This would be a finer republic, I suppose, if the idiots-in-the-vernacular-sense would also be idiots-in-the-classical-sense, and mind just their own business and not society’s . . .
I added the word to clarify the meaning of the thread title. I probably should have clarified it further but I couldn’t pass up a chance at wordplay. Now where is my bouzouki?
Don’t wanna be an Athenian idiot
Don’t wanna live in a tub like Diogenes
I care too much for the world and its progeny
Everyone in the agora is part o’ me
Well, now that the obvious has been taken care of…
…sure, if you want to abstain from voluntary public involvement, go ahead. Involuntary obligations, such as paying taxes and showing up when called for jury duty, remain, though.
Of course, you’ll still have the right to complain about things, but everyone will have even less reason to take you seriously.
Why? I mean, doesn’t this presume that the mere act of taking part in the involvement is, alone, a positive reason to take your complaints seriously? I’ve seen too many idiots* that aren’t idiots** to think this is the case.
Well, let’s say it’s a scale of default values of how seriously someone’s complaints should be taken, subject to numerous additional modifiers.
0 - non-voter
1 - voter
10 - local elected official or judge
20 - state/provincial elected official or judge
40 - federal elected official or judge
100 - President/Prime Minister/Supreme Court Justice
The modifiers add a plus-or-minus of 100 points, typically based on how much you like and trust the complainer, the complainer’s possible history of crankery or pandering, how much the complainer’s complaints strike you as plausible, etc. If a fellow voter had some complaints, I might commiserate with him, share some observations and complaints of my own. If somebody came out with the same complaints and tacked on “…and that’s why I never vote”, I doubt I’d bother to get even that chummy with him.
Well, you have my permission to adapt the Ekers Scale of Default Political Respect, which I now freely and unreservedly release into the public domain.
So the difference between 0 and 1 is the difference between “not even bothering to get that chummy” and “commisserate and discuss”, what does that make 100? Abject worship? Either that scale’s logarithmic or I’m pretty sure it’s hyperbole.
Also I asked why is their opinion to be taken as less meritous? You’ve made it clear that not voting is a sufficiently ad-hominemable offense to make everything they say disregardable as a result; what part of not voting makes it so?
You’re asking for definitive expansions on something I wrote off-the-cuff and which included qualifiers like “might” and “doubt”. Suffice it to say that I have little sympathy for people who complain about the system yet won’t make the minimal effort of occasionally casting a vote.
And, no, I don’t “abjectly worship” the 100-levels. I don’t abjectly worship anything. However, if a 100-level raises an objection to how things are done, I’m quite likely to pay attention since the 100s are the people at the top of the power structure and thus most likely to effect change. The change may not be to my personal liking, of course.
Anyway, if you don’t like the scale, rewrite it to your heart’s content.
Okay, I’ll rewrite it:
0 - non-voter
0 - voter
-1 - local elected official or judge
-10 - state/provincial elected official or judge
-15 - federal elected official or judge
-25 - President/Prime Minister/Supreme Court Justice
The ‘rank’ a figure has in a political system doesn’t inherently make their opinions any better, but it does increase their ability to do something about it. As you say, they’re most likely to effect change, so why are they just whining about it? They should do something.
Whereas by comparison, the voter and non-voter are equally powerless. Yeah yeah, the voter had a fraction of a tenth of an iota of minimal influence as to which polician was elected. That doesn’t mean that he has any power to do anything now. And it doesn’t mean that his opinions -or complaints- are any smarter or more correct or more justified than those of the guy who didn’t vote.
Offhand, I’m going to say it’s not okay to be a classical idiot. All of us benefit from living in our society. But society requires the collective support of its citizens. So an idiot is somebody who is receving the benefits without offering the support.
Paying taxes and not murdering people is required. You will be met with violence if you attempt not to pay taxes, or if you attempt to murder someone. You don’t get extra democratic credits for NOT breaking the law. It’s both expected and demanded.
The reason for the OP is that it irks me when people say they don’t “care” about politics, when they live in a democracy. I believe that in a democracy you have a personal responsibility to care and be involved on some level. The absolute minimum level being to vote. A Democracy means that the people rule the country, either through the representatives they chose or directly through votes on issues. Living in a democracy is a privilige that most people don’t have, and by not caring you’re taking for granted something that the vast majority of people who ever lived never had. And your shirking your responsibility.
I also think (or hope) that in most cases, it’s not true. People usually care at least about stuff that affects them. And politics affects almost every aspect of almost every peoples lives. If I am to give these (athenian) idiots the benefit of doubt, I will assume that they mean they’re not interested in the partisan game of politics.
This has become more relevant right now since it’s election time here. And frankly, the political parties aren’t helping this issue because of the relationship with the electorate. More and more the elections become a pandering to voters, instead of a democratic attempt at dialogue. Different parties will try to “buy” different demographic groups by offering tax cuts, programs or rethoric that they think will convince them to vote for them. The electors are being “wooed”. We’re using PR-firms for “branding” and “priming” instead of challenging eachothers ideas. We’re trying to package our ideology instead of putting the responsibility were it belongs, at the feet of the electorate.
People should be actively involved. Everyone should be. Everyone with the right to vote should at the very least be trying to find information, thinking, discussing and weighing alternatives. But because us politicians are so concerned about winning, we chicken out. The voters should be challenging politicians, but politicians should be challenging voters too, not just sucking up to them. We’re not selling a product, we’re collectively deciding how to run the country. If you refuse to accept your responsibility in making that decision because you’re lazy, you’re an over priviliged idiot.
I don’t think I know a single person in my area who tries to find information, thinks, or discusses or weighs alternatives - the ones that vote do it by color. Red red red, for generally poorly-thought-out reasons, usually involving single issues and collections thereof.
I presume they’re equally idiotic? Or is there something less idiotic about voting idiotically?
The reason is, in my American Government class (1 semester, required for all Seniors, and basically a “rah rah this is why Amurrika is the best” period of inanity), the teacher gave us a bit on our homework that said, basically, that in Ancient Greece idiotes, the root of our word “idiot” was what they called someone who didn’t vote, and what did we think of that? Of course, we were supposed to say “You have to be an idiot to not vote!!”, but I did a little research - from what I could tell, idiotes referred not to someone who DID not vote, but from someone who was considered “mentally defective” and was therefore NOT PERMITTED to vote.
So I pointed this out, and mentioned that while it may seem logical to only allow those of a certain mental level to take part in the franchise, intelligence tests for the right to vote had historically been used to disempower minority voters and had therefore been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Anyway, to repeat: Can I get a cite on this usage?