Should we restrict some people from voting? Matchup 4

The following two posts are based on this article:

Should we restrict people from voting?

POST ONE, by Anonymous1

The problem is that your concept would entail that people considered as "appropriate" voters always think in the common interest of all.
While this is not something that I think possible, as it is virtualy impossible to have a truely universal way of thinking, I also wih to point out that "intelligence" is not all.
If you look at the people who lead countries around the world, many are probably intelligent, but it does not mean they will necessarily make the right decisions about issues they have to deal with.
Although I would agree that some people are unable to vote in full understanding of what's going on around them and what is "good" for society, your system would bring power of decision to a new "elite" class, which would lead to a system close to what we had before the XX century. And I don't think that it could get rid of the plague of corporatism which would, in the end, cripple the "common good" concept. A better to achieve what youare aim at would be education.
Let's say a sort of "training", that would ensure that voters have basic knowledge of history, politics, etc to give them a basic understanding of what's going on around them, where we come from and are able to think about what kind future they want. And I would tend to think that appropriate "training" would be useful for prospective parents, especially in the UK, to make sure they are aware of what it entails to be a parent and how to raise a child "properly".
This might help tackle problems like teenage pregnancy and obesity, (highest rate in Europe)or anti-social behaviour amongst British teenagers.


POST TWO, by Anonymous2

Your entire thinking supposes 'the people' to be a homogeneous group with a common good, somewhat like a colony of ants.

Actually, there are far more suppositions than that in your theory, but they can wait.

Related to the idea that there is a single outcome most desirable to all people - this isn't the case. There may be a single outcome most desirable on aggregate, but that's a different matter.

Because you think that the the optimal outcome for the whole is the optimal outcome for each individual, this leads you to the conclusion that it is appropriate to strive only for the optimal outcome - which you think can be best achieved through only allowing the most rational and intelligent to make decisions.

However, there is no win-win outcome in politics. Therefore, how can you deny people the right to representation in their own interests?

poll by twiigs.com

Should we restrict some people from voting? Matchup 3

The following two posts are based on this article:

Should we restrict people from voting?


POST ONE, by Anonymous3

This is one piece of economic philosophy that I particularly hate:

"Voting for someone that helps you in the short run isn’t necessarily the most rational decision. Because, for example, if you are middle class and you vote for someone that will take money from the rich to give to the middle class, that might help you short term, but will likely hurt you long term, when that same rich person has less money to spend to hire the middle class, or to shop at their stores."

It's just ridiculous, and has no basis in fact. Trickle-down economics is a complete fiction, invented by rich people to justify inequality. How come the money going to the rich will trickle down to the poorer, and yet, if that money goes straight to people who are less wealthy it somehow dissappears into the ether? Will poorer people not also spend money in shops, will they not also start businesses?

The standard recourse is to talk about "wealth-creators", as though the rich were a magical breed of people who can't move for the new wealth that mysteriously falls out of their asses everytime they get out of bed. It's a nonsense.


POST TWO, by Anonymous4


I do not believe it's a question of gender or IQ scores.To me,it's a question of knowledge,of civic education,of being truly informed of yuor social and economical suroundings.Voting eligibility should be established (and retested on regular basis) through civic examinations/certifications.The questionaires must be prepared by most capable members of society,designated by public referendums kept before every election cycle.These "most capable" are just suposed to prepare the examinations and not to be the "chosen" ones alowed to vote in the elections!All people who qualify to be "voters" by responding to the civic evaluation questionaires would get a certificate allowing them to cast a vote.Those who do not qualify should wait until the next cycle to try bringing their knowledge level to the required degree.Gender,IQ,general education level,wealth,social position in society and all other such factors should not play any role in obtaining the right to vote.These factors may only be considered by the referendum voters to qualify the persons selected to participate in the questionaires preparation,which is a somewhat subjective process.I know it is not going to happen during my lifetime but I like to dream that someday,into the future,society will evolve enough to adopt some kind of more rational mode of defining democracy.What we are having today it is far from perfect...

poll by twiigs.com

Should we restrict some people from voting? Matchup 2

The following two posts are based on this article:

Should we restrict people from voting?


POST ONE, by Anonymous5

Limiting voting eligibility to those who perform well on a civic examination is just as bad. Once again, it turns Democracy into Aristocracy by limiting who can participate in their civic culture.

Democracy is inherently valuable because all groups of people have input, thus preventing the government from victimizing any particular group of people. Consider the first thing the South did when they victimized Blacks during the Jim Crow era: they limited their right to vote. That is what it looks like when the voice of the electorate is distorted.
 

POST TWO, by Anonymous 6

How about people are assigned a number of votes determined by the amount of taxes they pay annually. That way - they have more influence over their tax dollars and how they are spent. So let's say - you get 1 vote for every $10,000 you pay in Annual taxes - you pay $100,000 in Annual Taxes - then you get 10 votes - 1 Million = 100 Votes etc... This way - you have accomplished 2 things - People who don't pay taxes - don't get a voice and people who are contributing to society and the Tax base - actually get more of a voice. Yes. - It will be top heavy with the 1 percent who already control the country - however instead of trying to cheat the tax system; people may actually start paying their fair share of taxes so that they can get their "fair" vote. Corporations are excluded. This has to be your own individual personal tax return associated only to your social security number - and if you are married and file Joint - then - yes - Like everything else - you have to split that too.

poll by twiigs.com

Should we restrict some people from voting? Matchup 1

The following two posts are based on this article:

Should we restrict people from voting?


POST ONE, by Anonymous7

Aristocracy = Aristos ("good," "best," "most fit") + Kratos ("power," "rule")

    My advice would be to learn more about how research is conducted. You ask if "sample size wasn't enough to be valid" - the fact that they have publishable results indicates that their sample size is large enough to get a statistically significant correlation.

    Now, the "rationality" argument is interesting - I've noticed that people such as yourself tend to define "rational" as "supports my preconceived opinions." How exactly would you test how "rational" a particular argument is? (Much less how "rational" a person is, as if rationality was dispositional.)

    China is run by people the ruling party would certainly consider to be the best and brightest. And I would agree with you that their results are terrible in pretty much everything but GDP growth rate. It doesn't work to screen political power-holders for ideological purity, period. This remains true no matter what the ideology is.



POST TWO, by Anonymous8

I had to laugh when I read this...

"And when selecting, I might not select based on traditional IQ tests..."

Might I be so bold as to suggest facebook quizzes as the best means to determine who should have the vote.

I don't know the exact proportion of the population with an IQ higher than 160, but I'm guessing it's max. 1%. Once you strip out of that anyone who fails your other test - poor memory, not rational, possesses ovaries - you'd be left with around 0.5% of the population.

You're suggesting that the overwhelming majority of the population should spend their lives in thrall to the whims of the minority.

This seems remarkable far from the fundamentally American concept of "rule of the people, by the people...". Not what I'd expect to hear from someone who continuously berates Obama's supposed anti-Americanism.

poll by twiigs.com

What do you think of Obama? Matchup 1

POST ONE, by NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion

I think Obama is largely anti-American.
 
After all, who would have thought that an American presidential candidate would:

Publically refuse to wear an American flag lapel pin

Publically refuse to place his hand over his chest while the Pledge of Allegiance was played

Be linked to a terrorist who 1) ran a group that caused explosions in a police station and the Pentagon
2)was banned from entering Canada after the election

Claim that he didn't know the terrorist, when he actually did

(After it was exposed that he knew the terrorist) Not criticize the actions of the terrorist in an attempt to disassociate himself from him; instead, claim that he was only a child when the terrorist's group committed the bombings.

Attend a church led by a radical preacher caught on tape, and claim that he wasn't at church the days that the rants occurred

Have a wife who publically stated that the candidate's primary victory was the first time in her life that she was proud of her country

Refuse to provide his birth certificate

Pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to block discovery, which would result in a legal obligation to provide his birth certificate

Refuse to provide evidence of his citizenship

Sign an executive order on the first day of work banning the release of his life history: kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental college records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, his passport (if any), medical records.

Be ranked as the most liberal of all 100 senators

Who would have thought that said candidate would win the Democratic Party presidential nomination?

Who would have thought that said candidate would garner more than 5% of the popular vote in the presidential election?

Who would have thought that said candidate would actually win the election?

Who would have thunk it?




POST TWO, by A_Reader

What do I think of Obama? I think he’s a good person, and a smart person.

Judging by how well he speaks, he’s obviously very intelligent. And the reason I think he’s a good person is because he seems to act on behalf of the little people.

I realize he’s been getting a lot of flack, but I believe that’s more due to the overall economy rather than his own economic policies.

I hope you agree.

poll by twiigs.com

Should blacks should be paid slavery reparations? Matchup 1

POST ONE, by NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion

Should blacks be paid reparations for slavery?

If you ask someone that question, the chances are that they will answer with something like:

"Whites today didn't commit slavery, so why should they be punished?" or "Blacks today aren't slaves, so why should they be rewarded?".

The problem with those comments is that they have a perception problem. What they SHOULD be asking themselves is this:

"If blacks weren't slaves, how would the financial position of blacks and whites differ today?"

It's clear that slavery resulted in white families having more income that they could pass through the generations through inheritance, and resulted in black families having less income passed through inheritance. Hence, white families are richer, and black families poorer, than they otherwise would be had slavery not occurred.

Hence, it would be the right thing for whites to pay reparations.

However, you could argue that affirmative action programs that have lasted for 40+ years are a form of reparation. This would be one of the strongest arguments against further reparations being paid.  However, I have no idea whether reparations through affirmative action are enough to offset the financial damage done through slavery (however, I do feel confident that affirmative action resulted in a gain to blacks above and beyond any damage done by discrimination in hiring, etc). There is no doubt that whites and asians have been discriminated against heavily in academia and the workforce as a result of affirmative action programs.

But what if affirmative action wasn't enough of a reparation? What factors should be considered when trying to calculate how to go about reparations?

Try to estimate which blacks actually have slaves as ancestors, and which whites had slave owners as ancestors. Only they should be impacted. (This may be too resource intensive-estimate might be better)..

And since the mode of damage was conducted by financial inheritance, it's families that should be concentrated on.  What I mean is that you'd need to trace or estimate which families were burdened or benefited by slavery, and to trace the impact.  For example, if a slave family was poorer due to slavery, and if that family had two sons, then those two sons should be paid a sum of money, not the entire families of those two sons.  And since blacks have a higher birth rate than whites, if it was determine that whites paid, say $50 per person in reparations, the amount blacks received in compensation would be less than $50 per person.

Another important factor is the impact of African slave traders. After all, they profited by selling their countrymen to Americans.  They should pay reparations too.

And perhaps the most important consideration is this: Even if it's fair to pay reparations, would the benefits of doing so (fairness) outweigh the costs of doing so? What if other groups start making claims for grievances? What if women or natives or handicapped or homosexuals start asking for reparations? What if it results in such a significant shift in transfer of wealth that it results in rich businesses firing some workers or changing their spending habits?  You can easily see how it might not be a good idea to proceed with reparations.

At one time or another, many groups could have been victimized unfairly. In order to remedy this, it could require extremely complicated calculations.  For example, a white woman might end up owing money to blacks for slavery, but that same woman might end up being owed money for being discriminated against in the workforce.  It could become a huge tangled web of financial calculations.

When it comes to compensation for past systemic (but since remedied) unfairness, perhaps it's best to let old dogs lie.  After all, as society evolves and new information becomes available daily, do we really want to endlessly compensate for the way "things should have been?"

 I don't know, but a discussion should occur.


POST TWO, by someguy


I don't think reparations should be paid.

I realize that blacks and their ancestors have suffered due to the wages lost to slavery, but what about the fact that the ancestors of blacks who came to America are now better off living in America rather than Africa?

Surely that must be worth something.

poll by twiigs.com

Is abortion right or wrong?

POST ONE, by NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion

In the past I didn't have any strong opinions about whether abortion was right or wrong. I hadn't thought about it much.

I now believe one could make a strong argument that abortion is wrong. Why? Logic. Let me examine the arguments.

If a woman has an unwanted baby, and decides to keep it, it's very true that her life will be altered radically. Proponents of abortion may mention this. Hence, in this sense, an abortion would be a benefit to the mother. But benefits don't always outweigh the costs.

But what are the costs? Well, the main cost is that the fetus dies, through no choice of it's own. And the choice then becomes this: you either complicate the life of a mother who may have only 60 years more to live, or you end the life of a human that has their entire life to live. Using this logic, I don't see how abortion could ever be justified, unless you strongly value the life of the mother over that of the baby.

POST TWO. Waiting for a reader to write about the topic "Is abortion right or wrong?"
Submit the post to YouRankThem@hotmail.com