immediately. God only knows what kind of havoc you can wreak.

I'm leaning towards the apathy being based on the severe amount of mudslinging that appear in campaigns. Unfortunately, whewn I submitted an NSG UN poposal banned smear campaigns, one of the mods thought it would be funny to delete the proposal and not tell me why.

Actually, in my experience, and I will admit this is just my experience, many of the economically disadvataged are more educated than many of the advantaged.


Your experience involves some very exceptional people.


GREAT! Let's make it free.


Which, again, is the ONLY possible way to do it, right? Perhaps one of the stronger points I was trying to make in my previous posts is that knee-jerk-type reactions are not helpful. ;)


I'm not being sarcastic, as I said before I don't think anyone's economic status should have anything to do with their ability to vote.


Intentionality is largely irrelevant. A society doesn't need a law or some other explicit legal mechanism to ensure that the socioeconomically disadvantaged don't vote. The simple lack of education, wealth and time will see to the disenfranchisement naturally (the "invisible hand" at work, as it were...)


We provide education to millions of imigrants at our schools and community colleges for free or very cheap, let's do the same for our citizens! :)

See above about knee-jerking and such :D

Easy. I read a platform and pick the one that best reflects what I want.


Great. Imma run for mayor in yoru city! :)

Are you for or against abortion? Can you bring out people who have the same political views on abortion as you do to vote for me as long as I adopt it and say I'll get it either banned or make sure it is allowed forever? Maybe I'll run for governor of your state. I think you're against teh war and so am I so I'll make sure we get our soldiers home if you elect me! :)

Your experience involves some very exceptional people.



Which, again, is the ONLY possible way to do it, right? Perhaps one of the stronger points I was trying to make in my previous posts is that knee-jerk-type reactions are not helpful. ;)



Intentionality is largely irrelevant. A society doesn't need a law or some other explicit legal mechanism to ensure that the socioeconomically disadvantaged don't vote. The simple lack of education, wealth and time will see to the disenfranchisement naturally (the "invisible hand" at work, as it were...)



See above about knee-jerking and such :D

It's not knee jerk. I see no reason why we couldn't make civic education classes available to people. We could even price them according to need like we do public defenders. Also, as I said a dozen times, this has nothing to do with socioeconomic status. I believe anyone should be able to get an education on how the government works, the historical reasons why it works the way it does and that if they are of modest means that the government supply them with that education. I also believe that it's absolutely possible to do that. When I said I wasn't being sarcastic what I meant was that I wasn't being sarcastic. I'll say it again. Let's make it free - at least for anyone making, oh, off the top of my head less than $50,000 a year. Cheap for anyone else.

Imma run for mayor in your city! :)


You can't. A private development corporation practically owns this "master planned" city. I suppose if you had sufficient socioeconomic qualifications (rich and education) you might manage it. But the average joe probably isn't going to fare well.

But only cause average joe is a lazy slob.


Are you for or against Abortion? Can you bring out people who have the same political views on abortion as you do to vote for me as long as I adopt it and say I'll get it either banned or make sure it is allowed forever?


First question: yes

Second question: I could if I had sufficient wealth and time to do so. But I don't, so I'm obviously just lazy, apathetic, or otherwise bored of politics (an interesting characteristic for an undergraduate major in political science) and thus should not be allowed to vote.

I also believe that it's absolutely possible to do that. When I said I wasn't being sarcastic what I meant was that I wasn't being sarcastic. I'll say it again.


Sorry, I misunderstood you.


I see no reason why we couldn't make civic education classes available to people.


I see a reason. Such a plan would empower a specific socioeconomic class by increasing their political awareness and thus making them more likely to participate by voting. This would be to the disadvantage of the socioeconomic class currently possessing the lion's share of political power. Thus, your plan will never fly. The only bit that will get passed will be the disenfranchisement of those who cannot pass the political literacy test. The historical record provides further evidence of this most likely outcome; Jim Crow denied the vote to those who couldn't pay the poll tax or pass the literacy test. Interestingly enough, Jim Crow didn't provide the necessary measures to increase people's economic status or literacy.

One might be perfectly happy to include those measures; I agree that they are entirely necessary regardless of how the vote is actually distributed.

But it isn't going to work out that way. The occupants of the halls of power have too much to lose.

Go dictatorship!
^not sarcasm^

You can't. A private development corporation practically owns this "master planned" city. I suppose if you had sufficient socioeconomic qualifications (rich and education) you might manage it. But the average joe probably isn't going to fare well.

But only cause average joe is a lazy slob.



First question: yes

Second question: I could if I had sufficient wealth and time to do so. But I don't, so I'm obviously just lazy, apathetic, or otherwise bored of politics (an interesting characteristic for an undergraduate major in political science) and thus should not be allowed to vote.

that post was to someone esle who was asking why they needed to know what the powers and checks against such powers on any specific issue in order to vote for a candidate. Obviously, a mayor has absolutely no power to outlaw abortion and a governor has no power to get our troops out of Iraq so voting for a mayor because they're pro choice or a governor because they're anti war is stupid - yet people do vote those kinds of issues all the time. It's like voting for a president that is pro life or pro choice. Unless you think said president is going to be able to appoint more than one or two Supreme Court Justices during their time as president you should know that they have no power to either end or prevent the end of constitutionally protected abortion.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.



I see a reason. Such a plan would empower a specific socioeconomic class by increasing their political awareness and thus making them more likely to participate by voting. This would be to the disadvantage of the socioeconomic class currently possessing the lion's share of political power. Thus, your plan will never fly. The only bit that will get passed will be the disenfranchisement of those who cannot pass the political literacy test. The historical record provides further evidence of this most likely outcome; Jim Crow denied the vote to those who couldn't pay the poll tax or pass the literacy test. Interestingly enough, Jim Crow didn't provide the necessary measures to increase people's economic status or literacy.

One might be perfectly happy to include those measures; I agree that they are entirely necessary regardless of how the vote is actually distributed.

But it isn't going to work out that way. The occupants of the halls of power have too much to lose.

People in the upper class in this country do actually lose to populist causes all the time - especially on the local and state level. The fact is that the largest segment of our population, shrinking though it is, is still overwhlemingly the middle class.

Obviously, a mayor has absolutely no power to outlaw abortion and a governor has no power to get our troops out of Iraq so voting for a mayor because they're pro choice or a governor because they're anti war is stupid..

Actually, a person familiar with politics would know that politicians can and often do move up to higher and higher offices as their careers progress. Thus, the pro/anti-<insert issue here> mayor can become governor of a state and then eventually a congressman, and then eventually even president. This mayor might not be able to institute <insert issue here> as a mayor, but he or she may be able to do so at a higher level. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to vote for this person as mayoral candidate on <insert issue here> because I anticipate that with my and other's support, this individual will eventually reach a level where they can affect change. At the very least, a politician can use their position to influence the political debate on a particular issue, and thus affect change indirectly in the event that their office is insufficient to affect change directly.

Prime example: Rudolph Giuliani. Mayor of New York during 9/11, now running for President as the Republican's best hope for 2008. As Mayor of such a huge and politically important city like New York, he can make such a huge leap in office easily, especially when events and other circumstances further increase his political influence. When in such a position, your opinion on everything is relevant.

People in the upper class in this country do actually lose to populist causes all the time

OK.

Wake me when the bipolar hegemony of the corporate/business influenced Republican and Democratic party system is in even any remote danger of being displaced by such a "populist cause."

OK.

Wake me when the bipolar hegemony of the corporate/business influenced Republican and Democratic party system is placed in even any remote danger of being displaced by such a "populist cause."

Off the top of my head, chloro-flouro-carbons. Food labels, too.

I'm not naive, I understand the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions in the hall of legislatures all over this country, but I've also seen those lobbyists lose.

Off the top of my head, chloro-flouro-carbons. Food labels, too.


For some reason, success in these particular issues still doesn't increase my confidence in any plan that involves stripping people of their vote.

OK, so we have food labels. The point remains, however, that food labels do nothing to decrease or eliminate the influence of those who have the greatest reason to institute disenfranchisement without providing the avenues necessary to get the vote back.

You can't vote, but look! Food labels!

For some reason, success in these particular issues still doesn't increase my confidence in any plan that involves stripping people of disenfranchisement.

OK, so we have food labels. By point remains, however, that food labels do nothing to decrease or eliminate the influence of those who have the greatest reason to institute disenfranchisement without providing the avenues necessary to get the vote back.

You can't vote, but look! Food labels!

Public schools were a populist cause. You'd figure if the rich were both omnipotent and malevolent that they'd be gone, too. The fact is the rich in this country are rich because there's an upwardly mobile middle class. They have a vested interest in keeping it that way. Who is Paris Hilton without people who can afford $150/night? Who is Richard Branson without people who fly coach or business class? Who is Bill Gates without people who think Macs suck?

We don't have a democracy. Stop saying that. We have a republic. Democracy sounds a lot better, and I wish we had it, but tough shit, we don't. It's a republic.

Big fucking difference. Yes, ours is a Democratic Federal Republic. Everyone has the right to vote, assuming they are of age, citizens, and not felons, and we do hold elections. We sitll are democratic in nature. Being a an obnoxious didact is just stupid.

Public schools were a populist cause. You'd figure if the rich were both omnipotent and malevolent that they'd be gone, too.


No, they're not gone. They're just in a sad and sorry state, where students can't find New York City or Iraq on a map (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html). I'm going to assume that this is because the halls of power are not exactly inclined toward investing their full support in order to properly implement this clear populist victory.


The fact is the rich in this country are rich because there's an upwardly mobile middle class.


Of course. And as soon as they mobile upward, their interests and loyalties change.


They have a vested interest in keeping it that way.


Well, with public schools they're doing a pretty piss poor job of it. I wonder why that is.


Who is Paris Hilton without people who can afford $150/night? Who is Richard Branson without people who fly coach or business class? Who is Bill Gates without people who think Macs suck?


Who is a plantation owner without his slaves?

I don't fly coach because I like Richard Branson. I fly coach because the economic system is created by the elites to be one where the elites own and profit the most, and the rest of us fly coach.

Governments rule by consent of the governed.

One could say that apathy is grounds for consent...

I daresay he wouldn't get what he hoped for, but he's right. Why should everyone have the right to vote? If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about your governemnt, how it works and what challenges it faces then just go watch TV and play video games while people who are actually interested and informed make the decisions that will run your lives.The problem is you have a participatory system in name only. It is a de facto oligarchy.

As such, the problems outlined in the article is very likely nothing but a strawman. I've seen nothing to suggest it would make the slightest bit of difference in practice, if only the system savvy were allowed a vote. The research referred to in the article can probably shed some light on it, but I can't be arsed to go looking.

That said, you might be able to get what you want without entirely killing the illusion of a participatory system, you'll just have to sacrifice the 'voluntary' bit. If you, for example, compel the entire population to vote, but limit what they can vote on based on how knowledgeable they are, and not only tally the votes of the ignorant, but enable them to affect results of elections, you'll preserve the illusion of a participatory system. It might actually come a bit closer to being participatory in practice.

Still, if your caveat is the ignorance of the majority is somehow altering the results of your elections, then you've yet to show anything of the sort. Indeed, the article you linked to all but admits it has no effect in practice.


A more meaningful approach would be to educate the populace on the inns and outs of your political system, and prioritise that people not only know they're responsible for governing themselves, but understand how to do so - much like you teach the general populace how to read, write and do basic maths.

That people even then will almost certainly stop giving a shit relatively quickly can, to a large extent anyway, be solved by decentralising the political process. As long as the effect of participating in the political system is abstract at best, it's not reasonable to expect people to waste extreme amounts of their free time on the chore that is politics. Even the saddest, loneliest fuck has better things to do when there's no tangible effect of giving a damn; doing the dishes, for example.

Again, it'll probably have little practical effect in terms of who gets elected and what kind of decisions are made, but it will get you a more savvy population and make the government depend a wee bit more on the governed.

Of course, you could just become anarchists. We don't have this sort of problem because the political process is based wholly on voluntary participation ;)

I don't beleive in banning people from voting. If we're gonna have a Democracy, we should have a Democracy. Elsewise, there's no point, and we should just build a real meritocracy.

Don't you have a corporatacy rather than a Democracy?

I mean, look at who actually contends. Super rich people riding on millions dollars of funding by special interest groups.

corporatacy

Someone's been reading John Perkins.....


I disagree with the idea of restricted voting, as that implies an implicit judgment about what qualifies one as a voter that I don't believe we should make.

Isn't the electoral college there to prevent the great unwashed from really having their say anyway?

I too find myself in agreement with Jonah Goldberg. People who neither understand nor care about government probably don't deserve to participate in it. The trouble is that whenever someone says that you should have to earn your right to vote they're branded a fascist or worse by people who hardly understand the word.

People don't have a right to vote, they have a right to prove that they are capable of voting and to be able to vote once they have done so.

Yes but the OP doesn't amount to a legitimate criticism of democracy, it just amounts to a criticism of the 'representative' US republic system of patronage, party cliques and apparachiks, it doesn't amount to anything close to consensus direct democracy. People have universal suffrage as a inalienable right, not a privilege, once you go down the path of assuming one persons opinion is higher and better than another, you undermined the entire premise and credibility of Western egalitarianism and all then all that crap about the 'wise rule of the best men' ie oligarchy comes.

I too find myself in agreement with Jonah Goldberg. People who neither understand nor care about government probably don't deserve to participate in it. The trouble is that whenever someone says that you should have to earn your right to vote they're branded a fascist or worse by people who hardly understand the word.

People don't have a right to vote, they have a right to prove that they are capable of voting and to be able to vote once they have done so.

I am actually gathering quite a reasonable size collection of yours (and others) quotes justifying oligarchy, upper-class privilege and other reactionary positions.

I too find myself in agreement with Jonah Goldberg. People who neither understand nor care about government probably don't deserve to participate in it. The trouble is that whenever someone says that you should have to earn your right to vote they're branded a fascist or worse by people who hardly understand the word.

People don't have a right to vote, they have a right to prove that they are capable of voting and to be able to vote once they have done so.The reason you're "branded a fascist or worse by people who hardly understand the word" is because you're engaging in a bit of backwards thinking to justify the disenfranchisement of the masses. If you'd instead said "People who neither understand nor care about government probably don't deserve to be governed by it" you just might avoid those accusations. You might even find some people agreeing with you - me, for example.

Dosuun there's a reason your branded a fascist, it's because you are.

Yes but the OP doesn't amount to a legitimate criticism of democracy, it just amounts to a criticism of the 'representative' US republic system of patronage, party cliques and apparachiks, it doesn't amount to anything close to consensus direct democracy. People have universal suffrage as a inalienable right, not a privilege, once you go down the path of assuming one persons opinion is higher and better than another, you undermined the entire premise and credibility of Western egalitarianism and all then all that crap about the 'wise rule of the best men' ie oligarchy comes.


I actually sort of agree with this. Well the part about the US system being crap and that's the real problem, at least.

I daresay he wouldn't get what he hoped for, but he's right. Why should everyone have the right to vote? If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about your governemnt, how it works and what challenges it faces then just go watch TV and play video games while people who are actually interested and informed make the decisions that will run your lives.



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg31jul31,0,5010759.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

not all get two senators wyoming only has one

not all get two senators wyoming only has one
No--you have two. Mike Enzi and John Barasso. You have one Congressperson.

As to the OP, Goldberg is an elitist fool and I have little respect for people who fall for his bullshit. Of course Goldberg wants a test for voting--it's the best way to keep people who will vote against his views from being able to show up. You think the test will be fair? Please. It'll be more like this (http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html) one, which you had to pass to be able to vote in Alabama in 1965 if you weren't white. Go ahead--take it.

What an exercise in futility that would be. How would for instance someone's ability to correctly retain the year of Gustav Vasa's ascension, or insight into the judicial preview activities of the Council on Legislation be of value in a vote where the major issue can be anything from healthcare to fishery quotas?

The only way that your system of "testing" before voting would be of any value would be if the test happened before every vote and the test was focused on knowledge of the issue subject to the vote. That would of course itself be unworkable, and also even elitist bordering on the fascist since only people who know arbitrarily enough about something could vote on it, making those that don't know enough about, say, healthcare financial priorities have no way of affecting it but still have to find themselves at the mercy of the elite since they would have no option but to accept the hand they've been dealt by someone else and given no recourse in.

Well, no option apart from the inevitable revolution and strife such an unequal system would lead to... but the pointlessness of a voting test remains because all purpose it serves is to delude you into thinking you've done anything about the problem of voter apathy/ignorance when you haven't done anything about it at all. Like all populist quick fixes, nothing more than a show for the gallery that allows the problem to be covered over instead of solved.

Referenda are not the most common kind of vote in the US Fass. On local and state levels, the referendum is very frequently used, but on the national level, the referendum is exceedingly rare.

So, the reason to give a test to potential voters would be to determine whether or not they know the responsibilities and powers of the job they are preparing to elect their candidate to, if the don't know what a congressman or senator can/must do, they shouldn't be voting.

And really, the test could have three questions:

Name the three branches of the federal government.

Describe the concept of "checks and balances" in the federal government.

Name the incumbent (phrase it how you like).

Based on this you know that the voter has a basic understanding of the functionality of the US government and is atleast partially informed about the current political atmosphere. They could even be made into multiple choice questions.

I can agree with the sentiment expressed by the OC,

But this proposal could be used as a tool to disenfranchise voters that do want to vote, especially if overseen and administered by partisan officials, a.l.a. Katherine Harris. :sniper: Political apathy is at massively high levels, and some people are concerned about turnout - the solution is not to make it more difficult to vote.

The solution is to make politics relevant to peoples' lives, offer them real choices about the future of their society, instead of default voting for the second-worst party.

Referenda are not the most common kind of vote in the US Fass. On local and state levels, the referendum is very frequently used, but on the national level, the referendum is exceedingly rare.

So, the reason to give a test to potential voters would be to determine whether or not they know the responsibilities and powers of the job they are preparing to elect their candidate to, if the don't know what a congressman or senator can/must do, they shouldn't be voting.

And are you going to apply that to every position on the ballot? When I lived in Louisiana, Coroner was an elected position--do I need to know the intricacies of his job, his relation to the DA and the Police Department and City government to be able to voice my preference? What about City Council? Sheriff? State House? Commissioner of Agriculture? Where does it end?

And what's more, why does it matter? It's clear from most legislative sessions that at least half the people in Congress at any given time don't know what their fucking job is--why demand more of the voters than we do of the people holding the office?

I daresay he wouldn't get what he hoped for, but he's right. Why should everyone have the right to vote? If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about your governemnt, how it works and what challenges it faces then just go watch TV and play video games while people who are actually interested and informed make the decisions that will run your lives.



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg31jul31,0,5010759.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

That is what I used to think, but the catch is that you don't have to necessarily be smart to know how the system works. I like compulsory voting (which we have here in Australia) because it avoids the possibility that a strong group of whackos could elect an extremist moron.

For example, lets just say that there is a hypothetical situation where, in order to vote, you have to complete a 20-question questionnaire about the government and its processes and the like. Well, the majority of regular people might not have the time or be bothered enough to complete the questionnaire. However there may be a group of white supremacists who have a member running in a seat somewhere. Since they are all so eager to see their man elected they will all register and fill out the questionnaire and vote for the guy. You might not have a problem with this but I believe that via compulsory voting the benefit of the general population invalidating small groups of crazies outweighs the negative of people voting who don't want to be there or who don't understand politics.

Big fucking difference. Yes, ours is a Democratic Federal Republic. Everyone has the right to vote, assuming they are of age, citizens, and not felons, and we do hold elections. We sitll are democratic in nature. Being a an obnoxious didact is just stupid.

There is a big difference. So our system -looks- like democracy, big whoop - it's not. We have an electoral college that does the actual voting, and the people simply put suggestions in the suggestion boxes for who they should vote for, but that doesn't at all mean that's who is going to get voted for. As such, we don't have a democracy.

It's not being an 'obnoxious didact', it's realizing the difference between two things.

Dosuun there's a reason your branded a fascist, it's because you are.
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

I consider personal interests paramount and see no reason for there to be any national unity, least of all one based on superficial differences. Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority, the numerically superior. In a direct democracy 51% of the body politic can simply vote to kill everyone named William or Bill. Democracy is not liberty, even Franklin knew this. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. True and complete liberty will likely only be found in anarchy, specifically anarcho-capitalism, one of the few true forms of anarchy in that it promotes personal, political, and economic liberty as opposed to most other forms of anarchy which restrict at least one of those three.

Democracy is far from liberating. Just because you have numbers on your side doesn't make you right.

What an exercise in futility that would be. How would for instance someone's ability to correctly retain the year of Gustav Vasa's ascension, or insight into the judicial preview activities of the Council on Legislation be of value in a vote where the major issue can be anything from healthcare to fishery quotas?

The only way that your system of "testing" before voting would be of any value would be if the test happened before every vote and the test was focused on knowledge of the issue subject to the vote. That would of course itself be unworkable, and also even elitist bordering on the fascist since only people who know arbitrarily enough about something could vote on it, making those that don't know enough about, say, healthcare financial priorities have no way of affecting it but still have to find themselves at the mercy of the elite since they would have no option but to accept the hand they've been dealt by someone else and given no recourse in.

Well, no option apart from the inevitable revolution and strife such an unequal system would lead to... but the pointlessness of a voting test remains because all purpose it serves is to delude you into thinking you've done anything about the problem of voter apathy/ignorance when you haven't done anything about it at all. Like all populist quick fixes, nothing more than a show for the gallery that allows the problem to be covered over instead of solved.

I agree with fass ... and

If you are going to put restrictions on rights (which I do not agree with in the first place) at least make them useful restrictions

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

I consider personal interests paramount and see no reason for there to be any national unity, least of all one based on superficial differences. Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority, the numerically superior. In a direct democracy 51% of the body politic can simply vote to kill everyone named William or Bill. Democracy is not liberty, even Franklin knew this. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. True and complete liberty will likely only be found in anarchy, specifically anarcho-capitalism, one of the few true forms of anarchy in that it promotes personal, political, and economic liberty as opposed to most other forms of anarchy which restrict at least one of those three.

Democracy is far from liberating. Just because you have numbers on your side doesn't make you right.

I agree that democracy per se has little to do with liberty. However, I contest your anarcho-capitalist solution to escape the tyranny of the majority, since people have needs that are prerequisite to enjoy liberty. Without government, there will remain one wolf amongst the sheep. If we look at England during the industrial revolution we see that though serfdom no longer exists people have less freedom than before because of their dependence on a small part of land- and capital-owners for sustenance and shelter. Those people with property will only provide enough to keep the majority alive. The majority will be turned into free slaves. For a society to be truly free there need to be regulations against market failure as well as some form of redistributive justice.

As for democracy, it tends to have more checks and balances than other forms of government. Power is less concentrated and therefore less easily abused. Further checks and balances are needed to guarantee a liberal democracy, democracy that is based on rights. The majority or government should look at rights as restrictions upon means to an end. This can in part be enforced by a constitution, multiple chambers or a judiciary depending on the nature of the state. Naturally, no system survives the tyranny of a truly resolved majority large enough to enforce its will.

As to the OP, Goldberg is an elitist fool and I have little respect for people who fall for his bullshit. Of course Goldberg wants a test for voting--it's the best way to keep people who will vote against his views from being able to show up.

yeah, it sure is interesting that a guy in the party of racists who also happens to be writing a transparently silly bit of projection about 'liberal fascism' wants to disenfranchise lesser people.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

I consider personal interests paramount and see no reason for there to be any national unity, least of all one based on superficial differences. Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority, the numerically superior. In a direct democracy 51% of the body politic can simply vote to kill everyone named William or Bill. Democracy is not liberty, even Franklin knew this. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. True and complete liberty will likely only be found in anarchy, specifically anarcho-capitalism, one of the few true forms of anarchy in that it promotes personal, political, and economic liberty as opposed to most other forms of anarchy which restrict at least one of those three.

Democracy is far from liberating. Just because you have numbers on your side doesn't make you right.
Of course it does, that's what egalitarian Western tradition is all about. The logical conclusion of your statement is that you want oligarchy and minority rule.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

I consider personal interests paramount and see no reason for there to be any national unity, least of all one based on superficial differences.Yet you actually said people should be governed without their consent That's a goodly chunk of your own definition of fascism, init? True and complete liberty will likely only be found in anarchy, specifically anarcho-capitalism, one of the few true forms of anarchy in that it promotes personal, political, and economic liberty as opposed to most other forms of anarchy which restrict at least one of those three.How can you have liberty in the face of sovereign monopolies on basic necessities? Short answer is; you cant. You do what you're told or die.

That's why most anarchists take offence when wannabe ruling class people call themselves anarchists. Personally I'm perfectly willing to give you lot the benefit of doubt. I'll even volunteer to be part of it. The current shit is no better than the worst I can imagine in an ancap society. To be honest, I'm guessing the difference will be theoretical, if it exists at all.

The so called 'libertarians' like Dosuun believe in a perfect society with no government interference, where everyone has equal opportunity to get to the top of the ladder with no help. In theory this would require no family-based inheritance, no social insurance etc. Dosuun abd others do not realize that in such a society naturally it would come to be ruled by an elite clique and the exact monopoly which libertarians seek to get rid of, it's like saying private health care gives freedom and choice, when in fact the choice of the individual will be limited by what they can afford. At least socialists like myself accept the reality that the apparatus of the state needs to be utilized for what it's meant for, forced expropriation, call it tax or whatever, but that is what modern society is built upon.

At least socialists like myself accept the reality that the apparatus of the state needs to be utilized for what it's meant for, forced expropriation, call it tax or whatever, but that is what modern society is built upon.What's the difference between you doing it and him doing it?

On an unrelated note, socialists like yourself really makes socialists like me appreciate how diverse a bunch we are :p

Yeah, but they end up voting for some guy with a good tie.

And marrying someone with bleached teeth...

Appearances are important almost regardless of your level of intelligence: A leader is percieved as someone who has to be charismatic and therefore the constructed media image is primarily for appearances instead of actual politics.

One could go as far as to say John Kerry lost because of his habitus.

What's the difference between you doing it and him doing it?

On an unrelated note, socialists like yourself really makes socialists like me appreciate how diverse a bunch we are :p

I am doing it for the majority, he's doing it for a minority, it's obvious that in an environment of minimal regulation and government interference natural oligarchic monopolists will emerge, for evidence of this see post-Soviet Russia, where it was basically a free-for-all to grab as much money from public assets as possible, using private mafias to kill financial opponents. Yeltsin-era Russia is exactly what the result of libertarianism really is, freedom is chaos, where anyone can take up arms and try to become the richest man around, that kind of capitalist competition destroys social solidarity and engenders a stagnative 'race to the bottom', you can see that in Russia today.

Freedom is the most horrible anti-social, anti-populace thing ever unleashed on humanity, it destroys everything as national, ethnic, community barriers are obliterated and all social cohesion lost in the blind pursuit to be the best and the richest, and all that remains is class. Liberalism/libertarianism is so dangerous that those who espouse it can only be killed to eliminate it, human survival depends upon a strong state to take wealth and distribute it more evenly amongst the populace, the alternate is a fragmented free-for-all capitalist 'self-rule' in which total freedom destroys any purpose or direction in life, until the eventual overproduction and duplication of effort and waste forces on the communist consumption economy.

Now I don't know much about the weak quasi-socialists you are apart of, but the capitalists will never willingly give up their property, they want to drive on this eventual unregulated race for profit in which they think they can come out on top, and those who loose to be left at the bottom heap of society with no protection or social insurance. Against such an enemy the only alternative is to destroy all those minority neoliberals who would wish to destroy social coherency, there can be nothing above this goal. Struggles are always bloody , and always will be, but one should not judge an ideology by the amount of blood it spills in trying to implement itself, violence it of itself is a means to the ideological goal.

What's the difference between you doing it and him doing it?

On an unrelated note, socialists like yourself really makes socialists like me appreciate how diverse a bunch we are :p
I think the difference lies in the honesty of the claim. Ojectivists and Libertarians are true believers in the myth of the self-made man, and refuse to acknowledge the debts they owe to society that provided them the stability and the resources to become who they are. Socialists know that stability and resource exploitation requires a sacrifice of some individual liberty, but figure the tradeoff is worth it.

I think the difference lies in the honesty of the claim. Ojectivists and Libertarians are true believers in the myth of the self-made man, and refuse to acknowledge the debts they owe to society that provided them the stability and the resources to become who they are. Socialists know that stability and resource exploitation requires a sacrifice of some individual liberty, but figure the tradeoff is worth it.

It is an essential trade-off, 'freedom' is chaos and destruction, humanity needs a strong state to direct it.

it's obvious that in an environment of minimal regulation and government interference natural oligarchic monopolists will emerge

Actually, "natural oligarchic monopolists" will only emerge when the state backs up their property claims with its guns in the first place.

I don't know--a ruling class dominating others through its state-backed control of resources doesn't sound very much like freedom to me.

freedom is chaos

Freedom is order. Domination is chaos.

Capitalist "freedom" is not freedom.

it destroys everything as national, ethnic, community barriers are obliterated

You imply for some reason that free people will disregard others.

Why?

and all social cohesion lost in the blind pursuit to be the best and the richest, and all that remains is class.

Class systems are only free for those at the top. For the vast majority, they are not the fulfillment of freedom but its negation.

You are buying into the right-wing libertarian false dichotomy of capitalist freedom versus socialist tyranny, but since the notion of "economic freedom" they tend to value so highly has very little to do with actual, substantive freedom, I see no reason for you--or anyone else--to do so.

Liberalism/libertarianism is so dangerous that those who espouse it can only be killed to eliminate it,

If "liberalism/libertarianism" is so clearly faulty, why do you feel the need to kill its advocates?

Won't people realize its errors on their own?

human survival depends upon a strong state to take wealth and distribute it more evenly amongst the populace,

Vast inequities in wealth are and always have been the product of a "strong state."

Honestly... go back and pay more attention to Marx.

the alternate is a fragmented free-for-all capitalist 'self-rule'

Capitalism does not even approximate self-rule.

Capitalism involves the rule of society by the owners of the means of production... generally a small minority, indicating that the majority of people do not, in fact, rule themselves.

in which total freedom destroys any purpose or direction in life

If I am free, I am free to set my own purposes and directions.

If I am ruled by others, others set my purposes and directions.

Which one is more likely to result in my life feeling purposeless and directionless? Undoubtedly the one where I have no control over, no connection to, the uses to which I am put.

Now I don't know much about the weak quasi-socialists you are apart of,

It is you who are the quasi-socialist.

Your "strong state" to ensure your idea of "social cohesion" will follow the old Leninist path of depriving the people of genuine economic power; it will turn economic democracy into an imitation of capitalist oligarchy.

Fundamentally you are nothing more than a reformist calling for a change in master.

but the capitalists will never willingly give up their property,

And the slave-owners tended not to willing give up their property, either.

Was forcing them to do so a victory or a defeat for genuine freedom?

Against such an enemy the only alternative is to destroy all those minority neoliberals who would wish to destroy social coherency,

And why is merely depriving them of power not sufficient?

one should not judge an ideology by the amount of blood it spills in trying to implement itself

Is not the number of lives lost in implementation a valid factor for consideration? And if you really have such massive majority support... why do you expect such a bloody conflict anyway?

I am not a pacifist, quite the contrary, but bloodshed is not exactly something to be disregarded.

Are you seriously suggesting that only people who are qualified enough get to vote? That is not democracy, that is oligarchy.

Governments rule by consent of the governed. If only some of the governed may vote, then the government is only ruling by consent of the few, which is an oligarchical society IMO.

We already have an oligarchy in the US. Our country is run by the people who are deadly serious about imposing their personal views on others, by artificial persons who are deadly serious about getting the government to help them make more money, and by stuffy elitist demagogues who generally just want personal aggrandizement.

That is to say, it's ruled by the few, the proud, the wealthy.

By the way, there's a good chance I'll be voting for Ron Paul myself.

Most of Europe does just fine with democracy for some reason.
However, America and a few other democracies have shown that their majorities are either stupid or evil, and thus democracy is not a proper form of government for them

Democracy is not a be all end all. It is a means to an end, a means to greater freedom and equality. In America is is used to restrict freedom and limit equality more often than not.

It is an essential trade-off, 'freedom' is chaos and destruction, humanity needs a strong state to direct it.

You don't have to convince me. The key word is "some." The discussion in most political circles is not whether or not there should be restrictions--just how much.

And marrying someone with bleached teeth...

Appearances are important almost regardless of your level of intelligence: A leader is percieved as someone who has to be charismatic and therefore the constructed media image is primarily for appearances instead of actual politics.

One could go as far as to say John Kerry lost because of his habitus.

Yeah. I blame Andrew Jackson.

Voting 'rights' are a joke. Firstly, the most that can be said of democracy is that it follows whatever the greatest number of people find pleasurable; it does not assure that the means to an end are at all proper or that the end is even something worth achieving. Thus, it is thoroughly irrational. Secondly, it takes away the power of jurisdiction of every individual to give it to a monopoly controlled, in theory, by a numerically superior number of people, or in actuality, by demagogues and charlatans. It is entirely against the concept of free will. Lastly, it corrupts the meaning of law from being natural precepts that people discover by reason into the mailed fist, thieving hand and smokescreen for whatever those in power will it to be.

There's some good literature out there from public choice theorists that argues rather persuasively that voting is a very irrational behavior, in terms of opportunity cost. And what's more irrational is voters actually taking the time to inform themselves of their choices.

"The Calculus of Consent" by Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan

"The Vote Motive" by Gordon Tullock

Anyhow, I guess by not allowing the uninformed to vote, you would be making it a wee bit more rational (or less irrational) for others to vote. But as much as I really really wish that there was some way to keep the uninformed from voting, something in my heart of hearts tells me it's probably wrong. (Damn... I guess I'm not perfectly rational, gotta work on that)

Anyhow, I guess by not allowing the uninformed to vote, you would be making it a wee bit more rational (or less irrational) for others to vote.

You would increase the power of the other votes, so, yes, voting would become more rational. But you'd accomplish the same by disenfranchising people with a certain hair or eye color.

Who the fuck needs to know what a cloture vote is? Seriously.

This guy is working with a completely outdated definition of an informed voter. No one needs to know how the government works, specifically. No one really needs to know what the FDA does. And in no way does any ordinary person need to know what filibusters and cloture votes are.

Political scientists have shifted to a new way of thinking: essential political knowledge consists primarily in knowing how to find these things out if/when you need to know them.

When do you need to know them? Primarily when you become concerned with a particular issue and you want to discover how to do something about it. Don't know who your congressperson is? Who cares, so long as you can figure out that if you go to the right website you can easily find out. Don't know how to organize a petition drive to call a referendum? No big deal, so long as you can find someone to ask when an issue arises that you really care about.

There's some good literature out there from public choice theorists that argues rather persuasively that voting is a very irrational behavior, in terms of opportunity cost.
Shit, all you need to see to know that is to look at how poor people vote for Republicans. If you're voting in pure self-interest, and if you make less than $200K a year, there's no way in hell you should be voting for Republicans, social issues be damned.

Shit, all you need to see to know that is to look at how poor people vote for Republicans. If you're voting in pure self-interest, and if you make less than $200K a year, there's no way in hell you should be voting for Republicans, social issues be damned.
In my experience dealing with plenty of poor Republicans, two things become clear. Most don't know how bad they have it, relatively, and what little they think they know of economics tells them that welfare hurts the White Man; most consider the oppression of gays and Mexicans to be in their self interest.

Voting 'rights' are a joke. Firstly, the most that can be said of democracy is that it follows whatever the greatest number of people find pleasurable; it does not assure that the means to an end are at all proper or that the end is even something worth achieving. Thus, it is thoroughly irrational. Secondly, it takes away the power of jurisdiction of every individual to give it to a monopoly controlled, in theory, by a numerically superior number of people, or in actuality, by demagogues and charlatans. It is entirely against the concept of free will. Lastly, it corrupts the meaning of law from being natural precepts that people discover by reason into the mailed fist, thieving hand and smokescreen for whatever those in power will it to be.

Finally, I have been waiting for you, New Mitanni, Freedom, DK and the rest of the MTAE crowd to come and advocate oligarchy. Well done.

Finally, I have been waiting for you, New Mitanni, Freedom, DK and the rest of the MTAE crowd to come and advocate oligarchy. Well done.
It's better than that.
Greill openly advocates absolutist monarchy.

I think the difference lies in the honesty of the claim.I've yet to see the basis for the claims made by ancap'ers, so although I can't imagine how it could work, it may simply be a failure of my imagination.Socialists know that stability and resource exploitation requires a sacrifice of some individual liberty, but figure the tradeoff is worth it.Libertarianism usually is socialism. I realise Americans use weird dialect, but, well.. This isn't the US and you're not addressing an American.

Apart from that, I absolutely do not know people need to be subjugated to be free. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. And I still don't see what difference it makes whether or not someone tells me it's for my own good they take away my autonomy.

As for your spirited rant, AP; Soheran pretty much answered for the both of us (thanks), but here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalists) a helpful little wiki entry on the 'weak quasi' socialists :p

If you believe the following results in a one political party state government where diffrent economic, political and social views are not allowed to be represented in its National Assembly by its government to be fair, correct and democratic, than I dont know how to answer you, Cuba is not a Socialist Democratic State, it is a Socialist Dictatorship at best to say the most, an interesting coment of mine at the end of the post.

In Cuba voting is not compulsory, but you may be visisted by Neighborhood Committees for the Defense of the Revolution to remind you of your duty to the people, government and the Revolution.

The United Vote block option is a vote for all of the above candidates, yet the deputys elections are supposed to be seperate elections.

After ex Cuban political prisoner, Oswaldo Paya's peceful opposition illegal organization collected over 10,000 signatures through the Varela Project, then over 20,000 signatures of eligible Cuban voters to demand a referendum on economic, and political reforms as allowed for under the Cuban Constitution, President for life Fidel announced a government counter petition to amend the Cuban Constitution to declare Cuba's economic, political and social system as untouchable later changed by the Cuban National Assembly to irrevocable to make it more precise, which according to the Cuban government was signed and supported by over 99 % Percent of Cuban eligible voters,


Cuba 2003 Election Results :

Electoral results
By Maria Julia Mayora
609 deputies and 1 199 provincial delegates were elected. 91.35% of the voters chose the united vote(block) option. For the first time in Cuba, the amount of citizens that went to the polls exceeded the eight millions.

According to the information offered by Dr. Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission(CEN), the updated voter's registry included 8 313 770 people, and 8 115 215 of them exercised their constitutional right, having a 97.61% of attendance.

Not only the high rate of participation is transcendent but also the quality of the elections. Vela indicated that 7 803 893 ballots were valid(96.14%), which surpasses last October's 241 378 valid ballots when the district delegates were elected.

This opportunity the balance of ballots in blank(243 431) and the spoilt ones(69 863), was smaller. In October they averaged the 2.78% and 2.54% respectively; this time they represented the 3% and 0.86%. This is a clear demonstration of the Cuban people position, even though U.S. employees persistent calls to sabotage the elections.

Our people, commented the university professor and President of CEN, knows what it wants, it is convinced of its principles and demonstrates this through the secret vote.

A 91.35% of the united vote, commented Ruben Perez, secretary of CEN, is a fact of extraordinary value. It means that some other 14 992 electors chose this alternative compared with the general elections of 1997-98. That percentage, he said, remarks the popular support that enjoys the Cuban democratic system, and expresses the level of unity and political culture that has been reached during this 44 years of Revolution.

SUCCESS IN THE TWO EVALUATIONS
What has happened this January is also evidence of the rigor that presided the nomination process of the 609 deputies candidates and the 1 199 provincial delegates candidates. Ernesto Freire, president of the National Candidacies Commission, pointed out that there were two important evaluations to be made for the representatives of the electoral commissions. One, derived from the fact that the municipal assemblies had the right to approve or reject the proposals, and the second one with the voting results because all nominees were elected, they need to win more than half of the valid votes.

In addition, Freire summarized the amplitude and meaning of the exchanges between the candidates and the people. Altogether, 11 102 meetings took place with the presence of more than 2 161 150 Cubans. (February, 2003)

More than eight million Cubans vote
Conclusive evidence of popular support for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism

BY MARÍA JULIA MAYORAL -Granma daily staff writer-WITH the participation of 8,115,215 voters in this Sunday's elections, the Cuban people once again offered conclusive evidence of their support for candidates for the National and Provincial Assemblies, but also for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism.

According to preliminary information given by Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission (CEN), 97.61% of persons on the electoral rolls voted, on a day characterized by organization, the early attendance of millions of electors at the polling stations and the special patriotic spirit offered by the presence of thousands of young pioneers guarding the ballot boxes.

At the close of this bulletin the count was underway, beginning with the votes cast for deputies. Vela explained that once that was completed, they would proceed to validate the election of 609 candidates to the National Assembly and then the 1,199 provincial delegates. In the case of the former the responsibility lies with the CEN and, in the latter, with the corresponding provincial electoral commissions.

In order to be elected, each nominee must receive more than half of the valid votes cast in the municipality or district where they were proposed.

The CEN president emphasized the good functioning of communications systems in spite of heavy rain in parts of east Cuba, like Santiago de Cuba, Holguín, Granma and Las Tunas. He likewise praised the excellent labors of more then 180,000 citizens who voluntarily staffed the constituency tables, and the work of the commissions at all levels.

The most recent electoral process to elect municipal, and provincial delegates and members of the national Parliament, ended on January 19, 2003 with a voter turnout of 95.75 percent to elect the municipal and provincial delegates, and a 97.61 percent turnout when the elections for the national Parliament took place.

(Taken from: Granma)

Granma


International
English edition.N A L

Havana. January 21, 2003

97.61% turn out in elections

• 8,115,215 Cubans vote • 91.35% choose block vote • 96.14% valid ballots

DR. Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission (CEN), announced that 97.61% of the 8,313,770 registered voters went to the polls in the January 19 elections.

Speaking on Cuban television, Vela detailed that 8,115,215 Cubans exercised their constitutional right to elect National Assembly (Parliament) deputies and People’s Power Provincial Assembly delegates.

He highlighted that 91.35% of electors chose the united vote (block) option and 8.65% used the selective vote (one or various candidates).

The CEN president gave the voting figures for the country’s provinces: Pinar del Río, 97.08%; Habana, 99.49%; Havana City 95.22%; Matanzas, 96.37%; Villa Clara, 97.36%; Cienfuegos, 97.39%; Sancti Spíritus, 96.02%; Ciego de Avila, 96.55%; Camagüey, 97.29%; Las Tunas, 97.46%; Holguín, 95.44%; Granma, 97.72%; Santiago, 97.54%; Guantánamo, 96.05%; and Isle of Youth special municipality, 96.44%.

All the candidates for deputies and provincial delegates were elected (they needed to win more than half of the valid votes), added Vela, explaining that the number of votes obtained by each person would be published shortly, once the validation process was completed.

Vela also summarized votes cast: 96.14% were valid; 3% left blank; and 0.86% were spoilt.


NEWS

Millions of workers get two days off to watch National Assembly session on television

Associated Press June 24, 2002 Monday 8:57 AM Eastern Time

By ANITA SNOW; Associated Press Writer


HAVANA-Millions of workers across this communist island were being given the day off Monday and Tuesday to allow them to watch a special televised parliamentary session to consider inscribing Cuba's socialist system in the constitution as "untouchable."

The communist leadership's decision to close all offices, factories and stores for two full days during its current cash crunch underscored the importance it is placing on the proposed constitutional amendment that states Cuba's economic, political and social systems cannot be changed.

Hospitals, transportation and other essential services will not be interrupted, but school classes will be canceled for those two days and previously scheduled semester-end examinations will be postponed. Fidel Castro called the special parliamentary session over the weekend.

The entire session both days will be broadcast live on state television and radio.

The measure had been expected to be considered during a regular session of the National Assembly, Cuba's unicameral parliament, on July 5. But National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon on Friday asked Castro to call a special session because he believed the proposal is so historically significant.

The constitutional change was the subject of a campaign by the communist system's national support groups, which say they gathered 8.1 million signatures - more than 99 percent of the island's legal voters aged 16 and older.

Opposition leaders say the signature campaign was the government's response to their own petition, which collected more than 11,000 signatures. They have also questioned whether all of those signing the official petition did so of their own free will.

Known as the Varela Project, the opposition's petition seeks a referendum asking voters if they favor reforms such as freedom of expression, the right to own a business and an amnesty for political prisoners.

Most Cubans first heard of Varela Project last month in a speech by former President Jimmy Carter when he visited the island. But its contents have not been published in the state media.

Organizers of Varela Project campaign delivered their petitions to the National Assembly on May 10 and have received no response. It still remained unclear what impact the government's own constitutional amendment would have on the Varela Project.

The government maintains it is protesting statements last month by President George W. Bush that American travel and trade restrictions with the communist island would not be eased unless Cuba embraces democracy.

Copyright 2002 Associated Press


Cuba has upcoming Municipal, Provincial and National Assembly elections late this year and early next year date to be announced, would anyone like to guess and or NS bet $ the results of those upcoming elections?

Finally, I have been waiting for you, New Mitanni, Freedom, DK and the rest of the MTAE crowd to come and advocate oligarchy. Well done.

I'm not a conservative, fool. Nor am I an oligarch as concerns the state's monopoly on jurisdiction; there should be no such monopoly since every man has the inherent right to jurisdiction to his own person. But given the choice between having a king have that monopoly on jurisdiction or the mob, I will choose to be a subject of a king than a victim of the mob.

It's better than that.
Greill openly advocates absolutist monarchy.

I advocate it over democracy. An anarcho-capitalist order would be optimal, but given the choice between monarchy and democracy I will choose monarchy.

I'm not a conservative, fool. Nor am I an oligarch as concerns the state's monopoly on jurisdiction; there should be no such monopoly since every man has the inherent right to jurisdiction to his own person. But given the choice between having a king have that monopoly on jurisdiction or the mob, I will choose to be a subject of a king than a victim of the mob.



I advocate it over democracy. An anarcho-capitalist order would be optimal, but given the choice between monarchy and democracy I will choose monarchy.
Your arguments for preferring monarchy don't make any sense historically, though. I mean, which has, in the past tended to be more free, democracies or monarchies? In the present?

Your arguments for preferring monarchy don't make any sense historically, though. I mean, which has, in the past tended to be more free, democracies or monarchies? In the present?
I'd say that Belgium, the UK, most of Scandinavia and Monaco are freer than most democracies at this point in time.

I'd say that Belgium, the UK, most of Scandinavia and Monaco are freer than most democracies at this point in time.
Maybe not the UK, but yeah I agree with you.
However, Greil and I are referring to absolute monarchies, not parliamentary, constitutionally neutered monarchies.
I assure you, Greil hates those nations plenty.

Maybe not the UK, but yeah I agree with you.
However, Greil and I are referring to absolute monarchies, not parliamentary, constitutionally neutered monarchies.
I assure you, Greil hates those nations plenty.
The British Empahr was built off the back of what was, essentially, an absolute monarchy. And that was quite impressive.

Anyway, who cares about freedom when you're eating and living well?

I'd rather live in a benovolent dictatorship than a fairly rubbish elected government, to be honest.

The British Empahr was built off the back of what was, essentially, an absolute monarchy. And that was quite impressive.
It was only impressive if you were rich.
I'd rather live in a benovolent dictatorship than a fairly rubbish elected government, to be honest.

So would I. In fact, I've no great love for democracy. However, I find the idea of hereditary rule, and the entrenched, unquestionable authority it creates to be quite repulsive.

I'd rather live in a benovolent dictatorship than a fairly rubbish elected government, to be honest.

You then get into the whole problem of what will happen when the next person to be the dictator isn't such a benevolent person...

Your arguments for preferring monarchy don't make any sense historically, though. I mean, which has, in the past tended to be more free, democracies or monarchies? In the present?

Monarchies. If you look at the statistics, monarchies only taxed around 5% of national income, with only Imperial Germany ever exceeding 15%. Nowadays it is typical for democracies to tax away 50% of national income. Not to mention that monarchies are based upon a system of private rights that threaten the foundation of the king's authority should he begin to violate them (not to mention that the idea of discovered, not legislated, law neatly eliminates the explosion of regulation found in democracy.) Whereas, the power in democracy is based upon public law, which is inherently above private law, and also combines the forces of egalitarianism, centralization, identitarianism and materialism that allow demagogues and dictators to exterminate millions because the "people" demand it. Not to mention that monarchies own the capital values of their land, since they will stay in power and be able to do what they want with their property, while democrats of all stripes have no such ownership and will seek to work in the extreme short-term rather than the long-term of the king.

Maybe not the UK, but yeah I agree with you.
However, Greil and I are referring to absolute monarchies, not parliamentary, constitutionally neutered monarchies.
I assure you, Greil hates those nations plenty.

I don't "hate" any nation. To do such a thing would be outright collectivism, and I will not have any part of it. However, parliamentary governments infect monarchies with identitarianism, centralization, egalitarianism and materialism that resulted in World War I, as well as work to erode the rational nature of law to make it into a bludgeon for plunder.

So would I. In fact, I've no great love for democracy. However, I find the idea of hereditary rule, and the entrenched, unquestionable authority it creates to be quite repulsive.

I dislike the state's monopoly on force, no matter the form, and wish for it to be ended. But if I have to choose a monopoly system of law based upon the discovery of rational precepts in a system that respects subsidiary institutions such as family versus a monopoly system of law based upon an almighty state that may do whatever they wish "for the people", I will take the former.

Monarchies. If you look at the statistics, monarchies only taxed around 5% of national income, with only Imperial Germany ever exceeding 15%. Nowadays it is typical for democracies to tax away 50% of national income. Not to mention that monarchies are based upon a system of private rights that threaten the foundation of the king's authority should he begin to violate them (not to mention that the idea of discovered, not legislated, law neatly eliminates the explosion of regulation found in democracy.) Whereas, the power in democracy is based upon public law, which is inherently above private law, and also combines the forces of egalitarianism, centralization, identitarianism and materialism that allow demagogues and dictators to exterminate millions because the "people" demand it. Not to mention that monarchies own the capital values of their land, since they will stay in power and be able to do what they want with their property, while democrats of all stripes have no such ownership and will seek to work in the extreme short-term rather than the long-term of the king.
I was referring to things like freedom of speech, emancipation, proper marriage laws, the rights of the accused and such things.
A fifty percent income tax isn't really that damaging when the government pays for healthcare, education, roads, security etc.
But you know, I'm just one of those crazy people that prefers people be happy than beholden to a bunch of mental masturbation some old rich guys came up with two hundred years ago

I was referring to things like freedom of speech, emancipation, proper marriage laws, the rights of the accused and such things.

There are democracies today that don't have such luxuries. Such liberties are not a necessary trait to democracy; in fact, given democracy's nature, they tend to be distorted severely from their most liberal nature.

A fifty percent income tax isn't really that damaging when the government pays for healthcare, education, roads, security etc.

It is damaging when the government shouldn't be in such industries in the first place.

But you know, I'm just one of those crazy people that prefers people be happy than beholden to a bunch of mental masturbation some old rich guys came up with two hundred years ago

And I'm just one of those crazy people that prefers that the rational people be able to live life to its fullest meaning instead of being bludgeoned constantly. Seeing as how the king will leave those people (relatively) alone for his own benefit while the masses will beat them down constantly out of envy, I will take the former every time.

There are democracies today that don't have such luxuries. Such liberties are not a necessary trait to democracy; in fact, given democracy's nature, they tend to be distorted severely from their most liberal nature.
However, they are definitely found more often in democracy. Though, I believe I said I do not necessarily support democracy.
It is damaging when the government shouldn't be in such industries in the first place.
I suppose this attitude is to be expected of someone who follows philosophers who existed before the study of evolutionary biology. Humans evolved as a societal species, and only survived because of group efforts. There is nothing unnatural or wrong about making sure everyone has access to education and health-care.
And I'm just one of those crazy people that prefers that the rational people be able to live life to its fullest meaning instead of being bludgeoned constantly.
It's awfully hard to live life to its fullest when you're born into a poor family and have to work eighty hours a week in a factory just to be able to afford food.
Seeing as how the king will leave those people (relatively) alone for his own benefit while the masses will beat them down constantly out of envy, I will take the former every time.
There are plenty of kings throughout history who put people to death merely for speaking out against them.

Monarchies. If you look at the statistics, monarchies only taxed around 5% of national income, with only Imperial Germany ever exceeding 15%. Nowadays it is typical for democracies to tax away 50% of national income. Not to mention that monarchies are based upon a system of private rights that threaten the foundation of the king's authority should he begin to violate them (not to mention that the idea of discovered, not legislated, law neatly eliminates the explosion of regulation found in democracy.) Whereas, the power in democracy is based upon public law, which is inherently above private law, and also combines the forces of egalitarianism, centralization, identitarianism and materialism that allow demagogues and dictators to exterminate millions because the "people" demand it. Not to mention that monarchies own the capital values of their land, since they will stay in power and be able to do what they want with their property, while democrats of all stripes have no such ownership and will seek to work in the extreme short-term rather than the long-term of the king.

When you start equating freedom with the amount you pay in taxes, it's pretty clear that you have no sense of scale or of the human as an independent being aside from an economy.

When you start equating freedom with the amount you pay in taxes, it's pretty clear that you have no sense of scale or of the human as an independent being aside from an economy.

There were other things I said about monarchy vs. democracy, such as the inherently irrational and violent nature of public law vs. that of private law, but since you seem fairly intent on cherry-picking, I will say that the only human rights are property rights, i.e. the rights to one's means to use them for your own ends whether they are your mind, your body or your material possessions, and that to violate any of them is necessarily an attack against the inalienable will and necessarily a violation of freedom.

Not to mention that democracies, by nature of their philosophical materialism, identitarianism, egalitarianism and centralization will treat all rights as grants from an almighty power as opposed to possessions, and have done so repeatedly. The violation of property through exorbitant taxation is merely one manifestation of democracy's attacks on one's rights.

However, they are definitely found more often in democracy. Though, I believe I said I do not necessarily support democracy.

No, they aren't. Illiberal democracies are far more common than liberal democracies, and even liberal democracies have a nasty tendency to progressively violate rights (see every president since Coolidge.) Whereas in a monarchy people are far more aware and protective of their rights.

I suppose this attitude is to be expected of someone who follows philosophers who existed before the study of evolutionary biology. Humans evolved as a societal species, and only survived because of group efforts. There is nothing unnatural or wrong about making sure everyone has access to education and health-care.

There is benefit in cooperation; see the division of labor. There is also benefit to relieving others of sadness or giving them happiness, as it befits our rational human nature (we avoid pain and seek happiness ourselves, so it fits our nature to do the same for others.) But to violate someone else's will serve no good for the one whose will has been violated; they must be free to follow their own ends using their means as they wish, or they will not achieve those ends. And to be one who forces others to serve your own ends is no better, since it is logically contradictory that one has the right to force other human beings to not have rights.

Quite honestly, I don't know why you insist on bringing up evolutionary biology. The natural sciences and the humanities are completely different fields, the former being a posteriori and the latter being a priori. Mixing the two does no service to either.

It's awfully hard to live life to its fullest when you're born into a poor family and have to work eighty hours a week in a factory just to be able to afford food.

Material wealth is not the proper ultimate objective norm for ethics, since material wealth is neither complete (there's always more to earn) nor permanent. One can live a materially poor life while making your life meaningful, see Mother Theresa.

There are plenty of kings throughout history who put people to death merely for speaking out against them.

Yes, there are, but there are also plenty of people who were killed by some demagogue wielding the "will of the people." I have said it before and I'll say it again, I do not support the state's monopoly on force. But at least in monarchy assassination is a viable option (see the philosophical tradition of regicide), while assassination in democracy merely results in getting another scummy politician in charge.

Quite honestly, I don't know why you insist on bringing up evolutionary biology. The natural sciences and the humanities are completely different fields, the former being a posteriori and the latter being a priori. Mixing the two does no service to either.
You fail to see how everything is interconnected.
That's your problem, I think.

You fail to see how everything is interconnected.
That's your problem, I think.

They are completely different fields of study. Ethics is inherently axiomatic and rational, while the natural sciences are a posteriori and empirical. It is just as stupid to force empirical conclusions onto ethics as it would be to force axiomatic conclusions onto natural science. Your dogged insistence on mixing the two is like taking two different jigsaw puzzles and cutting them all up so that they fit together. All you will get is one distorted picture instead of two clear ones.

They are completely different fields of study. Ethics is inherently axiomatic and rational, while the natural sciences are a posteriori and empirical. It is just as stupid to force empirical conclusions onto ethics as it would be to force axiomatic conclusions onto natural science. Your dogged insistence on mixing the two is like taking two different jigsaw puzzles and cutting them all up so that they fit together. All you will get is one distorted picture instead of two clear ones.
The fact that you refuse to see how scientific revelations about humanity's development and mental functioning would be relevant to ethics is just one more indicator of your self-imposed short-sightedness.