Better school systems, mandatory mil. service...?

Great Debates
61

**

Ok, some retarded people can do many practical things. Certainly the distinction between a high functioning retarded person and a typical person who may be capable but nonetheless does not think is a fine one but there is still a measurable and quantifiable scale of intelligence. Now lets take a person who is a high functioning retarded individual (I think 80 or so is moron level IQ) and is able to function as a parachute folder or nurses aid, janitor, any number of tasks that can be useful in a civil organization. No problem, contribution=vote. I was too broad in my initial wording in this regard, I thought my meaning was implied. But someone who is so disabled as to be unable to contribute in any way (physical or intellectual) should get a say in how I live my life? No. And before someone mentions people like Dr.Hawking, note: I specifically regard intellectual contribution as equal in merit to physical contribution. Any contribution at all is equal in my opinion. The person who paves my road is just as important as the nuclear physicist who drives on that paved road on the way to smashes atomses (intentional hokey spelling as an inside joke). We need paved roads, butchered meats, stocked grocery shelves, books to read, and power.

**

Where do you live? Busineses pay taxes, so do the owners. There is also an inheiretance tax, property tax, and the list goes on. Now if some rich person avoids taxes somehow by not reinvesting in the finances of the nation the screw him or her. I have no tolerance for finnaglers who secure offshore accounts and yet enjoy the freedoms of a nation they are working to avoid contributing to.

What I said specifically was in reference to voting on feduciary matters. If you don’t put money in the pot you don’t get to say what the pot get spent on. You may allow your children to have some say in vacations or other things your household spends money on, but if you disagree with them do those kids votes still count? Come on, be honest. You have three kids who want to go someplace you despise for dinner and it isn’t a special occasion (birthdays and A+ report cards do not count), those three votes get thrown out the window.

**

Again financial contribution=financial vote, not civil vote. Frankly there are too many laws as it is and without discrimination or deference 3/4 of existing laws should just be tossed out anyhow. Also the elderly may no longer be working but if you have contributed to the financial wealth of your community for more than 50% of your stay there then I say you get to vote in financial matters. Yes this would probably screw over retirement communities, but really it may be a boon to bringing back neighborhoods with roots. Spend some time in my community before you decide how we should run it. Maybe things are already running well there? If not, why did you move here?

**

Ahh. Well I have no intelligent response to a less than intelligent statement. Derisive comments without direction are best disregarded and at worst responded to in kind.

62

No, danger is potentially bad. But if I fall in love, I may only end harming me, the other one, and our respective families and friends. I would not harm or screw up the lives of those who have nothing to do with what I did.

For many years, in the United States only those who had earned income and properties could vote. Yes, a lot of good things happened that helped the US be the country it is today, but today many also agree it was not the best representative government. Do you want to go back to that era?

I have no earned income, unless you count my parent’s money, the scholarship, and selling my plasma. I’m a full time college student. Just because I can’t/haven’t been able to find a job, that excludes me from the right to decide who I wish to decide the affairs of the place I live in?

63

Allowing people who are uneducated or influenced by nefarious motives to vote has the potential to harm more than just those people as well.

**

Well by going back to that “era” then that would leave me open to the implication that I also wanted to assume the other trappings of those days. Frankly I’m not a “Birth of a Nation” kind of guy, so I don’t want to go back in time. But if you mean do I favor a more limited franchise? Then yep, I do. Voting and having children are two things people seem to regard as their basic human rights but they both have a great potential for abuse in the wrong hands. We require people to demonstrate aptitude to operate a vehicle legally but you can use your electoral powers to much greater consequence with no more perogative than when your parents concieved you.

**

I’ll omit my distaste at having to say once again that financial contribution IMHO should effect financial voting privilige not all voting period. I certainly think that stay at home parent’s for example or perhaps clergy make a social contribution and therefore should be able to vote on social matters.

As for your current state of affairs: Well, are you planning on ever having an income? When you contribute in that manner then your voting privilige should reflect that. Maybe your parent’s should excercise your franchise until that time as you admit that you live primarily by their sufferance.

64

To give a suitably Heinleinesque retort, what about a stay-at-home Mom? They don’t earn any income, but I don’t think you can say they make no contribution to society. Should they be disenfranchised?

I don’t quite grasp the distinction here. Acts of government generally require the expenditure of taxpayer monies to carry out. If you can’t vote on the government’s “financial” matters, what can you vote on? Making the second week in July National Soybean Byproducts Awareness Week?

65

Okay, I missed that part, so I’ll withdraw the first part of my post above, and concentrate on the second point: There is no way to meaningfully distinguish between “voting on finacial matters” and “voting on social matters”. If you vote to make transporting underage goats across state lines for immoral purposes punishable by imprisonment, you are necessarily also voting to spend taxpayer dollars to build and staff prisons in order to house all of your convicted goat molesters.

66

How do you define uneducated? Someone may be educated (went to school, did military service, has a steady job) and still be influenced by nefarious motives. In fact, I should say more influenced, they have more knowledge and expertise and maybe more greed and ambition.

Yes, they do have a great potential of abuse in the wrong hands. Limiting the amount of people that can vote does not decrease that potential, and it may increase it.

Ok, what is the difference between financial voting and civilian voting?

Yes, I hope one day get a steady job. That will be when I finally reach my mid-20s, before that it will mostly be temporary jobs or part-time. No, under no circumstances do I want my parents to make financial decisions for me, nor hold any franchise for me. Those are the reasons I moved out of the house, got a separate bank account, and managed my own budget. Yes, they give me money because I’m a full time student and still cannot make it completely on my own, but I’m capable enough to manage money, make financial decisions, save any surplus, and don’t end up broke. Why should that exclude from deciding about financial decisions? Oh yea, and I pay sales tax, that’s a contribution to society.

67

Ah, so there we have it. Zen101 doesn’t want the people who are governed to have say in that government. Zen101 does not like the Declaration of Independence. Nor does he like the Constitution. Zen101 wants this land to be an oligarchy.

Good grief.

68

BTW, zen101: People who rig parachutes ARE NOT MENTALLY INCOMPETENT! Parachute rigging/packing is an extremely iimportant duty.

Another BTW: Your education appears to be lacking. Does that mean that your vote doesn’t count? If so, then I guess your vote on who gets to vote doesn’t count.

69

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this new society is the lack of freedom. Everything seems so regulated, in its own proper place. A bit like Ayn Rand’s Anthem or Lois Lowry’s The Giver. You’re sorted out, everything at its own proper stage. What happens if you want to drop out of high school for a year and bum around Europe to put meaning in your life? A cliche, I know, but it seems like in your world, a year or two away from education would screw with the whole system.

And in this world, everyone seems to have the same life. What if you want to take a year off interning or in another country, or you get a really great job opportunity that means you can’t join the military? Bad examples, maybe, but the point is that sometimes life just happens; you can’t control every single component to it. Maybe society isn’t ideal now, but it’s a bit more fun this way, IMHO.

70

If you can give me the specific function of the Declaration of independance which you feel I’m in disagreement with then I can refute it, however I’m fairly certain you mean the constitution in which case I’d also like you to be more specific. Even the original draft of the Articles of Confederacy as well as the original Constitution made allowances for “other people” (aka black slaves) when it came to the treatment of human beings but they were far from an ogliarchy.

As for the governed having no say in the government. You must truly be living in another world. That is the way it is now. Persons convicted of federal crimes or felonies have no franchise, children have no franchise, in all but the most elementary sense and due to the for of representational government we do have even those with franchise are limited to electing others who may or may not be in political agreement with the voters. Of those empowered to vote only a few do so in any event.

What you so vehemently defend as your birthright is something which statistically you probably do not even engage in.

And if I do declare that I disagree with something I’ll say it, I wond have some other person do it for me.

71

**

Cite where I said otherwise. And what year were you at Benning and where was your permanent duty assignment? I don’t put D.F.A. in my sig because I’m in the Drunk Fathers Association.

**

Other than disagreeing with you oh learned one (I’ll just assume you are brilliantly well educated and disregard the fact that you were unaware of the elready existing limits on American franchise) just where do I show my lack of education? If you mean to say you think I’m stupid then do so, I won’t even ask you to the pit. I respect that my opinions are my own and as an individual I respect your right to disagree, but as you have yet to demonstrate your level of actual education to my satisfaction lets stick to statements of opinion. As a point of fact I’m rather well educated with my second degree pending. Of course I could as easily say I was secretly C. Everett Coop so long as I’m protected by the anonymity of the internet.

72

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Everyone is subject to the authority of the government and everyone must obey the laws, not just people of a certain skin color or people of a certain gender or people who own a certain amount of property or have a certain income. Therefore, everyone has a right to a say-so in those laws and the authority of that government. True, this ideal wasn’t lived up to right away when this country was founded–it’s taken us a while and a fair amount of blood and pain and struggle to make the philosophy the reality. Criminals of course haven’t obeyed the laws, so I don’t think it’s terribly unjust to deprive them of their participation in framing those laws, at least not while they are actually still paying their debt to society. That we don’t let three-year-olds vote strikes me as a silly objection to democracy. And yes, it’s a shame that people don’t vote when they can. They should vote. (They should also educate themselves about the issues and the candidates first.) When people fail to exercise their rights, they run a serious danger of losing them. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the moral right to begin with.

73

A well reasoned question and I think I may have an answer, albeit not a perfect one but what in politics is perfect and not merely compromise?

A civil vote would be judiciary issues relating to matters such as are currently covered by many initiative measures. Like medical marijuana or the right to die. In practice one could say that these issues may use state/federal moneys, but as the dispensation of wealth is not at hand as primary to this type of measure then this seems to me like a civil matter. Gay marriage is another example, or pretty much all the laws that tell people what to do in the privacy of their own homes (although I think we should be rid of all such laws anyhow).

A Financial vote would be more like a vote regarding welfare reforms or on a bond measure. Things which directly relate to the spending of public moneys.

When I think on the issue of a stay at home parent I think in practice that so long as one other adult is working and is able to make a financial contribution in the way of taxes because of the other parent staying at home, thus alleviating the expense of childcare, then the parent caring for the children does in a way make a financial contribution. Certainly childcare is a form of making a living. If I worked on a family farm that sold produce, I would still be making a financial contribution to my community as a byproduct of my labor.

Hope that clears that up a mite.

74

**

This is your theory and it seems no more proveable than mine. Recall, however, the scandal in Chicago in the last decade where parishoners were influenced to stay at home or in church on the day of the Mayorial elections. It was later demonstrated that many were paid indirectly to do so by the conservative candidate. This is because many were impoverished and were more readily influenced by the immidiacy of a few dollars than the long term benefit a sympathetic mayor may have for them.

Stupid evil people usually go for the short term because they don’t know any better. But an intelligent parasite knows that what is good for the host/victim is good for them. I’d much rather have an accountant who is utterly evil and utterly brilliant than one who is a well intended moron.

**

How do you figure? It is the governing priciple by which our society of liscences and permissions works. A truly unlimited franchise would allow French people to vote in our elections. Why not? Certainly a foreign person has as much interest in the economy of my home state as someone who is on welfare or in some federal issues someone living in another state? Is your contention that by requiring a liscence for operating certain vehicles that they thereby become more dangerous? Maybe my standards are off, but the concept of establishing some standard is not illogical.

**

**

Dunno. I never mentioned civillian voting. I said civil voting. IO explained it above too.
**

Well bully for you on all counts. I have yet to see anyone tell my a good reason why someone who makes no contribution should have an equal say to someone who does.

75

By the way, if I quit responding for a bit to anyone here don’t take it as though I haver recinded my opinions. I’m just well and truly frustrated with the poor speed that I get from the SDMB’s web server.

Page retrieval is taking me up to four minutes and I’m a 768/256 DSL user.

76

The evil I see in that scandal was not caused by the poor people but by conservative candidate. He tried to to win (or won, I don’t know the whole scandal) by bribing those who needed the money at any cost! Sorry, that was the result of an educated mind I certainly don’t want around.

There is a difference between driving and voting. I do believe that voters should be well informed on what is happening in the government, know all the campaign platforms, read all they can, candidates should have debates, etc. That is up to the people to decide, of course I would like all the people to be as much informed as they can when they make such an important decision!

The standard that is set is that the person is an adult, capable of forming his/her own opinions with all the information that is given. As an adult, fully responsible of his/her actions, and should remember that if he/she didn’t excercise the right to vote and the winner is to his/her dislike.

Sorry to mix the words above, I apologize.

I pay a sale tax most of the time I buy something. With those sale taxes, here at least (Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida), they are building a new courthouse. In other places I suppose they use it for similar purposes, or to repair streets, pay teachers, etc. Those things benefit society, are you saying that a sale tax does not count as my financial contribution to society? Strange, I thought it did, and that was the reason they were put in the first place.

77

That word “moral” sorta makes me go deaf in one ear. Care to rephrase with a less ambiguous word? While I afree that your interpretation of the Declaration is a valid one inasmuch as it is fairly popular, it is also a popular opinion that the founding fathers only wanted their rights as Englishmen and wrote that masterwork to incite the Empire. They owned slaves, had a debtors prison and originally wanted a nonexistant federal government. All men are also created equal. Thats nice and all, but it speaks to that same part of the brain that cries when I watch the movie “Rudy”. How am I equal to a person better looking, stronger, and more intelligent than myself in any way other than the ephemeral “moral” sense? And what does morality have to do with ability?

Also as a smaller point of fact, the declaration itself isn’t a legal document but an actual declaration. Since there was no actual “American” government empowered to set forth rules of law (we hadn’t even decided on what our governmental for would be yet) the letter had the same kind of social merits as “Common Sense”, it was a tool to unify the citizenry (a daunting task) and give some semblence of form to what was really a pretty far out bunch of land holders. No denying that those who disagree with me are probably nice folks, and in all likelyhood I’m not such a nice person. Of course being “morally” right is subjective as is being “nice” and neither one is based in logic.

I’m thinking of an analogy that I really like. Voting is like surgery on a much larger scale. Neither require training or aptitude to attempt, but in both cases I would prefer a surgeon I go to to have both training AND aptitude, same goes for the voter.

78

You are corect that the evil one was the politician (or his handlers who planned this), but being evil does not preclude someone being good at their job. Being stupid enough to sell your right to vote for a few dollars, however, means you deserve whatever happens to you (social Darwinism). If those poor people a) had been more intelligent or less desperate or b) simply been non-voters then there would have been no scandal. They either would have known that the potential gains from a self interest vote was worht far more than the few dollars some of them recieved or they would be unworthy or illeligible for the bribe in the first place.
**
[/quote]

There is a difference between driving and voting. I do believe that voters should be well informed on what is happening in the government, know all the campaign platforms, read all they can, candidates should have debates, etc. That is up to the people to decide, of course I would like all the people to be as much informed as they can when they make such an important decision!
**
[/quote]

Look, how many people can I kill with a car? Tops maybe 5-25 if I get a really big cement truck. How many people can I kill be electing some whacko nuke freak? Think on it.

**

**

I’d agree with you if we were talking about doing drugs or getting a tattoo, but your vote affects not only you, but those around you as well.

**

No problemo.

Sales tax should be eliminated on staples such as food and clothing and detergents and such. Cigarettes and booze and luxury items like cars and boats should be taxed. If you can afford to smoke you damned well should have a job, chances are you are going to need expensive medical care at some point. But since sales tax is a state to state issue and I live in a state where ther is no sales tax I’m probably unaware of all the applications of a sales tax. Certainly in Florida with it’s high tourism revenue a sales tax is helpful, but there may be just as good and more practical ways of generating revenue.

I’ll state up front I’m not an economist, so I don’t doubt there are better answers than mine. I’m simply presenting ideas that could be shaped by an expert into something workable.

79

Indication that your education appears to be lacking: You used the term “function” when the correct word is “section.”

My response:

Please key on “consent of the governed.”

Indication that your education appears to be lacking: You could only be fairly certain that I was referring to the Constitution if you weren’t familiar with either document. “Consent of the governed” is widely known to be part of the Declaration.

My response: See above. Additionally, I’m not here (or anywhere else for that matter) to satisfy your likes.

Indication that your education appears to be lacking: You used the term “Articles of Confederacy.”

My response: Please get some education about US history. The governing document before the Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. The Confederacy, on the other hand, was on the scne almost a hundred years later.

Absolutely incorrect. Unlike you, I’m rather informed about the government of this land.

Indication that your education is lacking: Your assertion is that those persons have no franchise.

My response: Those persons lost their franchise via their voluntary commission of a felony.

Oh, God. Not another “the bad old government’s agist” comment!

Care to try this one again. This time use English.

Inidication that your education appears to be lacking: Your use of the term “empowered to vote.”

My response: In this land, people are not empowered to vote. They have the right to vote. Check the Constitution.

Trained statistician, huh?

What? This is the second part of your posting that doesn’t make any sense.

80

My point, obviously, is that parachute rigging is a regular military duty. It isn’t just something that folks who can’t do other military duties get to do. It’s a specialty, one done by those in the military trained to do it. Your education again appears to be lacking in your apparent rushed reading of the posts in this thread.

I was assigned to Fort Benning from 1983 to 1984 and was a Specialist Four at the time. My MOS was 75B1O.

Your apparent lack of basic knowledge of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation all indicate to me that my assertions are correct.

Nowhere did I say your were stupid. I said your education appears to be lacking. Your comment here indicates that you think those without education, as approved by your apparently, are stupid and thus should not get to vote.

Your pitesque comment (“oh learned one”) has no place in this forum. You should also be aware of making assumptions.

Yet, you seem to think that for someone to get to vote, they should have a particular level of education. Your satisfaction doesn’t have a thing to do with actual education. Judging from your posts and your website, you actually are satisfied with little actual learning.

True. Again judging by your posts here and your website, I find that I don’t believe that you really are all that educated.

Oh, and so you’re not completely left in the dark about me: I am actually a retired Petty Officer First Class, USN. Feel free to ask one of the mods/admins here. They have my stanidng permission to verify that if any other poster asks.