Right to Vote

[Negmarron]

Seeing how politicians use fear/scare tactics to manipulate voters to vote one way or another when the real issues are pushed to the back burner got me thinking. Should everyone over the age of 18 have the right to vote? If not, who should and under what circumstances should you earn the right to vote?

What say you?

 

[QueEx]

Everyone over the age of 18 should have the right to vote. What we need more of is people over the age of 18 <u>actually</u> voting.

QueEx

 

[Greed]

yea, its some lazy muthafuckas out there that wont even register let alone vote.

i would be more in favor of making it mandatory people over 18 vote than i would taking away some 18 yr old's right to vote. they arent victims of manipulation, they just dont care.

http://64.255.174.200/board/showthread.php?t=38366

 

[Dannyblueyes]

I personally never took it seriously until a local politician ran to stop the funding cuts the government was making to an autism program my daughter is in. All of a sudden putting my name in a box became a lot more important.

Manidtory voting policies won't stop the fact that most people won't take their choice seriously until there's something real at stake and someone makes a strong stand for or against it. People also have to understand how much power a poilictian has and, more importantly, DOESN'T have. It drives me mad when you got people voting for a city counselman pushing a fringe issue (i.e. legalizing pot) when the counselman knows damn well that he doesn't have the kind of power to make that sort of change.

Don't get me wrong, everyone should have the right to vote, however schools need to work harder at informing people about the power and responsibilities involved.

 

[Negmarron]

I personally never took it seriously until a local politician ran to stop the funding cuts the government was making to an autism program my daughter is in. All of a sudden putting my name in a box became a lot more important.

Manidtory voting policies won't stop the fact that most people won't take their choice seriously until there's something real at stake and someone makes a strong stand for or against it. People also have to understand how much power a poilictian has and, more importantly, DOESN'T have. It drives me mad when you got people voting for a city counselman pushing a fringe issue (i.e. legalizing pot) when the counselman knows damn well that he doesn't have the kind of power to make that sort of change.

Don't get me wrong, everyone should have the right to vote, however schools need to work harder at informing people about the power and responsibilities involved.

I'm trying to put together a rationale for why all people should or shouldn't have the right to vote. I'm getting that you guys think everyone should, but I'm more interested in why. I personally think that the franchise shouldn't be universal, but I'm torn as to how it would be earned. Voting is an enormous amount of power and it is not taken seriously by the populace and abused by those in power. Something given has no value. So far I've got people in industries that serve the state and general populace: firemen, police, ems, armed forces, teachers, and certain civil servants. Im thinking about making them wait until retirement, reason being you have to earn the vote through years of service.

What say you

 

[Greed]

why isnt being a citizen all the earning you need. once you start putting extra criteria on it the only people that are gonna be limited is the minorities. do you trust white people not to exclude you if they reshape the voting laws? i dont.

its the right of every citizen to not give a fuck and do things that are detrimental to their well being as long as they dont directly hurt others. who is anyone to say some class of people, that already has the right to vote, isnt good enough to have the right.

 

[QueEx]

I'm trying to put together a rationale for why all people should or shouldn't have the right to vote. I'm getting that you guys think everyone should, but I'm more interested in why. I personally think that the franchise shouldn't be universal, but I'm torn as to how it would be earned. Voting is an enormous amount of power and it is not taken seriously by the populace and abused by those in power. Something given has no value. So far I've got people in industries that serve the state and general populace: firemen, police, ems, armed forces, teachers, and certain civil servants. Im thinking about making them wait until retirement, reason being you have to earn the vote through years of service.

What say you

Interesting concept -- the right to vote being earned. What about other civil rights? Should the right to seek redress in court be earned; should the right to privacy be earned; should the right to live be earned; should the right to peaceful protest be earned; should the right personal freedom be earned ???

Forget the legal framework that in this country or any other that creates and enforces the right to vote, the right to make choices is inherent in all men. Rules are put in place to keep man from exercising his unfettered right to make choices -- supposedly for the benefit of people living collectively in society to protect one person from the mere whim or harm of another. Any restriction of choice not reasonably aimed at those goals serves only to promote the oppression of some over others. Conditioning the right to vote to an age generally thought to be when sufficient maturity is reached serves those goals.

Of course, you didn't say how the right to vote would be earned, but wouldn't any criteria that all could not readily attain equally only serve to give some the right to oppress others ??? Is there any truth to the notion that all men are created equally and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

QueEx

 

[Havoc]

Interesting concept -- the right to vote being earned. What about other civil rights? Should the right to seek redress in court be earned; should the right to privacy be earned; should the right to live be earned; should the right to peaceful protest be earned; should the right personal freedom be earned ???

Forget the legal framework that in this country or any other that creates and enforces the right to vote, the right to make choices is inherent in all men. Rules are put in place to keep man from exercising his unfettered right to make choices -- supposedly for the benefit of people living collectively in society to protect one person from the mere whim or harm of another. Any restriction of choice not reasonably aimed at those goals serves only to promote the oppression of some over others. Conditioning the right to vote to an age generally thought to be when sufficient maturity is reached serves those goals.

Of course, you didn't say how the right to vote would be earned, but wouldn't any criteria that all could not readily attain equally only serve to give some the right to oppress others ??? Is there any truth to the notion that all men are created equally and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

QueEx

I'm at a standstill here. On one hand, I feel as though voting simply because you are expected to is simply a waste of time, and also a direct slap in the face to the people that are actually voting.

Also, you've got to decipher through a lot of bullshit just to get to the real heart of the issues. The media doesn't help at all, and politicians like President Bush just help to further obscure everything. He made sure he sent an "anti-gay marriage" message across to everyone (how is gay marriage going to determine whether or not we put an end to terrorism?) in his campaign during the the '04 election.

Then again, it's hard to decide who should be the next president of the US if only 76% (just a scenario, not a real number) of the country is voting. In this case, the ones that are not voting, whether it's due to a lack of faith in the voting process or pure laziness, are the ones that are actually losing out.

 

[Negmarron]

Interesting concept -- the right to vote being earned. What about other civil rights? Should the right to seek redress in court be earned; should the right to privacy be earned; should the right to live be earned; should the right to peaceful protest be earned; should the right personal freedom be earned ???

Forget the legal framework that in this country or any other that creates and enforces the right to vote, the right to make choices is inherent in all men. Rules are put in place to keep man from exercising his unfettered right to make choices -- supposedly for the benefit of people living collectively in society to protect one person from the mere whim or harm of another. Any restriction of choice not reasonably aimed at those goals serves only to promote the oppression of some over others. Conditioning the right to vote to an age generally thought to be when sufficient maturity is reached serves those goals.

Of course, you didn't say how the right to vote would be earned, but wouldn't any criteria that all could not readily attain equally only serve to give some the right to oppress others ??? Is there any truth to the notion that all men are created equally and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

QueEx

In my view, the only truly inalienable right that people have is like you said the right to choose. Everything else is gravy. Women received the franchise in the 1920s i think, and we didn't get it almost until the 70s, and to this day, our right to exercise it is being interfered with. My question is just a thought experiment that takes place in say Negmarronistan.

I believe that an assertion like all men are created equal is a dangerous falsehood that serves only to mush people together into a shapeless well of conformity. Some men are smarter, some better at math, some at business. Some have no desire to help their fellow man and some live to do such. We do not have a protected right to life, liberty or justice even though they are admirable goals. You can be killed at any time, jailed without due cause, and justice is rarely served by our system.

A system where a politican can bring up the spectre of gay marriage to get himself elected when his real agenda is war profiteering, coporate glad handling, rolling back enviromental protections, etc is fundamentally flawed.

Who's to say that making the right to vote earnable isn't a good idea. Equating a change in voting rights with oppression seems like a knee jerk reaction. True, everyone wouldn't have the right. But those that were willing to go through what it takes to earn it would. I actually did state some of my ideas in an earlier post. Service to the state is one of the ways it could be earned. Firemen, police, teachers, armed services, ems, doctors, etc. Only after retirement would they be able to exercise the right. People in fields that demonstrate a willingness to serve their community.

Basing the right to vote on age, while all inclusive, is silly. People may have the willingness to vote, but that doesn't mean they should. Mental maturaity doesn't come at 18, and maybe not even 21. I know I for one didn't have it then. I didn't even understand politics well enough to make a truly informed decision until 22-23, and even then, that wool can move over the eyes real quick.

 

[QueEx]

In my view, the only truly inalienable right that people have is like you said the right to choose. Everything else is gravy. Women received the franchise in the 1920s i think, and we didn't get it almost until the 70s, and to this day, our right to exercise it is being interfered with. My question is just a thought experiment that takes place in say Negmarronistan.

I tend to agree with you that the only inalienable right is the right to chose, however, from that right springs most other rights since they are logical extensions of it. In my mind, the key is the proper balance of that right: the right to chose without any limitation is anarchy; and with too many limitations it doesn't exist. The problem with women and minority voting that you mentioned is a good example of the latter. Negmarronistan is as good a place as any to reflect upon the proper balance.

I believe that an assertion like all men are created equal is a dangerous falsehood that serves only to mush people together into a shapeless well of conformity. Some men are smarter, some better at math, some at business. Some have no desire to help their fellow man and some live to do such. We do not have a protected right to life, liberty or justice even though they are admirable goals. You can be killed at any time, jailed without due cause, and justice is rarely served by our system.

I don't think the concept of equality of rights is a dangerous falsehood or that it forces conformity. True, people have different ability, talent and desire, but the basic right to choose doesn't and shouldn't depend upon one's ability. Ability affects how well or effective the right <u>might be</u> exercised. Hence, one has the right to life though another may violate that right and to what extent depends upon his ability. To what exent anyone exercises the right is personal choice, which <u>might be</u> affected by ability, as I try to point out below.

A system where a politican can bring up the spectre of gay marriage to get himself elected when his real agenda is war profiteering, coporate glad handling, rolling back enviromental protections, etc is fundamentally flawed.

Is this really a problem with the system or a problem with people? Limited knowledge and limited ability to process that knowledge seems to me to be the biggest problem. Of course, its hard sometimes to really know the truth -- hence, even so-called intelligent people make bad choices based on suspect information.

Who's to say that making the right to vote earnable isn't a good idea.

You're right, who's to say. Depends on the criteria, doesn't it ???

Equating a change in voting rights with oppression seems like a knee jerk reaction. True, everyone wouldn't have the right. But those that were willing to go through what it takes to earn it would. I actually did state some of my ideas in an earlier post. Service to the state is one of the ways it could be earned. Firemen, police, teachers, armed services, ems, doctors, etc. Only after retirement would they be able to exercise the right. People in fields that demonstrate a willingness to serve their community.

No, mere changes in voting rights don't necessarily equate to oppression. But to me, anything that "unreasonably limits" the right should be looked at with the closest of scrutiny.

With respect to earning the right to vote by service to the state -- that may not be such a bad idea, provided that there is a wide range of service that will allow ALL to serve according to their means and the service burdens ALL in an equal manner. If, as we seem to agree, the right to choose is fundamental, any service that burdens some disproportionately would be a violation of the rights of those disproportionately affected. In essence, discriminatory. If your idea is to create a discriminatory system, that would be the way to do it. On the other hand, how would the fundamental right to chose then exist except to some theoretical people who are deemed more worthy of the right to vote, based on their <thought to be</u> abilities ???

Basing the right to vote on age, while all inclusive, is silly. People may have the willingness to vote, but that doesn't mean they should. Mental maturaity doesn't come at 18, and maybe not even 21. I know I for one didn't have it then. I didn't even understand politics well enough to make a truly informed decision until 22-23, and even then, that wool can move over the eyes real quick.

I agree, maybe age is not the best way; or maybe 18 is not the right age. I wouldn't say its silly, however, because 18 is the age of registration for the selective service; it has been the draft eligible age; and it is the age for voluntary service in the military. If one can do those things, shouldn't one have a vote?

Some would argue that the wool has been pulled over millions of people: young and old; educated and having those presumptive abilities; and many of whom have served this country in various ways to have earned the right to vote -- by the invasion of Iraq. Says a lot about exclusivity doesn't it ??? Why are they any more entitled to vote, to choose -- than the uneducated, less talented, and unserved who saw the proponents of the Iraq invasion for what they were ???

QueEx

 

[Negmarron]

No, mere changes in voting rights don't necessarily equate to oppression. But to me, anything that "unreasonably limits" the right should be looked at with the closest of scrutiny.

With respect to earning the right to vote by service to the state -- that may not be such a bad idea, provided that there is a wide range of service that will allow ALL to serve according to their means and the service burdens ALL in an equal manner. If, as we seem to agree, the right to choose is fundamental, any service that burdens some disproportionately would be a violation of the rights of those disproportionately affected. In essence, discriminatory. If your idea is to create a discriminatory system, that would be the way to do it. On the other hand, how would the fundamental right to chose then exist except to some theoretical people who are deemed more worthy of the right to vote, based on their <thought to be</u> abilities ???

It is a discriminatory system but not in a negative way. It is my intention to develop a system where if you are not willing to put in the effort needed to show you have a vested interest in maintaining the state, you will not have a say in how it is run.

I wouldn't say its silly, however, because 18 is the age of registration for the selective service; it has been the draft eligible age; and it is the age for voluntary service in the military. If one can do those things, shouldn't one have a vote?

I disagree. Those limits were set at the convience of the gov't. If something as trivial as the legal right to drink isn't awarded at the same time the right to sign up for the army is, why should the right to vote be? I read somewhere I think it was Discover magazine, and I'm not passing judgement cause we need marines but, the marines actively recruit men as young as possible because it is easier to break them and remold them as the killers we need watching the walls. Except under extraordinary circumstances, at 18 you aren't experienced enough to have mature worldview. However, you don't need one to drink or get drafted.

Some would argue that the wool has been pulled over millions of people: young and old; educated and having those presumptive abilities; and many of whom have served this country in various ways to have earned the right to vote -- by the invasion of Iraq. Says a lot about exclusivity doesn't it ??? Why are they any more entitled to vote, to choose -- than the uneducated, less talented, and unserved who saw the proponents of the Iraq invasion for what they were ???QueEx

It has been pulled, but only because our system is set up to put in power those who want power, not those who should have it. Believing the pretenses we went to war under and signing up to serve is not what gets you the vote. It is the serving. Education level has nothing to do with it, even if you could see through the tricks. Especially if you could see through the tricks and didn't do anything. Pundits are a stain on modern society.

My system would require some tweaks to our current system. If all you had to do get the franchise was sign up for a term of service, everyone would do it. And the gov't cannot refuse anyone the right to serve. So I think the easiest way to fix that is to make getting into the service the hardest, most deliberately cruel and testing experience possible. I don't know if you ever read Heinlien's starship troopers, but that book influenced me a great deal. It's kind of dated but its a damn good read with some very sharp political and cultural observations. You might want to pick it up.

 

[Temujin]

This is a very interesting topic. I felt similar to negmarron in that in America we have a situation where the great majority of people who do vote have a limited view of what the are actually voting for.

The problem in my eyes is that we invest too much trust in these leaders. We trust that the platform they present to the nation during the election process will lead to decisions in line with the platform. We have gotten lazy in that we vote for ideas and doctrines embodied by individuals who have other agendas that they may not share with the people. The people it seems can only conceptualize the most important issue of a given candidates platform and choose there candidate based on these one or two most important issues. It is not that the other issues are not important but a certain issues may be more important to one person than another and influence them to vote that way.

The president of the united states is perhaps the most powerful man on the planet with his war powers, economic influence and judicial nominating powers. To choose this man based souly on his stance on gay marriage, or abortion or even just the war seems negligent. The vast American public cannot realisticly say that the president of the united states represents them on every issue.

In my view the power of the president has gotten away from the people. The president of the U.S. is way to powerful. We have a dictator with a limited term. We do not have a true democracy. The voting rights of the nation should not be limited to every four years. Given that in my opinion it would be impossible to fully educate the American people to the point where they are making an informed decision on the presidency I think our only option is to limit the presidential powers and require more input from the people.

How do we do this? I think just like in state and communitiy elections there needs to be nationwide referendums. We need to vote on specific issues that are of the utmost important to the country then people could see the forest from the trees.

 

[QueEx]

... I think just like in state and communitiy elections there needs to be nationwide referendums. We need to vote on specific issues that are of the utmost important to the country then people could see the forest from the trees.

Considering that Blacks and Hispanics are in the minority, nationwide, what would nationwide referendums lead to ???

QueEx

 

[Mr. Skeptic]

why isnt being a citizen all the earning you need. once you start putting extra criteria on it the only people that are gonna be limited is the minorities. do you trust white people not to exclude you if they reshape the voting laws? i dont.

its the right of every citizen to not give a fuck and do things that are detrimental to their well being as long as they dont directly hurt others. who is anyone to say some class of people, that already has the right to vote, isnt good enough to have the right.

We often disagree (well, when I can actually understand what you disagree with), but this is one of the few (of maybe four) things I completely agree with you about.

 

[Mr. Skeptic]

It is a discriminatory system but not in a negative way. It is my intention to develop a system where if you are not willing to put in the effort needed to show you have a vested interest in maintaining the state, you will not have a say in how it is run.




I disagree. Those limits were set at the convience of the gov't. If something as trivial as the legal right to drink isn't awarded at the same time the right to sign up for the army is, why should the right to vote be? I read somewhere I think it was Discover magazine, and I'm not passing judgement cause we need marines but, the marines actively recruit men as young as possible because it is easier to break them and remold them as the killers we need watching the walls. Except under extraordinary circumstances, at 18 you aren't experienced enough to have mature worldview. However, you don't need one to drink or get drafted.


It has been pulled, but only because our system is set up to put in power those who want power, not those who should have it. Believing the pretenses we went to war under and signing up to serve is not what gets you the vote. It is the serving. Education level has nothing to do with it, even if you could see through the tricks. Especially if you could see through the tricks and didn't do anything. Pundits are a stain on modern society.

My system would require some tweaks to our current system. If all you had to do get the franchise was sign up for a term of service, everyone would do it. And the gov't cannot refuse anyone the right to serve. So I think the easiest way to fix that is to make getting into the service the hardest, most deliberately cruel and testing experience possible. I don't know if you ever read Heinlien's starship troopers, but that book influenced me a great deal. It's kind of dated but its a damn good read with some very sharp political and cultural observations. You might want to pick it up.

I have not read the book you speak about, but the movie based off it seems to show a socialist government. Do you really want a system of government such as that? And more importantly do you really understand what this system would entail -- whether necessarily or contingently so?

 

[Temujin]

Considering that Blacks and Hispanics are in the minority, nationwide, what would nationwide referendums lead to ???

QueEx

Undoubtedly they would break up this two party monopoly we have as political system. Black people who are anti-gay marriage and also anti-war would have a voice. White people who are anti-abortion but pro-affirmative action would have a voice. Right know it is assumed that Bush has the mandate from the American people for his entire economic, diplomatic and national security platform. I am trying to figure out how any human being good vote on all that with one vote. It is impossible especially when you only have two viable candidates.

 

[Greed]

we not cool Bright. dont agree wih me, it invalidates my entire point.

 

[Negmarron]

I have not read the book you speak about, but the movie based off it seems to show a socialist government. Do you really want a system of government such as that? And more importantly do you really understand what this system would entail -- whether necessarily or contingently so?

the movie has almost nothing to with book except for the name. Socialism and its cousin are economic rather than polical systems, despite what propaganda would tell you. The are plenty of countries with socialist economies to variying degrees. Canada, England, Sweden, and some of Europe. I would gladly give Caesar half my check if it meant healthcare and education were taken care of. Wouldn't you?

Black people who are anti-gay marriage and also anti-war would have a voice. White people who are anti-abortion but pro-affirmative action would have a voice.

If you think about it, alot if not most black folks have conservative leanings, especially the older ones. Its just the fact that the Republican party is run by blantant racists that keeps them from voting them, and even then, the percentage that does grows every year.

The problem with true democracy like you're speaking of is that with a country the size of ours it is way to expenive. Referendums on the city and county level are costly, can you imagine scaling that up to a notion of 300 Million? There has to be a disconnect and a representative has to come into the issue. Thats not to say that there shouldn't be national referendums, you just can't and shouldn't have them for everything. Most college educated people don't know enough about the banking system to understand why Greenspan does what he does and how China's currency change is going to affect us.

 

[Temujin]

The problem with true democracy like you're speaking of is that with a country the size of ours it is way to expenive. Referendums on the city and county level are costly, can you imagine scaling that up to a notion of 300 Million? There has to be a disconnect and a representative has to come into the issue. Thats not to say that there shouldn't be national referendums, you just can't and shouldn't have them for everything. Most college educated people don't know enough about the banking system to understand why Greenspan does what he does and how China's currency change is going to affect us.

I think with the speed of information as it is today we could run referendums relatively easily. Especially in the coming years when TV will be digital everyone with a tv will have access to the web. I would not want referendums on minor things only major issues. The reason localities use referendums is to curtail the power of government officials. This is the same power I would like to see curtailed in our president. Spending 300 billion on a war should not be something done outside of the American people.

If we voted on individual issues the issues would have to be explained and debated to the people on a national stage. Politicians could not get buy glossing over issues and oversimplify them as we do today. I would like to vote on our overall economic policy outside of a presidential election I would like to vote on our foreign policy outside a presidential election. Politicians make major decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans with no input from the people. The input they get is from special interests and lobbyist. These individual issues are where the real battles lie and are the stages where the American people have little say other than in opinion polls.

 

[Mr. Skeptic]

the movie has almost nothing to with book except for the name. Socialism and its cousin are economic rather than polical systems, despite what propaganda would tell you. The are plenty of countries with socialist economies to variying degrees. Canada, England, Sweden, and some of Europe. I would gladly give Caesar half my check if it meant healthcare and education were taken care of. Wouldn't you?



If you think about it, alot if not most black folks have conservative leanings, especially the older ones. Its just the fact that the Republican party is run by blantant racists that keeps them from voting them, and even then, the percentage that does grows every year.

The problem with true democracy like you're speaking of is that with a country the size of ours it is way to expenive. Referendums on the city and county level are costly, can you imagine scaling that up to a notion of 300 Million? There has to be a disconnect and a representative has to come into the issue. Thats not to say that there shouldn't be national referendums, you just can't and shouldn't have them for everything. Most college educated people don't know enough about the banking system to understand why Greenspan does what he does and how China's currency change is going to affect us.

No, I think you are mistaken. "Socialism" is largely a political system (as well as an economic system, depending on the form); "communism" is an economical system that extends from Marxist-type socialism. By the way, Canada and many of the other countries you have mentioned are not socialist. Roughly, a nation is socialist if and only if it practices some theory or system of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. It seems you are using a definition of the term 'socialism' that is both too wide to apply to the aforementioned countries, and too narrow as to be only an economic system. For further clarification, google these terms or use Wikipedia.

And to answer your question ... hell no! I do not want "Caesar" or whoever you refer to, to have part of my check, to tell me what I can think or believe, what kind of family I can raise, nor how much I can earn (regardless of the demand for the job and level of education that it takes to pursue it). I love the freedoms afforded to us by the U.S. Constitution – even though they are constantly in threat by our current government – and I would not trade them for some "benevolent dictator." (This sounds too much like Anakin Skywalker’s beliefs that turned him to the “dark side.”)

I am not knocking you (please don't take this insultingly), but it seems you have not given your assertions about voting restrictions and alleged benign types of socialism enough careful reflection. Moreover, basing what you think of complex political issues, based on a fictional novel, is not too prudent.

 

[Mr. Skeptic]

we not cool Bright. dont agree wih me, it invalidates my entire point.

Firstly, I rejected the proposal for the term ‘bright’ as a moniker for freethinkers and nonreligious people when it was first announced. Secondly, that is (or should be) already obvious to you from my past arguments on the old board. Lastly, the only thing that "invalidates" your points is your stupid comments, such as the previous one.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

The are plenty of countries with socialist economies to variying degrees. Canada, England, Sweden, and some of Europe. I would gladly give Caesar half my check if it meant healthcare and education were taken care of. Wouldn't you?

Man, the medical system here in Canada sucks and our psudeo-socialist system is the reason why.

The private doctors here work on a pay per use system. For every paitent they see they bill the government which re-emburses them and then some. Of course this means that if the government's funds run low they can impose all kinds of patient quotas. That means that if you want to do a drop in visit to a GP you better hope you get off work before 5 o'clock or you're SOL because their quotas have been used up giving free pregnancy tests to women of welfare who are too cheap to spend $5 at the grocery stores.

It also mean that our quality of care has gone down since most of our best doctors and nurses go to the US where they can make twice as much money, and have better facilities to work with. They also have better tools for treating patients as well because access to special treatments such as MRI machines is determined by burocrats rather than supply and demand. It gets so ridiculous that my province of 4 million people only has 3 MRI's. I know teenaged cancer patients that have had to wait as long as 3 months to get an appointment.

Also, the other problem is that there's very little incentive for any kind of medical research. After all, what's the point in developing a better treatment technique if you're not going to make any more money than the guy across the street still using the old one? What's the point in developing a new medical device if only one you can sell it to is a government agent who doesn't know the difference between a tounge depresser and a stethoscope? The only way you can make any money is if you sell it to doctors who run a free enterprise medical system like the US. Of course this kills any chance of a Canadian run medical industry.

Our education system isn't that much different than the US. the thing that sets us apart isn't the amount of money spent, but the distribution. The schools in the hood are at least comparable to the ones in the richest neighborhoods.

When it comes right down to it the only way you're going to get a better deal living under socialism is if you're on welfare. Otherwise you're paying WAAY too much money. Why do you think so many more immigrants want to get to the US instead of Canada? It's because in America they can put in a 60 hour week and keep most of what they earned. A Canadian working a 60 hour week will get taxed not only for the extra 20 hours but, they'll take 5 more for good measure. Our tax bracket system is horrible.

 

[Greed]

whatever Bright, just make sure you dont cosign with me again.

 

[QueEx]

... I think just like in state and communitiy elections there needs to be nationwide referendums. We need to vote on specific issues that are of the utmost important to the country then people could see the forest from the trees.


Originall Posted By QueEx - Considering that Blacks and Hispanics are in the minority, nationwide, what would nationwide referendums lead to ???

QueEx

Undoubtedly they would break up this two party monopoly we have as political system. Black people who are anti-gay marriage and also anti-war would have a voice. White people who are anti-abortion but pro-affirmative action would have a voice. Right know it is assumed that Bush has the mandate from the American people for his entire economic, diplomatic and national security platform. I am trying to figure out how any human being good vote on all that with one vote. It is impossible especially when you only have two viable candidates.

Breaking up the present two-party system is not exactly what I had in mind that would result. What I would be concerned about is perpetual referenda, including recall. While recall has only happened maybe once or twice in California, the political support in the country is practically evenly split between the two parties. As soon as the sitting president does something unpopular (invade a country with bad results) enough numbers shift and a recall ensues. Nevertheless, with the support being roughly even, the new president steps in, does something unpopular, and here we go, deja vu all over again. Isn't stability of government more important than annual beauty contests ??? Can an economic system prosper with such upheaval or the possibility of upheaval ???


QueEx

 

[Negmarron]

No, I think you are mistaken. "Socialism" is largely a political system (as well as an economic system, depending on the form); "communism" is an economical system that extends from Marxist-type socialism.

You own quote calls it an economic system. If anything, its an ideology that uses the political system to push forward its economic policies.

By the way, Canada and many of the other countries you have mentioned are not socialist. Roughly, a nation is socialist if and only if it practices some theory or system of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. It seems you are using a definition of the term 'socialism' that is both too wide to apply to the aforementioned countries, and too narrow as to be only an economic system. For further clarification, google these terms or use Wikipedia.

I never said it was socialist. I said Canada and other countries have socialist economies to varying degrees. Even here in the great Capitalist States of America, socialism lurks. Social education, aka PUBLIC education is an example. There wasn't even a fedreal income tax until 1861, and the income tax (ie, the federal government's ability to fund SOCIAL programs) as we know it didn't come into existance until the 16th amendment of the constitution was ratified in 1913. For further clarification, re-read the original post instead of picking out of it what you want. And for even further clarification, take your own advice and Wiki Social Democracy and read the entire article.

And to answer your question ... hell no! I do not want "Caesar" or whoever you refer to, to have part of my check, to tell me what I can think or believe, what kind of family I can raise, nor how much I can earn (regardless of the demand for the job and level of education that it takes to pursue it). I love the freedoms afforded to us by the U.S. Constitution – even though they are constantly in threat by our current government – and I would not trade them for some "benevolent dictator." (This sounds too much like Anakin Skywalker’s beliefs that turned him to the “dark side.”)

when did I say anything about any of that. I gave an arbitrary number as a tax amount to be taken in return for state run healthcare and education. I will not and should not have to make a cliffs notes for you.

I am not knocking you (please don't take this insultingly), but it seems you have not given your assertions about voting restrictions and alleged benign types of socialism enough careful reflection. Moreover, basing what you think of complex political issues, based on a fictional novel, is not too prudent.

If you weren't about to insult, you wouldn't need that disclaimer. I want you to take this to heart. Read a post before reponding. Capitalism vs socialism is not a black and white issue (Anakin Skywalker indeed), much like all of life. Being able to see the world for the shades of grey is essential to being a rational human being. Insulting someone because they were inspired (by what amount you have no idea) by a book, fiction or not, that you HAVE NOT READ says more about you and your tendency to preconceptions and letting others think for you than anything else I care to say.

 

[LionKing]

Nothing deep to say. Just fuck it. People don't because they don't see results from voting. Bush/Clinton/Dinkins/Voinovich (OH) doesn't matter. I vote for a person and I still am poor black and in fear of the police. It's been that and it will stay that way while we depend on voting.

 

[Mr. Skeptic]

You own quote calls it an economic system. If anything, its an ideology that uses the political system to push forward its economic policies.

This sounds like doublespeak, my friend. I clearly said that socialism is largely a political system, while some forms of it are economic as well.

I never said it was socialist.

I am unclear what "it" is, but indeed, you did imply that these countries practiced variants of socialism (in your view of socialism as an economic system):

The [sic] are plenty of countries with socialist economies to variying degrees. Canada, England, Sweden, and some of Europe. I would gladly give Caesar half my check if it meant healthcare and education were taken care of. Wouldn't you?

I said Canada and other countries have socialist economies to varying degrees. Even here in the great Capitalist States of America, socialism lurks. Social education, aka PUBLIC education is an example.

As I asserted in my previous reply to you, you seem to define 'socialism' in a way that is both, too wide and too narrow to be usefully applied.

There wasn't even a fedreal income tax until 1861, and the income tax (ie, the federal government's ability to fund SOCIAL programs) as we know it didn't come into existance until the 16th amendment of the constitution was ratified in 1913.

This is interesting, but mostly fluff and not directly relevant to the issue of whether certain political policies in the Western world today are actually socialist.

For further clarification, re-read the original post instead of picking out of it what you want. And for even further clarification, take your own advice and Wiki Social Democracy and read the entire article.

Thank you, but I was commenting solely on your post, which I thoroughly read. The link about social democracy sheds some light on how your claims have merit. However, my main two claims that these democratic countries are not practicing socialist policies (by definition of socialism proper) and that socialism is not merely an economic system still stands until you have evidence to the contrary.

when did I say anything about any of that. I gave an arbitrary number as a tax amount to be taken in return for state run healthcare and education. I will not and should not have to make a cliffs notes for you.

No you don't, but if you make a knowledge claim, it should be supported by evidence – and obviously, stated clearly as possible. Moreover, this should be evidence which does not include misleading statistics (or arbitrary numbers), anecdotal stories, or question begging. The evidence should be relevant and sufficient in showing how socialist policies are being practiced in the democratic countries mentioned and how these policies are reduced to merely economics for a rational person to reasonably believe them.

I guess this may sound too stringent. And I realize this is just a message board; but as an empiricist I do not accept any possible knowledge claims that aren't somehow testable (verifiable and/or refutable by evidence). Which goes doubly so for an online message board, where questionable info abounds.

If you weren't about to insult, you wouldn't need that disclaimer.

My friend, I only wrote the disclaimer because there are some "special members" on this board that often tend to misread things. I rather be careful and qualify my claims, than to potentially be misinterpreted.

I want you to take this to heart. Read a post before reponding. Capitalism vs socialism is not a black and white issue (Anakin Skywalker indeed), much like all of life. Being able to see the world for the shades of grey is essential to being a rational human being.

I did read your posts carefully. The Star Wars comment was made tongue-in-cheek. Yet the fact remains you made an unconvincing argument.

Insulting someone because they were inspired (by what amount you have no idea) by a book, fiction or not, that you HAVE NOT READ says more about you and your tendency to preconceptions and letting others think for you than anything else I care to say.

Again, it was not meant as an insult. My apologies if you thought so. My last comment only concerned how you related the events in the book to a specific set of sentences in one of your posts:

My system would require some tweaks to our current system. If all you had to do get the franchise was sign up for a term of service, everyone would do it. And the gov't cannot refuse anyone the right to serve. So I think the easiest way to fix that is to make getting into the service the hardest, most deliberately cruel and testing experience possible. I don't know if you ever read Heinlien's starship troopers [sic], but that book influenced me a great deal. It's kind of dated but its a damn good read with some very sharp political and cultural observations. You might want to pick it up.

My final retort was not made to attack your entire argument or you personally. My other criticisms were more instrumental in not accepting your argument – namely, the poor definition of socialism assumed in your argument; the poor sub-argument in favor of a benign form of socialism, this is where the "book comment" comes in; and my rejection of your conclusion (because of my support of our constitutional rights) that the right to vote should be more limited.


Note Bene: Acceptance of a government that practices social democracy (from the link you provided) is inconsistent with an acceptance of restricting voting rights. Of course, it is consistent with some socialist beliefs.

 

[Temujin]

Breaking up the present two-party system is not exactly what I had in mind that would result. What I would be concerned about is perpetual referenda, including recall. While recall has only happened maybe once or twice in California, the political support in the country is practically evenly split between the two parties. As soon as the sitting president does something unpopular (invade a country with bad results) enough numbers shift and a recall ensues. Nevertheless, with the support being roughly even, the new president steps in, does something unpopular, and here we go, deja vu all over again. Isn't stability of government more important than annual beauty contests ??? Can an economic system prosper with such upheaval or the possibility of upheaval ???


QueEx

I think we would need checks and balances like we have with everything. For instance I would not want a referendum for a president to declare war because this could not wait. But I would like a referendum on whether we occupy a country for over a year. I would not want a referendum on whether to change the interest rate but I would want a referendum on the estate tax. We could do them every four years just like the elections then when a president is elected the will of the people is evident and his limits will be clearly set.

From this current presidency I am under the inclination that the president of the U.S. has way to much power. Once elected the president has no one to answer to. He doesn't even have to fully explain to the people why he takes certain actions. Also this is just an idea. I was trying to find a way to give a voice to the 48% of America that does not agree with many of the presidents current actions. If we broke it down into individual issues many of the presidents actions would have even less support from the people.

And the disillusion of the two-party system was based on my views of other countries like britain and isreal who have many political parties. If we introduced a method to which people could identify with different aspects of the two parties that they agree with it would automatically create political parties to fill this demand.

 

[Greed]

Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. . . . . Since sovereign franchise(citizenship) is the ultimate in human authority, we insure that all who wield it accept the ultimate in social responsibility – we require that each person who wishes to exert control over the state to wager his own life – and lose it, if need be – to save the life of the state. The maximum responsibility a human can accept is thus equated to the ultimate authority a human can exert.

this thread actually motivated me to go back and reread the book which is nothing like the movie.

it makes perfect sense while reading it(the whole book is like the quote above), but its a big leap for me to take away the right to vote from anyone.

 

[QueEx]

`


Bumped from the archives. Theres an election November 7, 2006.


`