NationStates Jolt Archive

The question explains the thread. I believe the politicians are the ones who should have to be educated, but let me hear your opinions my fellow NSG members.

Yes.

In a perfect world the entire populace would be educated....And in the Ideal situation Id say yes, the voter should be educated to vote...

However, different interpretations, and manipulations of the word "Educated" allows for corruption and discrimination, so I couldnt in good conscience support it going into law...

Yes.

College? High school?

If by educated, you mean aware of the consequences (short AND long term) from their opinion.
Yes.

Otherwise, not really.

Democracy isn't about letting only those we deem "worthy" to vote, its about creating equality regardless of circumstance.

If you want only the educated to have power over the uneducated, I suggest you go live in a Platonian republic.

Should the people be educated?

College? High school?
College.
Democracy isn't about letting only those we deem "worthy" to vote, its about creating equality regardless of circumstance.

If you want only the educated to have power over the uneducated, I suggest you go live in a Platonian republic.
If only.

Autodidacticism says no

I believe the politicians are the ones who should have to be educated

well that gets rid of a fair amount of "great" men like Lincoln :p

College.

well that rules me out along with a fair number of servicemen in favour of a bunch of bloody students (we'd be communist in about a week!)

well that rules me out along with a fair number of servicemen in favour of a bunch of bloody students (we'd be communist in about a week!)
Not by the time they've finished uni and have had a job and hence taxes, no. Then it changes from "HEEEELP THE PROOOLES" to "WHERES MAH MONEEEYS :("

well that gets rid of a fair amount of "great" men like Lincoln :p

I meant political school; Lincoln was a good President but is obscenely overrated (who needs trials!).

No. I think the views of all individuals should be taken into account, not only the views of the educated.

If only.

Ah yes, if only we were ruled over by philosopher-kings.

I meant political school; Lincoln was a good President but is obscenely overrated.

Oh yeah? Explain.

Oh yeah? Explain.

Explain how he is overrated? He is looked upon as a saint-like liberator. He only won a war and abolished slavery in the South (it gave him slaves to use as soldiers and added to support to his cause; of course, the Union kept its slaves). In the meantime he nearly turned this country into a dictatorship.

So he really just won the Civil War, and most of that credit goes to Grant, who did not do as well as he could have.

You'll never be able to quantify if someone is intellectually competent enough to vote or not, or not for every person in the population anyway, so your question is redundant.

College.



What about schools that teach you how to perform more complex jobs, but aren't colleges? Should plumbers be denied the right to vote because they went to trade schools instead of going to college and becoming teachers or doctors or something?

Not by the time they've finished uni and have had a job and hence taxes, no. Then it changes from "HEEEELP THE PROOOLES" to "WHERES MAH MONEEEYS :("

so its basically the same thing only with more porn actors coming from useless things like drama :p

also what on Earth can you learn from uni that makes you any more fit than say a guy who worked in the real world from 16 onwards?

I meant political school; Lincoln was a good President but is obscenely overrated.

and what would a political school involve? I can only think of reading the prince over and over

and I put great in [those word things that I can't remember the name of] because its rather subjective, I just wanted to give an example like at the end of Gattaca

Should the people be educated?

Nah. It only gives them ideas.

Explain how he is overrated? He is looked upon as a saint-like liberator. He only won a war and abolished slavery in the South as a punishment. In the meantime, he nearly turned this country into a dictatorship.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus (certainly not unique among war-time Presidents, in fact show me a President who didn't do this during war), he did not "nearly turn this country into a dictatorship". He didn't only "[win] a war" either, he kept the country from dissolving. There was a very real threat that the United States would not be so very united anymore, and he prevented that from happening. He wasn't perfect and he wasn't a saint or really a liberator, but he definitely did a lot more than you give him credit for.

A widely known and taught liberal political scientist, a guy by the name of Rawls, believes that all political decisions should be made from what he terms the "original position". This is a position free of any distinctions that are made when we are born, or after. So, for instance, I am a white middle class male, but in the original position I would be none of that. Nor would I be an atheist, a liberal, or any different from everyone else in the original position. So while we are in this position, with the possibility of being born a black man in inner city Chicago or a rich yuppie in Silicon Valley with access to every opportunity available, we must make decisions about how we form our governments. Thus, the conclusion Rawls makes (and rightly so) is that from the original position democracy is the only logical form of government. A dictatorship only benefits one person, and its unlikely it'll be you, so that's out. And a pure meritocracy benefits only those with access to education (college, as someone has previously stated), leaving out a sizable number of the population.

You believe that those who are uneducated (who have not had access to the same opportunities as you have) are not informed enough to make proper decisions, but who are you to give or take away their rights? You could just have easily been born in a place where selling drugs was the most logical life plan. You could be them, and I doubt you would feel the same.

and what would a political school involve? I can only think of reading the prince over and over

Discourses is a far better book. As for other authors? Chanakya, Nixon, Frederick the Great, Bonaparte and Cicero among many, supplemented by a massive study of political-history, cause-and-effect, governance, diplomacy, and economics.

so its basically the same thing only with more porn actors coming from useless things like drama
Drama would be banned as a university study :tongue:
also what on Earth can you learn from uni that makes you any more fit than say a guy who worked in the real world from 16 onwards?
History and all that. Taking a Broader Look At Things. Basically I'm just trying to justify my existence here.

Drama would be banned as a university study :tongue:

History and all that. Taking a Broader Look At Things. Basically I'm just trying to justify my existence here.

College can certainly broaden your horizons if you participate in it, but people who did not go to college are by no means less smart than we who did. I think Confucius said that.

Discourses is a far better book. As for other authors? Chanakya, Nixon, Frederick the Great, Bonaparte and Cicero among many, supplemented by a massive study of political-history, cause-and-effect, governance, diplomacy, and economics.

isn't the norm that politicians study law? either way the public already seems to make this decision choosing (though I'd hazard it as a party decision) to elect leaders with qualifications like bush and his MBA + bachelors in history

Should the people be educated?

Is our children learning?

Drama would be banned as a university study :tongue:

whilst were at it then I can think of a fair few other to ban like history for instance which only allows for an exciting career in teaching history :p

History and all that. Taking a Broader Look At Things. Basically I'm just trying to justify my existence here.

pfft if getting pissed on peoples tax money is broadening horizons then I suggest we start electing people based on the amount of burberry they wear

College can certainly broaden your horizons if you participate in it, but people who did not go to college are by no means less smart than we who did. I think Confucius said that.

I can support the idea of me being smarter than some of the higher education types I've come across :D

TShould the people have to be educated to vote?
If you mean 'should there be a legal requirment that voters be of a certain educational level', as I think you do, then I'd say no.

But a voting public that is not educated and informed is fairly useless.


and what would a political school involve? I can only think of reading the prince over and over
Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, Godwin, Marx, Kropotkin, Berlin, Rawls, Nozick, Arendt, Bookchin.

For a start.

I know I will regret posting this but here it goes. Yes, people should be educated in order to vote.

College.

If only.

Agreed, and agreed. Bloody good form.

Personally, I'd favour either passing a specific qualification at GCSE and sixth form level, or simply requiring a degree from a proper university, and in a proper subject. No "media studies" wank.

I know I will regret posting this but here it goes. Yes, people should be educated in order to vote.

that will learn them for not learning!

but why?

Personally, I'd favour either passing a specific qualification at GCSE and sixth form level, or simply requiring a degree from a proper university, and in a proper subject. No "media studies" wank.

1) you seen to be putting quite a bit of faith in GCSE teaching which I find a bit silly (also would students who get an A* have 2 votes?)

2) there have been plenty of good politicians who didn't go to university and plenty of awful ones that did though performance is subjective George Bush would seem rather qualified

No "media studies" wank.
Because?

that will learn them for not learning!

but why?

Because I think that someone who's ignorant, and granted just because someone goes to college doesn't mean this person will be enlightened or less ignorant, but to the point, someone who's too ignorant on the subject won't be able to make an intelligent (and perhaps I'm stretching it, sorry CTP:() decision.

Because?

Take the above a flippant example of a wider issue I feel should be addressed; simply requiring a degree as qualification for franchise presupposes that a degree confers this. In light of the proliferation of courses with dubious academic merits, at dubious institutions, I'd advocate also limiting the courses to those with a certain degree of academic rigour. Hence, no bilge like management, media studies and the corpus of recent innovations that offer an excuse to drink for 3 years.

I know I will regret posting this but here it goes. Yes, people should be educated in order to vote.

Well, they should be...

Problem is, If you try to implement a system based on that, you will have to define what "Educated" is, and ensure that no one can equate "Educated" with "Member of my Ideology"...

Problem is, If you try to implement a system based on that, you will have to define what "Educated" is, and ensure that no one can equate "Educated" with "Member of my Ideology"...

Yes, that is something that will present a problem. To define ''educated'' could be quite a difficult task. It was tried, at least here, on NSG.

Because I think that someone who's ignorant, and granted just because someone goes to college doesn't mean this person will be enlightened or less ignorant, but to the point, someone who's too ignorant on the subject won't be able to make an intelligent (and perhaps I'm stretching it, sorry CTP:() decision.

Don't worry, miss. In my line of work, I've seen boys, barely out of high school, barely passing high school, make excellent decisions. With explosives.

Because I think that someone who's ignorant, and granted just because someone goes to college doesn't mean this person will be enlightened or less ignorant, but to the point, someone who's too ignorant on the subject won't be able to make an intelligent (and perhaps I'm stretching it, sorry CTP:() decision.

Indeed. The metaphor used to refute hereditary power might be salutary here; just as one would not have a hereditary pilot or captain, neither would one have said figure elected by the entirety of the passengers, who are as liable to support somebody because they seem a nice chap, lie, or are charming as they are a suitable candidate.

A widely known and taught liberal political scientist, a guy by the name of Rawls, believes that all political decisions should be made from what he terms the "original position". This is a position free of any distinctions that are made when we are born, or after. So, for instance, I am a white middle class male, but in the original position I would be none of that. Nor would I be an atheist, a liberal, or any different from everyone else in the original position. So while we are in this position, with the possibility of being born a black man in inner city Chicago or a rich yuppie in Silicon Valley with access to every opportunity available, we must make decisions about how we form our governments. Thus, the conclusion Rawls makes (and rightly so) is that from the original position democracy is the only logical form of government. A dictatorship only benefits one person, and its unlikely it'll be you, so that's out. And a pure meritocracy benefits only those with access to education (college, as someone has previously stated), leaving out a sizable number of the population.

You believe that those who are uneducated (who have not had access to the same opportunities as you have) are not informed enough to make proper decisions, but who are you to give or take away their rights? You could just have easily been born in a place where selling drugs was the most logical life plan. You could be them, and I doubt you would feel the same.

Because I think that someone who's ignorant, and granted just because someone goes to college doesn't mean this person will be enlightened or less ignorant, but to the point, someone who's too ignorant on the subject won't be able to make an intelligent (and perhaps I'm stretching it, sorry CTP:() decision.
Would you perhaps then say that it is in the State's best interest, and/or that it is the State's duty, to educate citizens to at least a sufficient level?

Indeed. The metaphor used to refute hereditary power might be salutary here; just as one would not have a hereditary pilot or captain, neither would one have said figure elected by the entirety of the passengers, who are as liable to support somebody because they seem a nice chap, lie, or are charming as they are a suitable candidate.

I think you summed it up better than I did. At least, let me just say that to vote, a person should, at least, posses some education. It doesn't necessarily have to entail uni education, or phD level, but at least not someone completely illiterate. That won't truly do.

Would you perhaps then say that it is in the State's best interest, and/or that it is the State's duty, to educate citizens to at least a sufficient level?

In the State's best interest. That doesn't necessarily mean, as you well know, that it's what the State wants or that it may consider it its duty. Ignorant masses are the best to manipulate. But for the public, for their sakes, education to a sufficient level, is of the utmost importance.

Because?

actually someone who studies media would be rather good at manipulating the public...we might be able to do with less of that in politics

Because I think that someone who's ignorant, and granted just because someone goes to college doesn't mean this person will be enlightened or less ignorant, but to the point, someone who's too ignorant on the subject won't be able to make an intelligent (and perhaps I'm stretching it, sorry CTP:() decision.

1) but how does college\some government course correct that?
2) don't worry I'm used to be called uneducated :p

Hence, no bilge like management, media studies and the corpus of recent innovations that offer an excuse to drink for 3 years.

so what do you study?

Do you have a right to affect the future of the nation without understanding the issue?

college to vote BAH. Not relevant.
Instead 2 years military service should be required to vote.

In the State's best interest. That doesn't necessarily mean, as you well know, that it's what the State wants or that it may consider it its duty. Ignorant masses are the best to manipulate. But for the public, for their sakes, education to a sufficient level, is of the utmost importance.

But then how are Governments going to Preemptively strike pointless targets without everyone getting all Pissed Off...:confused:

1) but how does college\some government course correct that?
2) don't worry I'm used to be called uneducated :p

1) I don't think taking a course on how to ''properly vote'' is the correct way to fix anything. Actually, something like that wouldn't help at all. By my post I meant that education is important, not at uni level, but illiteracy wouldn't do either.

2) I don't consider you uneducated.

But then how are Governments going to Preemptively strike pointless targets without everyone getting all Pissed Off...:confused:

Er... what?:confused:

Education is not a cure for stupidity. It is often one of the root causes.

Until human beings can learn to overcome their greed and lack of concern for others, we should be ruled over by an army of benevolent robots with laz0rz and giant chrome wangs.

so what do you study?

History. Late Imperial, Justininiac, Arab Conquest and Carolingian.

Do you have a right to affect the future of the nation without understanding the issue?

Yes. It is a fact that women in Congress better represent women than their male counterparts, so if we give only educated people voting rights they aren't going to benevolently support the uneducated. At least, not as much as the uneducated already do. All of this reeks of paternalism and honestly I didn't think a group of liberal people like y'all would believe this ridiculousness.

college to vote BAH. Not relevant.
Instead 2 years military service should be required to vote.

http://img3.ifilmpro.com/resize/image/stills/films/resize/istd/2969900.jpg

Do YOU have what it takes to be a Citizen!?

college to vote BAH. Not relevant.
Instead 2 years military service should be required to vote.

Because you see no issue with having the government control likely voters?

Er... what?:confused:

I was just making a snarky comment that it wouldnt be in the Government's best interest....


Mostly, I was being stupid out of boredom, :p lol

Yes. It is a fact that women in Congress better represent women than their male counterparts, so if we give only educated people voting rights they aren't going to benevolently support the uneducated. At least, not as much as the uneducated already do. All of this reeks of paternalism and honestly I didn't think a group of liberal people like y'all would believe this ridiculousness.

It's an issue of responsibility; you wouldn't permit the army, or any other institition that wields such power, to be dictated by those lacking in rudimentary knowledge. Hence, why government?

I was just making a snarky comment that it wouldnt be in the Government's best interest....


Mostly, I was being stupid out of boredom, :p lol

Ah, my bad. My brain's half here.:tongue:

But yes, it is not in the Government's best interest to have an educated country. As I already said, uneducated masses are best for controlling.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus (certainly not unique among war-time Presidents, in fact show me a President who didn't do this during war),

Nixon?

he did not "nearly turn this country into a dictatorship". He didn't only "[win] a war" either, he kept the country from dissolving. There was a very real threat that the United States would not be so very united anymore, and he prevented that from happening. He wasn't perfect and he wasn't a saint or really a liberator, but he definitely did a lot more than you give him credit for.

The Civil War was not that hard for the North to win; how Lincoln did it was hardly extraordinary.

A widely known and taught liberal political scientist, a guy by the name of Rawls, believes that all political decisions should be made from what he terms the "original position". This is a position free of any distinctions that are made when we are born, or after. So, for instance, I am a white middle class male, but in the original position I would be none of that. Nor would I be an atheist, a liberal, or any different from everyone else in the original position. So while we are in this position, with the possibility of being born a black man in inner city Chicago or a rich yuppie in Silicon Valley with access to every opportunity available, we must make decisions about how we form our governments. Thus, the conclusion Rawls makes (and rightly so) is that from the original position democracy is the only logical form of government. A dictatorship only benefits one person, and its unlikely it'll be you, so that's out. And a pure meritocracy benefits only those with access to education (college, as someone has previously stated), leaving out a sizable number of the population.

You believe that those who are uneducated (who have not had access to the same opportunities as you have) are not informed enough to make proper decisions, but who are you to give or take away their rights? You could just have easily been born in a place where selling drugs was the most logical life plan. You could be them, and I doubt you would feel the same.

I never said I supported education as a requirement to vote (though that is the topic of this thread), just as a requirement to run, in which case the political school required would be open and free to all.

Ah, my bad. My brain's half here.:tongue:

But yes, it is not in the Government's best interest to have an educated country. As I already said, uneducated masses are best for controlling.

Which leads me to believe is the true cause of the state of American public education at this moment in time. Piss poor and barely inching forward.

It's an issue of responsibility; you wouldn't permit the army, or any other institition that wields such power, to be dictated by those lacking in rudimentary knowledge. Hence, why government?

Youre going to let your army be ran with just "Rudimentary Knowledge"? lol

No, because of the problems involved in determining who is qualified to vote. Who is responsible for establishing the criteria? Is a public education really a garuntee of being informed about politics? (hell no)

This sounds like something that could be so easily manipulated into simple voter supression.

Which leads me to believe is the true cause of the state of American public education at this moment in time. Piss poor and barely inching forward.

The situation doesn't only circumscribes to the US, friend. The US is perhaps the best example of ignorant masses, and in no way am I trying to be disrespectful. But, it's always baffling that so many people on the US, having the freedom and right to cast their votes, to truly have a ''say'' as to what should happen in their country, abstain from using that right.

Youre going to let your army be ran with just "Rudimentary Knowledge"? lol

Call it an expression.

It's an issue of responsibility; you wouldn't permit the army, or any other institition that wields such power, to be dictated by those lacking in rudimentary knowledge. Hence, why government?

The government is inherently a different institution than the army. Poor comparison.

I never said I supported education as a requirement to vote (though that is the topic of this thread), just as a requirement to run, in which case the political school required would be open and free to all.

That last part wasn't addressed to you, but rather towards the paternalist crowd. Though I disagree with your point as well - democracy isn't just about voting participation, its about all kinds of participation, including the right to run for office.

Indeed. The metaphor used to refute hereditary power might be salutary here; just as one would not have a hereditary pilot or captain, neither would one have said figure elected by the entirety of the passengers, who are as liable to support somebody because they seem a nice chap, lie, or are charming as they are a suitable candidate.

so you want a military junta or something like that?

Do you have a right to affect the future of the nation without understanding the issue?

how many people actually do understand all the issues?

college to vote BAH. Not relevant.
Instead 2 years military service should be required to vote.

ns'ers on the battlefield? *shudders*

illiteracy wouldn't do either.

what if your like really badly dyslexic or some such? its not a exact science judging how smart a person is (if that is what makes a good decision maker I'd prefer wisdom myself) to start barring peoples rights based on what you believe makes ignorant person is rather 18th century

but yes taking the right to vote away from the Welsh might be for the best >_>

2) I don't consider you uneducated.

I can't really say I'm well educated at this moment in time

The situation doesn't only circumscribes to the US, friend. The US is perhaps the best example of ignorant masses, and in no way am I trying to be disrespectful. But, it's always baffling that so many people on the US, having the freedom and right to cast their votes, to truly have a ''say'' as to what should happen in their country, abstain from using that right.

As a product of that education, I know just how poor the system is, and how the federal and state governments hinder any potential progress in education. I refered to it because of having to grow through it and with it being the only education system with which I have a solid base of knowledge to pass judgement on.

Moreover, I think as a result that the people of the world need to make a greater effort to self educate or educate through the community. That is the only solution I can see to overcoming this stumbling block that has been intentional thrown in our way any time soon.

The situation doesn't only circumscribes to the US, friend. The US is perhaps the best example of ignorant masses, and in no way am I trying to be disrespectful. But, it's always baffling that so many people on the US, having the freedom and right to cast their votes, to truly have a ''say'' as to what should happen in their country, abstain from using that right.

Well, a two-Party system that tries to please all usually gets to the point where the two people are so similar, it really doesnt matter who wins...

Bush and Gore had nearly Identical Campaign Points...

for an entertaining example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

what if your like really badly dyslexic or some such? its not a exact science judging how smart a person is (if that is what makes a good decision maker I'd prefer wisdom myself) to start barring peoples rights based on what you believe makes ignorant person is rather 18th century

Even a dyslexic is capable, with the proper education, make a decision. I think you're taking this to the extreme, though. I'm not talking about taking the right to vote from people. But I do think that education is paramount for the people to make, as much as they can, the ''right'' decision without being manipulated. However, I am also aware that my opinion is not the norm, that for the State, educated masses aren't well liked. I won't cover the sun with my hand there.

but yes taking the right to vote away from the Welsh might be for the best >_>

I'm not so sure about that.

I can't really say I'm well educated at this moment in time

You may not posses a paper stating you have a degree in something or other, but you certainly went to school, you read, you listen, you have a mind of your own and perhaps you went to uni at some point. Uneducated you aren't.

History. Late Imperial, Justininiac, Arab Conquest and Carolingian.

useless education go get drunk :tongue:

Because you see no issue with having the government control likely voters?

whats it going to do? form communist battalions and use them as infantry is the most evil thing I can think up

It's an issue of responsibility; you wouldn't permit the army, or any other institition that wields such power, to be dictated by those lacking in rudimentary knowledge. Hence, why government?

you don't rally have much military experience do you? if you did you would only say such a thing in the presence of an officer

Well, a two-Party system that tries to please all usually gets to the point where the two people are so similar, it really doesnt matter who wins...

Bush and Gore had nearly Identical Campaign Points...

for an entertaining example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

I do understand that, but there has to be a point when you, as an educated voter, can know where to draw the line and say, ''Ok, this candidate appeals to me more than the other because...'' Where does education comes in all this? You know what they're both talking about, you understand what each of them proposes and, in choosing which candidate suits your interests and those of the nation better, you do so because you think this candidate ''knows'' the right thing to do. An example, economy. How, without knowing, at a basic level, what ''economy'' is and what part it plays on the day to day of the nation, can someone make the intelligent decision when the ballots are cast?

As a product of that education, I know just how poor the system is, and how the federal and state governments hinder any potential progress in education. I refered to it because of having to grow through it and with it being the only education system with which I have a solid base of knowledge to pass judgement on.

Agreed, you do know your education system better than I do. After all, you are a product of it.

Moreover, I think as a result that the people of the world need to make a greater effort to self educate or educate through the community. That is the only solution I can see to overcoming this stumbling block that has been intentional thrown in our way any time soon.

Agreed on that aspect too. But as Skallvia posted, the problem strives in the fact that then one would need to make distinctions and define, without a doubt, what ''educated'' means.

Even a dyslexic is capable, with the proper education, make a decision. I think you're taking this to the extreme, though. I'm not talking about taking the right to vote from people. But I do think that education is paramount for the people to make, as much as they can, the ''right'' decision without being manipulated. However, I am also aware that my opinion is not the norm, that for the State, educated masses aren't well liked. I won't cover the sun with my hand there.

so what your saying is your in favour of compulsory education :confused:

I would also point out that you don't need a proper education to make the right choice, plenty of pre-schoolers do this on a smaller level and their brains haven't even fully developed yet

you read, you listen, you have a mind of your own

but then I developed that on my own

An example, economy. How, without knowing, at a basic level, what ''economy'' is and what part it plays on the day to day of the nation, can someone make the intelligent decision when the ballots are cast?

Im just saying thats one of the reasons alot of Americans dont vote...

But, obviously they just vote for the Republican candidate, duh, lol...

so what your saying is your in favour of compulsory education :confused:


Yeah, like some sort of "Public School System"...Yes....It IS a revolutionary concept...

Because you see no issue with having the government control likely voters?

with the 2 year requirement to vote, the vast majority will be veterans free from any influence.

so what your saying is your in favour of compulsory education :confused:

Perhaps so.

I would also point out that you don't need a proper education to make the right choice, plenty of pre-schoolers do this on a smaller level and their brains haven't even fully developed yet

I do think you need to have the sufficient education when it comes to voting. The comparison, although understood and slightly suitable, is poor.

but then I developed that on my own

But you do know what ''economy'' is, right? You do know what are the policies the government may be pitching in campaign at a given moment? You do know what may be, in your opinion, bad and not acceptable for the country? Right? That's what entails, to me, education.

with the 2 year requirement to vote, the vast majority will be veterans free from any influence.

Is this why the inside joke from recruiters is that they want recruits "young and dumb"?

ns'ers on the battlefield? *shudders*



I figure most NS ers would puss out and just bitch about how they cant vote because they find military service to be morally objectionable.

Im just saying thats one of the reasons alot of Americans dont vote...

But, obviously they just vote for the Republican candidate, duh, lol...

You just made me laugh.:tongue:

Let me just add that I don't know much about the US, where it comes to vote. I thought it was odd that they abstained from it so much when I was there. I am applying what I see here in Spain. Maybe the wrong thing to do, but as ESF said, it's what I know.

In an ideal world, it would be nice, but it's too open to abuse.

I figure most NS ers would puss out and just bitch about how they cant vote because they find military service to be morally objectionable.

Or possibly just raise the very valid question of precisely what political knowledge is gained through military training that makes those that have been through it in any way more capable of making an informed voting decision.

Is this why the inside joke from recruiters is that they want recruits "young and dumb"?

so you think all military veterans are permanently brain washed.

so you think all military veterans are permanently brain washed.

Based on my own interchanges with them, the vast majority seem to be.

You just made me laugh.:tongue:

Let me just add that I don't know much about the US, where it comes to vote. I thought it was odd that they abstained from it so much when I was there. I am applying what I see here in Spain. Maybe the wrong thing to do, but as ESF said, it's what I know.

I do try, lol...

But, just to elaborate, another thing about voting in the US is the system itself...

For example, I voted for Obama, but, because my state went to McCain, All the MS votes went to McCain, and therefore my vote was irrelevant...

I do try, lol...

But, just to elaborate, another thing about voting in the US is the system itself...

For example, I voted for Obama, but, because my state went to McCain, All the MS votes went to McCain, and therefore my vote was irrelevant...

That is something I have never understood about the US. Why is it that, although it should, it seems that the popular vote doesn't count?

That is something I have never understood about the US. Why is it that, although it should, it seems that the popular vote doesn't count?

This idiotic entity known as the Electoral College. :(

This idiotic entity known as the Electoral College. :(

Which, I may be mistake, is absurd.

Which, I may be mistake, is absurd.

I've lobbied for it to get eliminated or reformed, but my arguements are brushed aside by the reasoning "The founding fathers wanted it this way." :(

I've lobbied for it to get eliminated or reformed, but my arguements are brushed aside by the reasoning "The founding fathers wanted it this way." :(

When something seems to be broken, either you fix it or supplant it. I don't think that if the founding fathers of your nation knew how it would turn out to be, they would've wanted it that way. I do recognize that, to reform the US's voting system, it would require a lot of money and re-education (if your country wants a change at all).

That is something I have never understood about the US. Why is it that, although it should, it seems that the popular vote doesn't count?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Original_plan

The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[11] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

Although in today's Post-Civil War world where the concept of the states having any kind of "Independence" is irrelevant, youd think that it wouldve been fixed so that the President would be elected by the people as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Original_plan


Although in today's Post-Civil War world where the concept of the states having any kind of "Independence" is irrelevant, youd think that it wouldve been fixed so that the President would be elected by the people as well...

Exactly. Why hasn't it been fixed still baffles me.

Perhaps so.

well yeah getting the 3 R's is a pretty good idea

That's what entails, to me, education.

but I picked all that up out of school, yes people should know what they are voting for but its not really anyone else's buisiness or responsibility to make sure they do this its their vote and they can spend it freely as they please even if its whoever has the best haircut

I figure most NS ers would puss out and just bitch about how they cant vote because they find military service to be morally objectionable.

I'm thinking more of bratty recruits screaming "you can't tell me what to do your not my father!"

and then the breaking begins :)

Or possibly just raise the very valid question of precisely what political knowledge is gained through military training that makes those that have been through it in any way more capable of making an informed voting decision.

judgment would be a good one to point out along with experience

hell the acronym for training is CDRILS

Courage, discipline, respect, integrity, loyalty and selflessness

some good might come of it

Exactly. Why hasn't it been fixed still baffles me.

Because the majority of the American Populace is either Uneducated or Abstains from voting, :p...


But, the serious , yet short, answer is...Procedural Issues...

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

Based on my own interchanges with them, the vast majority seem to be.

oddly enough my experience with normal civilians is much the same maybe you should try popping in for a weekend to see what its like? I know the British army allows for this

The question explains the thread. I believe the politicians are the ones who should have to be educated, but let me hear your opinions my fellow NSG members.

Yes. I honestly believe most people are too stupid to participate in the selection of our national leaders. Hence the repeated election of useless congressmen to, well, congress.

Because the majority of the American Populace is either Uneducated or Abstains from voting, :p...


But, the serious , yet short, answer is...Procedural Issues...

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

I see. Thanks.:)

but I picked all that up out of school, yes people should know what they are voting for but its not really anyone else's buisiness or responsibility to make sure they do this its their vote and they can spend it freely as they please even if its whoever has the best haircut

I haven't implied it's anyone's responsibility to educate people. But I do think an educated population is better off, or fares better, when the ballots are cast.

Or possibly just raise the very valid question of precisely what political knowledge is gained through military training that makes those that have been through it in any way more capable of making an informed voting decision.

It is not knowledge about discipline. Knowledge becomes out dated but discipline to look up the relevant can only be proven through military service.
The right to vote should be earned through duty.

Based on my own interchanges with them, the vast majority seem to be.
Funny thing is I bet most of the military you have spoken with say the same thing about you.

Saying the other side is brainwashed just seems to be an excuse to discount their point of view, and try to justify measures that maybe are not the most friendly to their voting.

Because the majority of the American Populace is either Uneducated or Abstains from voting, :p...


But, the serious , yet short, answer is...Procedural Issues...

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

Our solution is to align ourselves under the superiority of Nanatsu and her army of of moderate Muslims turned into a mob of fervent soldiers! There would be no resistance to her might, with reform and debate being reintroduced through show of force :p

No. Forcing people to be "educated" before voting would give the state (or some other entity) the power to select what information a person is exposed to as a precondition to political representation. But political representation is a right which has nothing to do with whether or not one meets the standard of what the state deems "educated".

he kept the country from dissolving.

States had the right to secede legally from the Union. What he did was waged war on a foreign nation (the Confederated States of America) and annexed their territory. Yes, I am aware that the CSA attacked us first, but we did not simply defend ourselves.

Long term, Lincoln's Imperialism turned out for the best, two halves of America wouldn't be half as good as a united whole, but that would be saying that the ends justify the means, and I'm not ok with that, especially seeing as a lot of American's hate Bush without having much for historical, or political perspective.

Funny thing is I bet most of the military you have spoken with say the same thing about you.

Saying the other side is brainwashed just seems to be an excuse to discount their point of view, and try to justify measures that maybe are not the most friendly to their voting.

Well when 90% of those veterans answer anything about change and reform, it's always the same mantra of "Unit, country, God." or "If you dont like the country, get the fuck out." When you can't have a debate without being laballed as unpatriotic or being told to leave the country, it leads itself to the idea of mass influence through the workings of those at the head of the military.

States had the right to secede legally from the Union. Where is that in the Constitution of the US?

States had the right to secede legally from the Union. What he did was waged war on a foreign nation (the Confederated States of America) and annexed their territory.

Um, no, lol...where you get this stuff?

He didnt even get a declaration of war, If he recognized the CSA as a foreign nation, he would be recognizing CSA as its own independent power...


To declare that he was fighting the war in that fashion would be
suicide...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".

The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.

Well when 90% of those veterans answer anything about change and reform, it's always the same mantra of "Unit, country, God." or "If you dont like the country, get the fuck out." When you can't have a debate without being laballed as unpatriotic or being told to leave the country, it leads itself to the idea of mass influence through the workings of those at the head of the military.

whats sort of reform ? how are you pushing it through courts votes ? how fast of an implementation ? and most importantly will this effect my veterans benefits.

Should they ethically or legally? I don't condone intellectual testing for civil rights, although I wish stupid people wouldn't vote, I don't think it's a "good" thing to get into building an elite ruling class.

whats sort of reform ? how are you pushing it through courts votes ? how fast of an implementation ? and most importantly will this effect my veterans benefits.

Everything from the Electoral College and education to things like eliminating the lobbyists. I'm not trying to push it through the courts, I merely want to start the dialogue. As for you veteran benefits, well if I'm not pushing it through the system, they shouldn't be messed with now should they.

Everything from the Electoral College and education to things like eliminating the lobbyists. I'm not trying to push it through the courts, I merely want to start the dialogue. As for you veteran benefits, well if I'm not pushing it through the system, they shouldn't be messed with now should they.

a lot of it is likely more they don't have time. electoral college I like. Lobbyist reform is pointless they will find ways to get to the politicians. and veterans benefits need to be increased of course.

It is not knowledge about discipline. Knowledge becomes out dated but discipline to look up the relevant can only be proven through military service.
The right to vote should be earned through duty.

Wait...what? It hardly takes military discipline to look up political information. Its odd, all my friends seem to be able to be politically informed without having served in the armed forces. The two are not even faintly connected.

Not only is it utterly irrelevant for informed political choice, why this veneration of the military? Why should we hold the military in such high esteem that service is to be the sole criterion for being allowed to vote? I can't really see how a super-disciplined population indoctrinated into the army mentality of accepting of the right of those in authority to make them do anything they wish is anything but damaging to the workings of a democratic system.

Only people with advanced degrees(masters minimum) in political science, sociology, psychology and economics and at least a rank of Colonel or equivalent in some branch of the military can participate in politics in any way. Anyone else found to be holding any kind of political opinion will be launched from a catapult into a burning building.



Man, excluding people from the democratic process is fun.

Assuming educated people make better decisions is always a mistake. What makes democracy effective is that large numbers of people are involved in making decisions - it is the mix of different viewpoints. If you took a group of fifty highly educated financial experts, and a mixed group of people (including some stupid ones) of the same number, and asked both groups to pick stockmarket shares to invest £10,000 in - the mixed group would make better decisions than the experts.

I think people should be educated on how to vote, and how to make an informed decisions, but not have to hold some kind of degree just so they can vote.

The question explains the thread. I believe the politicians are the ones who should have to be educated, but let me hear your opinions my fellow NSG members.

Nope.

It is not knowledge about discipline. Knowledge becomes out dated but discipline to look up the relevant can only be proven through military service.
The right to vote should be earned through duty.


Robert Heinlein?!? Is that you?

Assuming educated people make better decisions is always a mistake. What makes democracy effective is that large numbers of people are involved in making decisions - it is the mix of different viewpoints. If you took a group of fifty highly educated financial experts, and a mixed group of people (including some stupid ones) of the same number, and asked both groups to pick stockmarket shares to invest £10,000 in - the mixed group would make better decisions than the experts.

This is the point that I take issue with; I doubt the efficacy of western democracy at all. Political stagnation, centrism and demagoguery.

actually someone who studies media would be rather good at manipulating the public...we might be able to do with less of that in politics
But why exclude them from voting?

Heck, anyone with a decernt education might "be rather good at manipulating the public". That'd seem to limit the franchise to the very few people who were educated but unable to manipulate anybody.


It's an issue of responsibility; you wouldn't permit the army, or any other institition that wields such power, to be dictated by those lacking in rudimentary knowledge. Hence, why government?
Because the question, 'which tactic do we use on this battlefield', is very different to, 'how should your lives be run'.

This is the point that I take issue with; I doubt the efficacy of western democracy at all. Political stagnation, centrism and demagoguery.
And how would a limitation of the franchise not result in further stagnation and demagoguery?

Because the question, 'which tactic do we use on this battlefield', is very different to, 'how should your lives be run'.


And how would a limitation of the franchise not result in further stagnation and demagoguery?

Firstly, the two are coterminous. Both policies adopted after due intelligence and with due qualification to overcome an obstacle.

Secondly, limiting franchise to the politically informed and educated would preclude the gravitation towards bland centrism the UK currently attests. The majority of Johnny Prole will not vote for a party that offers fundamental change, or short term sacrifice, however worthy their arguments.

Firstly, the two are coterminous. Both policies adopted after due intelligence and with due qualification to overcome an obstacle.

The same is true of deciding what to have for lunch. That doesn't mean that just because you can choose between Subway and Burger King you can run a country or an army.

Firstly, the two are coterminous. Both policies adopted after due intelligence and with due qualification to overcome an obstacle.
Perhaps. But the 'obstacle' of defeatig an enemy on the battlefield, and the 'obstacle' of living a good life are two very different beasts.

Though one may legitimately appeal to epistemic authority in the former, I see no reason why we must do the same in the latter.

Secondly, limiting franchise to the politically informed and educated would preclude the gravitation towards bland centrism the UK currently attests. The majority of Johnny Prole will not vote for a party that offers fundamental change, or short term sacrifice, however worthy their arguments.
And which party, pray tell, offers "fundamental change" in the British party political system? Not your boys UKIP, even less so the Tories.

Moreover, I don't see how an educated elite necessarily precludes "bland centrism"; especially if your proposed limitation of the franchise would not even include the entirity of those educated. What is to prevent a bunch of highly educated voters, all with degrees in very similar subjects, from voting en masse for a single, centrist, party?

Perhaps. But the 'obstacle' of defeatig an enemy on the battlefield, and the 'obstacle' of living a good life are two very different beasts.

Though one may legitimately appeal to epistemic authority in the former, I see no reason why we must do the same in the latter.

I still disagree.


And which party, pray tell, offers "fundamental change" in the British party political system? Not your boys UKIP, even less so the Tories.

UKIP, I disagree over. Given two or three terms in office, I suspect the country would change greatly. No EU before anything else.

Regarding the major two, or three, parties, analysing their current incarnations for meaningful disjunctures or disagreements is pointless; they all occupy the centreground so as to remain electable to the amorphous mass of ignorant fuckwits we pass off as an electorate. The Tory manifesto in 2001, and 2005, was genuinely "right wing", and at odds with Labour. That they actually won the 2005 election in England is immaterial of course...

Moreover, I don't see how an educated elite necessarily precludes "bland centrism"; especially if your proposed limitation of the franchise would not even include the entirity of those educated. What is to prevent a bunch of highly educated voters, all with degrees in very similar subjects, from voting en masse for a single, centrist, party?

Because education, generally, confers political conviction.

UKIP, I disagree over. Given two or three terms in office, I suspect the country would change greatly. No EU before anything else.
To be fair, that would be a large change, but I don't see what could be described as 'fundemental change'. They're not, at least not to my knowledge, in favour of dramatically altering the party political system.

What do you mean by 'fundemental change'?

That they [the Tories] actually won the 2005 election in England is immaterial of course...
Of course it was immaterial; it was a UK election, not an English one.

Because education, generally, confers political conviction.
Generally.

Moreover, it can confer centrist political conviction.

To be fair, that would be a large change, but I don't see what could be described as 'fundemental change'. They're not, at least not to my knowledge, in favour of dramatically altering the party political system.

What do you mean by 'fundemental change'?


Of course it was immaterial; it was a UK election, not an English one.


Generally.

Moreover, it can confer centrist political conviction.

Centrist, perhaps, but not blind faith in whoever seems the nicest chap in a suit at an election, a tendancy that characterises less educated voters. More diverse political discourse would be an inevitable consequence of limiting franchise to the educated; they care more for the abstract, and hold more pronounced, diverse political views. Such discourse and discussion would only be of benefit, as opposed to contemporary policy, conditioned only by a desire to satiate the baser instincts of the commonality.

Regarding the 2005 election, I fail to see why Scottish voters should at once have a Scottish government in which English voters have no role, and be able to turn the course of English elections also. As the economically dominant constituent of the Union, I find it abhorrent that England should then be politicaly marginalised in favour of dour, porridge eating, beard wearing loons in kilts.

To define "fundamental" change; I use the term apropos British politics, not Britain itself. In this case, UKIP would offer genuinely dissentient opinions on major issues of policy; Europe, education, taxation etc. against what amounts to a consensus amongst the yellow/blue/red troika.

Robert Heinlein?!? Is that you?
didn't he die back in 1988???
have six of his novels.

Wait...what? It hardly takes military discipline to look up political information. Its odd, all my friends seem to be able to be politically informed without having served in the armed forces. The two are not even faintly connected.

We need to measure your friends commitment and discipline before trusting him with the right to vote.knowledgeable does not always equal wise.

Not only is it utterly irrelevant for informed political choice, why this veneration of the military? Why should we hold the military in such high esteem that service is to be the sole criterion for being allowed to vote? I can't really see how a super-disciplined population indoctrinated into the army mentality of accepting of the right of those in authority to make them do anything they wish is anything but damaging to the workings of a democratic system.

well shall we look a history for such democracies???

Switzerland comes to mind. one of the reasons they had such a hard time with woman's suffrage was that voting was tied to military service.
This military voting society however produced one of the wealthiest in Europe and was one of the few powers to avoid both World wars.
Surely a veteran vote would do like wise in the US transform us into a peaceful prosperous nation.

We need to measure your friends commitment and discipline before trusting him with the right to vote. knowledgeable does not always equal wise.

Indeed. Which is why I don't actually support the idea of restriction on the franchise based on education. However, there is at least a correlation between basic political education and political wisdom. If you don't know about your political institutions and how they work, that pretty much excludes you from being politically 'wise'. Whereas there is no relationship at all between political wisdom and military service.

Anyway, you've as yet failed to demonstrate why 'discipline and commitment' can only be demonstrated through military service (in order to justify the exclusion of all who haven't served), or why the ability to demonstrate 'discipline and commitment' should even be a qualification for the vote, since it is hardly one of the main factors in the ability to make an informed political choice.

Switzerland comes to mind. one of the reasons they had such a hard time with woman's suffrage was that voting was tied to military service. This military voting society however produced one of the wealthiest in Europe and was one of the few powers to avoid both World wars. Surely a veteran vote would do like wise in the US transform us into a peaceful prosperous nation.

Non sequitur. The franchise of Switzerland was tied to the military. They had wealth and didn't get into war. There is no evidence that the second statement follows from the first. Its a bit like saying that the high quality of Swiss chocolate is linked to the franchise, and thus we should bring in national service if we want better chocolates.

I assume everybody suggesting that a fraction of the electorate be denied the right to vote is confident that they themselves would continue to have the right to vote?

ns'ers on the battlefield? *shudders*


Four more years until I go into the FDF.

Indeed. Which is why I don't actually support the idea of restriction on the franchise based on education. However, there is at least a correlation between basic political education and political wisdom. If you don't know about your political institutions and how they work, that pretty much excludes you from being politically 'wise'. Whereas there is no relationship at all between political wisdom and military service.

Join the military you will know everything you need to know about government and how to get what you want from bureaucracy.
Its sort of like a real world political education.


Anyway, you've as yet failed to demonstrate why 'discipline and commitment' can only be demonstrated through military service (in order to justify the exclusion of all who haven't served), or why the ability to demonstrate 'discipline and commitment' should even be a qualification for the vote, since it is hardly one of the main factors in the ability to make an informed political choice.

There might be some other service arrangements say a decade or two of community service 8 hours a day would suffice. After that they should definitely

Non sequitur. The franchise of Switzerland was tied to the military. They had wealth and didn't get into war. There is no evidence that the second statement follows from the first. Its a bit like saying that the high quality of Swiss chocolate is linked to the franchise, and thus we should bring in national service if we want better chocolates.

Wealth is normally what leads one to war not away from it?
The banking industry really didn't begin to fully mature until WWI.
Neutrality was assured because those who would have to fight the war were in charge of the government, instead of the masses so easily lead by the evil outsider image of the media.

Join the military you will know everything you need to know about government and how to get what you want from bureaucracy.
Its sort of like a real world political education.

Yes, in a single, government perspective. That, to me, is not real, world political education.

I assume everybody suggesting that a fraction of the electorate be denied the right to vote is confident that they themselves would continue to have the right to vote?

it's sorta the same argument against fascism isn't it? I mean, Stalinist russia was great, if you were Stalin...

I assume everybody suggesting that a fraction of the electorate be denied the right to vote is confident that they themselves would continue to have the right to vote?

I know only that the inverse is true; I'm not confident that I would continue to have the right to vote, so I'm not in favor of denying people the right to vote (except possibly minors.)

People are probably better off being educated as long as they are happy with their education and capable of making responsible decisions.
As for voting? what power do we really have in voting anyway?

It's like being told to pick a car, on the one hand you could buy a cheap car that's been used over and over and falls apart, or a really expensive one and it might work for longer but you could go into debt, or you might be completely decieved by the seller and have a car that doesn't work.
I think why bother buying a car at all?
Should the people be educated?

interesting question.

The question explains the thread. I believe the politicians are the ones who should have to be educated, but let me hear your opinions my fellow NSG members.

I think both politicians and electors should be educated.
Btw, electors, by voting, take a political action: that is, they are "politicians" themselves, in a sort of way.

isn't the norm that politicians study law? either way the public already seems to make this decision choosing (though I'd hazard it as a party decision) to elect leaders with qualifications like bush and his MBA + bachelors in history

I am not talking simply about someone with a college education; I believe persons who intend to enter the political arena should endure at least a decade of total political study. If Bush had done that he would have known debt was a bad thing, or his grades would have been too low to pass.

But why exclude them from voting?

I was thinking more about the OP question in terms of leaders but I was just eating some muesli either way

I assume everybody suggesting that a fraction of the electorate be denied the right to vote is confident that they themselves would continue to have the right to vote?

well Yootopia suggested something about the voters having a job so maybe not :p

Four more years until I go into the FDF.

I thought you already was :confused:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8041/wtfyb7.jpg

Join the military you will know everything you need to know about government and how to get what you want from bureaucracy.
Its sort of like a real world political education.

don't forget an outstanding grasp of economics *grows old waiting for pay*

I am not talking simply about someone with a college education; I believe persons who intend to enter the political arena should endure at least a decade of total political study. If Bush had done that he would have known debt was a bad thing, or his grades would have been too low to pass.

and you don't think working ones way up the political ladder is good enough?

I thought you already was :confused:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8041/wtfyb7.jpg


I'm 14. You go there when you're 18.

No. The vote should be open to all who are of age. However, the only elected officials should be those at a local level, and possibly (if necessary) the head of state and a purely advisory body representing the citizens' will.

The mob should be given enough influence that it feels that the government is in touch with its needs and worth supporting, but not enough influence to actually change anything. This is because the mob is short-sighted, uneducated, ideological rather than pragmatic, and easily swayed by people who talk gooder. The people who actually run the government should be an intelligent and pragmatic élite capable of following through on large-scale plans and ignoring ideological concerns.

The people who actually run the government should be an intelligent and pragmatic élite capable of following through on large-scale plans and ignoring ideological concerns.

And where shall we find such people? Narnia? Because they sure don't exist in this world.

I'm 14. You go there when you're 18.

join the taliban they don't discriminate over age...or rather join up at 16

And where shall we find such people? Narnia? Because they sure don't exist in this world.

Should. Obviously we're unlikely to find any such people anytime soon, unless we can design a sentient computer. Meanwhile we'll have to make do with a compromise; a civil service made up of reasonably well-educated individuals with strengths lying in different areas -- economists, educators, businesspeople, lawyers, etc. -- who display at least above-average capacity for planning farther ahead than most people can think. Flaws and ideological motivations are fine as long as no clear ideological majority prevails, or as long as the people chosen are those whose flaws are countered by the strengths of others.

I didn't say it was easy. If it was, someone would have done it by now.

a super-disciplined population indoctrinated into the army mentality of accepting of the right of those in authority to make them do anything they wish

Is that really what you think the military is like? It makes one wonder if you have any knowledge of the military outside of what you see in hollywood movies.

join the taliban they don't discriminate over age...or rather join up at 16

Yes, because I want to go to Afganistan and fight westerners including Finns. :)
But, maybe as a peacekeeper.

Is that really what you think the military is like? It makes one wonder if you have any knowledge of the military outside of what you see in hollywood movies.

Well i've worked with Latin American services and Asian(well just the south Koreans) services while I was in. The Latin Americans are pretty much just that guy in charge of you says so you hop to it. Seems to be why many Latin American countries are vulnerable to military overthrow.
Korea wasn't so extreme except on the draftees ( every male is drafted for 2 years) but yes I do see more of the do as your told don't think mentality.

In the US army I was taught to clarify orders and ensure they met with current regulation and law. If I felt uncertain my chain of command was supposed to have relevant regulations and laws available.

The question explains the thread. I believe the politicians are the ones who should have to be educated, but let me hear your opinions my fellow NSG members.

Maybe if the education was any good. But (here at least) it's not. It doesn't teach the skills, like logic and critical thinking, etc. that would actually help people make better choices.

I am not talking simply about someone with a college education; I believe persons who intend to enter the political arena should endure at least a decade of total political study. If Bush had done that he would have known debt was a bad thing, or his grades would have been too low to pass.

Debt is not a bad thing.

And where shall we find such people? Narnia? Because they sure don't exist in this world.

They do - they're just not likely to gravitate into politics as it exists at the moment. People don't go into politics, now, because they're able to divorce themselves from ideology. Quite the opposite - ideology and a desire to express it - basic building blocks of the average government.

Debt is not a bad thing.

So say political geniuses Reagan, Cheney and Bush, contrary to the absurd opinion of Presidents like Bill Clinton.

Being a non-conformist, I am going to say that debt is not a good thing, and that Presidents should not waste money on excess military. Who is with me?

So say political geniuses Reagan, Cheney and Bush, contrary to the absurd opinion of Presidents like Bill Clinton.

Being a non-conformist, I am going to say that debt is not a good thing, and that Presidents should not waste money on excess military. Who is with me?

Presidents or not, debt is not intrinsically bad. In fact, it can be positively advantageous.

Debt is bad if it's a relatively small amount that you can't move around - which is why people have so much trouble with debt on a personal scale. If it's multiple millions, but you can bounce money from project to project, debt can be an advantage. If it's multiple billions, it can balance out as positively good.

I agree with you that excess military is throwing money away, but those two factors aren't related in any way EXCEPT that you CAN accrue debt through military spending.

Presidents or not, debt is not intrinsically bad. In fact, it can be positively advantageous.

Not in the sum of ten goddamned trillion dollars. Bush doubled the debt and increased the deficit to one trillion a year. Are you seriously telling me that this is not only not a bad thing, but, in fact, a good thing?

Debt is bad if it's a relatively small amount that you can't move around - which is why people have so much trouble with debt on a personal scale. If it's multiple millions, but you can bounce money from project to project, debt can be an advantage.

"Bounce money around"? Debt does not make spending more flexible.

If it's multiple billions, it can balance out as positively good.

Trillions?

I agree with you that excess military is throwing money away,

But throwing money away increases debt, which is good?

but those two factors aren't related in any way EXCEPT that you CAN accrue debt through military spending.

Precisely. According to your reasoning, one (as a government) should spend as much as possible on anything availible, because waste increases the debt, which is good. I find this notion absurd; it increases taxes and forces the government to print more money, which causes obscene inflation and ruins the quality of life in the long run. Eventually, investors would stop putting their money in a country run by such a government, which causes the problems the whole world is now experiencing.

Not in the sum of ten goddamned trillion dollars. Bush doubled the debt and increased the deficit to one trillion a year. Are you seriously telling me that this is not only not a bad thing, but, in fact, a good thing?


I said debt can be a good thing. I didn't say that Bush had carried out the ideal fiscal plan.


"Bounce money around"? Debt does not make spending more flexible.


It can do.


Trillions?


Sure, why not?


But throwing money away increases debt, which is good?


No. Nor is it anything I said.


Precisely. According to your reasoning, one (as a government) should spend as much as possible


I didn't say that, either.


...on anything availible,


I certainly didn't say that.... you're creating a big straw target for yourself on this one.


...because waste increases the debt,


So does non-waste spending.


...which is good.


Ah - got it. You don't understand the difference between 'waste' and 'debt'.


I find this notion absurd;


Me too. Which is probably why it doesn't even resemble anything I've said.


...it increases taxes


What does? Debt? Or waste?


...and forces the government to print more money, which causes obscene inflation and ruins the quality of life in the long run. Eventually, investors would stop putting their money in a country run by such a government, which causes the problems the whole world is experiencing now.

Got it - you're talking about 'waste', not 'debt'.

Sure, why not?

...

Got it - you're talking about 'waste', not 'debt'.

Correct me where I am wrong: You believe debt is a good thing? This means you believe governments should spend more (what other way to increase debt)? Perhaps you think some items are better to spend money upon than others, but debt, however it was acquired, is a good thing?

Correct me where I am wrong: You believe debt is a good thing? This means you believe governments should spend more (what other way to increase debt)? Perhaps you think some items are better to spend money upon then others, but debt, however it was acquired, is a good thing?

I didn't say it was intrinsically good, either - but it's certainly not intrinsically bad.

You can certainly use your debt wisely - both in it's formation, and in it's strategy.

But it isn't as simple as one debt = good, two debt = better, so four debt = best.

Correct me where I am wrong: You believe debt is a good thing? This means you believe governments should spend more (what other way to increase debt)? Perhaps you think some items are better to spend money upon than others, but debt, however it was acquired, is a good thing?

Debt, as the shifting of control of a resource from one entity to another for a time in exchange for a fee, allows for the capitalization an economy.

Without the concept of debt, you lose a wide range of concepts of investment.

I didn't say it was intrinsically good, either -

But you did say that "[...] it can be positively advantageous."

but it's certainly not intrinsically bad.

You do not believe it leads to problems I previously mentioned?

You can certainly use your debt wisely - both in it's formation, and in it's strategy.


Mmmmhmmhow?

But it isn't as simple as one debt = good, two debt = better, so four debt = best.

Clarify, please.

Debt, as the shifting of control of a resource from one entity to another for a time in exchange for a fee, allows for the capitalization an economy.

Without the concept of debt, you lose a wide range of concepts of investment.

Of course; that does not mean that the government should ever increase its debt.

Of course; that does not mean that the government should ever increase its debt.

Really? Ever?

If we made a list of government projects, infrastructure, world wars, research, necessary buildings and services, etc, that could not have been achieved without bond capitalization and other forms of debt, what would be on it?

Poorly managed and egregious debt isn't the only kind of debt the government can engage in (although it certainly seems that way sometimes...)

Really? Ever?

I meant to say "perpetually".

But you did say that "[...] it can be positively advantageous."


I did. Which is not the same as saying 'it is intrinsically good'.

It could be positively advantageous for me to ram other drivers off the road on my way to work, but opinions would differ as to whether or not it was 'good'.


You do not believe it leads to problems I previously mentioned?


Again - I believe you are conflating 'waste' with 'debt'.


Mmmmhmmhow?


Well, in it's formation - good use of debt would be wise investment in some term. It could also include HOW you generate the debt, and on what terms.

So - for example - I run out and buy a million bananas, at a cost of $10,000... which I then let ruin. You scare up $10,000 and buy a printing machine. All other factors being equal, we both made the exact same debt... but they're not equally good. The 'return on investment' can make a big difference.

On the other hand - same situation - I increase my debt buying all those bananas, but my creditor has agreed to write-off any of my debt I use for foodstuffs. However, you have your machine... and are paying back a punitive rate of interest - now which of us has 'good' debt? The 'return on investment' is not purely what you gain in the deal.

Further example - we both make the same debt, on the same terms. I buy bananas, and give them to a million people. You buy your printing machine and start making a living off your printing. When election season comes around, I am made Mayor, because everyone remembers my generosity. The 'return on investment' doesn't have to be money.


Clarify, please.

As I said before - a small personal debt might end up with your wages garnished, or legal ramifications. But a huge international debt could prevent a war.

Of course; that does not mean that the government should ever increase its debt.

and do you mean debt as a % of GDP or as a raw number???
if your referring. Also what of Debt that the interest rate is lower then inflation(meaning the repayment is lower then initial loan.)

Centrist, perhaps, but not blind faith in whoever seems the nicest chap in a suit at an election, a tendancy that characterises less educated voters.
At times, for some, indeed.

More diverse political discourse would be an inevitable consequence of limiting franchise to the educated; they care more for the abstract, and hold more pronounced, diverse political views. Such discourse and discussion would only be of benefit, as opposed to contemporary policy, conditioned only by a desire to satiate the baser instincts of the commonality.
You put 'the educated' on too high a pedastel.

Education does not automatically confer wisdom; never mind political savvy.

Regarding the 2005 election, I fail to see why Scottish voters should at once have a Scottish government in which English voters have no role, and be able to turn the course of English elections also.
Because, once again, they're not English elections. They are elections for the parliament of the United Kingdom, including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As well as being citizens of the UK and thus having a right to say who sits in the UK parliament, Westminster decides matters over which Holyrood has no remit, and thus Scottish voters must be represented in Westminster.

There should be an English parliament to match Holyrood, Stormont and Cardiff, but until that day, one cannot complain about Scots deciding who sits in an English parliament, for there is none. If you are going to moan about the UK's party political scene, then moan about real problems, not non-existant ones.

Would you limit the voting franchise to those who could accurately describe the UK's political set-up?

As the economically dominant constituent of the Union, I find it abhorrent that England should then be politicaly marginalised in favour of dour, porridge eating, beard wearing loons in kilts.
Then campaign for a break-up of the Union.

It is a political union after all, not a state where the more economically active you are, the more say you have in politics.



The people who actually run the government should be an intelligent and pragmatic élite capable of following through on large-scale plans and ignoring ideological concerns.
I fail to see how those "following through on large-scale plans" would be able to do so without engaging with ideological concerns.

What grand political action is without ideology of some sort?

I did. Which is not the same as saying 'it is intrinsically good'.

It is saying that debt is never bad and can be good.

It could be positively advantageous for me to ram other drivers off the road on my way to work, but opinions would differ as to whether or not it was 'good'.

So debt is good for whom the government owes money to?

Again - I believe you are conflating 'waste' with 'debt'.

If debt is never bad and often good, then waste, as far as government spending goes, does not exist. If there is an unlimited supply of money, the government cannot waste it.

Well, in it's formation - good use of debt would be wise investment in some term. It could also include HOW you generate the debt, and on what terms.

Okay, so the government buys lots of gold. Fine by me.

So - for example - I run out and buy a million bananas, at a cost of $10,000... which I then let ruin. You scare up $10,000 and buy a printing machine. All other factors being equal, we both made the exact same debt... but they're not equally good. The 'return on investment' can make a big difference.

On the other hand - same situation - I increase my debt buying all those bananas, but my creditor has agreed to write-off any of my debt I use for foodstuffs. However, you have your machine... and are paying back a punitive rate of interest - now which of us has 'good' debt? The 'return on investment' is not purely what you gain in the deal.


When you speak of "investment", I assume you mean something like educating the people so they acquire higher paying jobs and thus provide more taxes. In response, I point out that:

A: We are speaking of a government, not a company looking for profit. And even though companies regularly borrow for good reasons, a company out of debt is almost invariably a better company.

B: The fraction of the money we spend that actually does make a profit does not nearly cover all the debt.


Further example - we both make the same debt, on the same terms. I buy bananas, and give them to a million people. You buy your printing machine and start making a living off your printing. When election season comes around, I am made Mayor, because everyone remembers my generosity. The 'return on investment' doesn't have to be money.

Good for the politicians but bad for the country?

As I said before - a small personal debt might end up with your wages garnished, or legal ramifications. But a huge international debt could prevent a war.

That is entirely possible, but I will not accept that as the sole excuse for spending. We ruin our lifestyle and destroy the international economy to conceivably lesson the possibility of a war?

I fail to see how those "following through on large-scale plans" would be able to do so without engaging with ideological concerns.

What grand political action is without ideology of some sort?

The purpose of government is to make sure the nation works. At various points the situation may call for more conservative or liberal domestic policies, or more socialist or capitalist economic policies. The government, therefore, should be willing to make these changes when necessary, and not remain enslaved to a single economic or sociopolitical policy to the detriment of the nation as a whole. In particular, the government should avoid polarizing itself by taking extremist positions. Where a domestic issue is in particular dispute, it should be the province of the local (elected) governments rather than the federal (unelected) one (examples: abortion, environmentalism).

The purpose of government is to make sure the nation works. At various points the situation may call for more conservative or liberal domestic policies, or more socialist or capitalist economic policies. The government, therefore, should be willing to make these changes when necessary, and not remain enslaved to a single economic or sociopolitical policy to the detriment of the nation as a whole. In particular, the government should avoid polarizing itself by taking extremist positions. Where a domestic issue is in particular dispute, it should be the province of the local (elected) governments rather than the federal (unelected) one (examples: abortion, environmentalism).
All the above is an example of a specific ideology; that of 'pragmatism', driven by the idea that government does what's best for the nation under the circumstances.

Further, deciding the best route to take, making sure "the nation works", will have to start with some ideological decisions. Deciding when it is necessary for a government to use, say, a communitarian attitude to distribution of wealth, would involve following the ideology that distribution of wealth is beneficial in the circumstances.

EDIT: Indeed, what you advance is a broadly utilitarian outlook.

All the above is an example of a specific ideology; that of 'pragmatism', driven by the idea that government does what's best for the nation under the circumstances.

Further, deciding the best route to take, making sure "the nation works", will have to start with some ideological decisions. Deciding when it is necessary for a government to use, say, a communitarian attitude to distribution of wealth, would involve following the ideology that distribution of wealth is beneficial in the circumstances.

EDIT: Indeed, what you advance is a broadly utilitarian outlook.

Well yeah, more or less. Maybe "ideal" or "idealistic" would have been a better term than "ideological", as the latter can definitely be more broadly defined than I intended.

As for, say, the distribution of wealth -- I see it as the central government's responsibility not to decide how to distribute wealth, but only to see that it is distributed at all. And likewise with most of the rest of its other functions. [shrug] I don't have a really detailed political philosophy at present, but that's the basic idea.

how many people actually do understand all the issues?


Very few, and that may well be the point