Democracy and Ignorance
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
20 Jul 2016, 3:36 pm
ZenDen wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Quote:
So the idea of discrimination through "intelligence" testing or similar was found to be un-American
Let that be America's epitaph.
"Let that be America's epitaph" (Makes no sense...perhaps expand?)
Actually our epitaph might be: We fought for freedom and we won. We have many sayings here in the U.S.A.; what sayings do they have in Britain to show their patriotism.....or do they? (Maybe: God save the Queen?)
Actually we've gone through this scenario a couple of times. The first was immediately post our Civil War when the slave owning states wanted to continue as much slavery as possible, and SCOTUS stepped in. The second was in the 1960s when SCOTUS had to act again....I guess discrimination doesn't actually die, so you need to be vigilant when it pops up under another name or in a different situation.
I hope Britain doesn't do anything so foolish (doubt they will). But foolish acts are in every country's history and with what appears to be a group of angry children crying that they didn't get the toy they wanted...who knows?
Brits have contributed a lot to the political/social theory--see Burke, Locke, Hobbes.
I cannot resist quoting Burke again.... dammit, I tried to resist.
From "A Letter From Mr. Burke To A Member Of The National Assembly In Answer To Some Objections To His Book On French Affairs (1791)" Where he predicts the failure of the French revolution:
Quote:
the utmost caution ought to have been used in the reduction of the royal power, which alone was capable of holding together the comparatively heterogeneous mass of your states. But, at this day, all these considerations are unseasonable. To what end should we discuss the limitations of royal power? Your king is in prison. Why speculate on the measure and standard of liberty?
I doubt much, very much, indeed, whether France is at all ripe for liberty on any standard. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity —in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
I doubt much, very much, indeed, whether France is at all ripe for liberty on any standard. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity —in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboa ... /tonatass/
This is the social contract and free societies thrive and fail by it. Always have, always will.
Just in case the point is not clear, while I do not support any qualifying tests to vote, to ignore that there should be qualifications is stupid.
Currently, we are producing a society of rapacious, vain, fools. That will have consequences on election day, but I don't know what to do about it.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
20 Jul 2016, 4:00 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Quote:
So the idea of discrimination through "intelligence" testing or similar was found to be un-American
Let that be America's epitaph.
"Let that be America's epitaph" (Makes no sense...perhaps expand?)
Actually our epitaph might be: We fought for freedom and we won. We have many sayings here in the U.S.A.; what sayings do they have in Britain to show their patriotism.....or do they? (Maybe: God save the Queen?)
Actually we've gone through this scenario a couple of times. The first was immediately post our Civil War when the slave owning states wanted to continue as much slavery as possible, and SCOTUS stepped in. The second was in the 1960s when SCOTUS had to act again....I guess discrimination doesn't actually die, so you need to be vigilant when it pops up under another name or in a different situation.
I hope Britain doesn't do anything so foolish (doubt they will). But foolish acts are in every country's history and with what appears to be a group of angry children crying that they didn't get the toy they wanted...who knows?
Brits have contributed a lot to the political/social theory--see Burke, Locke, Hobbes.
I cannot resist quoting Burke again.... dammit, I tried to resist.
From "A Letter From Mr. Burke To A Member Of The National Assembly In Answer To Some Objections To His Book On French Affairs (1791)" Where he predicts the failure of the French revolution:
Quote:
the utmost caution ought to have been used in the reduction of the royal power, which alone was capable of holding together the comparatively heterogeneous mass of your states. But, at this day, all these considerations are unseasonable. To what end should we discuss the limitations of royal power? Your king is in prison. Why speculate on the measure and standard of liberty?
I doubt much, very much, indeed, whether France is at all ripe for liberty on any standard. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity —in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
I doubt much, very much, indeed, whether France is at all ripe for liberty on any standard. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity —in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboa ... /tonatass/
This is the social contract and free societies thrive and fail by it. Always have, always will.
Yep...this certainly sounds like an aristocratic point of view all right. A right to "controlling power" is always what lies behind every tyrannical and brutal plan. May all such thinkers, past and present, suffer the "slings and arrows" they would control others with.
And you say: "This is the social contract and free societies thrive and fail by it. Always have, always will."
Your social contract (without the consent of all) sounds like the reason we fought for our independence. There will always be someone who wants to take away Constitutional rights for any made up reason that will lead to their presumed profit.
However I dispute your use of the word "free".... Perhaps you could give examples where true freedom has caused "free societies" to fail? This might help clarify what you mean by "free."
20 Jul 2016, 4:01 pm
ZenDen wrote:
EbenCooke wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Sure enough I identified the connection behind people wanting to make it harder for the "under educated" to vote...I knew the source of such discriminatory ideas would be easily found:
In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.
Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.
The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.
Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”
Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”
While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”
In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.
Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.
In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.
The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”
WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?
I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.
And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.
In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.
Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.
The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.
Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”
Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”
While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”
In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.
Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.
In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.
The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”
WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?
I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.
And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.
Yeeesh, you're trying to put me in the same boat as Anne Coulter? I'm a flaming lib, mate. I believe in no tests, poll taxes, etc. TRY ASKING ME what my solutions to ignorance are. ANNE FREAKING COULTER?!? Are you kidding me? That nutjob has no place in a rational discussion of the effect of ignorance. Anne Coulter is ignorance personified.
Anyone suggesting Ann Coulter's advise might be considered as favoring her views. If you think you might be in the same boat with Ann you would argue against her having a voice??????? Ann is an American citizen and can say whatever she pleases...unfortunately there are many who might agree with her...but being despicable is not grounds for taking away a person's right to vote (except felon's rights in some states) or to speak their mind.
The solution should be better government efforts to reach people with the information they need. EXAMPLE: Here the government (state and local) supply informational booklets to every registered voter that describes: The issues...arguments pro and con (by the respective parties supporting or opposed)....fiscal considerations by local or state auditors...short range effects...long range effects.....ETC.
I imagine they must have something similar in N.Y.C. ...no? But in Great Britain????? It doesn't sound like it.
Quote:
Anyone suggesting Ann Coulter's advise might be considered as favoring her views.
That's true. Where did I suggest supporting her views? Suggesting ignorance is dangerous is supporting Coulter? Coulter is ignorance personified. I have not supported her 1%. I quoted the post where I suggested a solution and you ignored it. Why?
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
20 Jul 2016, 4:37 pm
ZenDen wrote:
Yep...this certainly sounds like an aristocratic point of view all right. A right to "controlling power" is always what lies behind every tyrannical and brutal plan. May all such thinkers, past and present, suffer the "slings and arrows" they would control others with.
And you say: "This is the social contract and free societies thrive and fail by it. Always have, always will."
Your social contract (without the consent of all) sounds like the reason we fought for our independence. There will always be someone who wants to take away Constitutional rights for any made up reason that will lead to their presumed profit.
However I dispute your use of the word "free".... Perhaps you could give examples where true freedom has caused "free societies" to fail? This might help clarify what you mean by "free."
Edmund Burke was a staunch supporter of the American revolution. Burke's social contract is EXACTLY what we fought our revolution for.
Burke's controlling power in a free society is MORALITY and SELF CONTROL.
Burke's theory is that the ideal citizen in a free society will prefer justice over greed, will be thoughtful rather than impulsive, will respond to wisdom instead of flattery. That's all.
He also supposes that a free society with citizens that do the opposite will fail on their own. In the link/quote I posted, he is specifically talking about France.
The French revolution was propelled by the same ideas as the American revolution, but the french revolution degenerated into political terror followed by military dictatorship.
Burke predicted this failure based upon his estimation of the French citizenry.
I'd also point to the Roman Republic as another "free society" that failed, not because of too much freedom, but because of lack of self restraint.
That's what too many Americans fail to grasp... The founders did not conceive of freedom as the ability to do anything you wanted, but rather the RIGHT TO CONTROL YOURSELF.
That's what Burke means by that last bit "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
If you are a society of greedly, foolish, jerks, you cannot maintain a free society it will fail everytime.
The social contract is more simply put: society gives freedom to people who promise to control themselves.
When people start abusing their freedoms, free societies will fail EVERYTIME.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
20 Jul 2016, 5:05 pm
EbenCooke wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
EbenCooke wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Sure enough I identified the connection behind people wanting to make it harder for the "under educated" to vote...I knew the source of such discriminatory ideas would be easily found:
In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.
Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.
The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.
Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”
Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”
While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”
In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.
Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.
In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.
The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”
WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?
I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.
And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.
In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.
Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.
The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.
Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”
Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”
While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”
In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.
Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.
In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.
The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”
WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?
I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.
And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.
Yeeesh, you're trying to put me in the same boat as Anne Coulter? I'm a flaming lib, mate. I believe in no tests, poll taxes, etc. TRY ASKING ME what my solutions to ignorance are. ANNE FREAKING COULTER?!? Are you kidding me? That nutjob has no place in a rational discussion of the effect of ignorance. Anne Coulter is ignorance personified.
Anyone suggesting Ann Coulter's advise might be considered as favoring her views. If you think you might be in the same boat with Ann you would argue against her having a voice??????? Ann is an American citizen and can say whatever she pleases...unfortunately there are many who might agree with her...but being despicable is not grounds for taking away a person's right to vote (except felon's rights in some states) or to speak their mind.
The solution should be better government efforts to reach people with the information they need. EXAMPLE: Here the government (state and local) supply informational booklets to every registered voter that describes: The issues...arguments pro and con (by the respective parties supporting or opposed)....fiscal considerations by local or state auditors...short range effects...long range effects.....ETC.
I imagine they must have something similar in N.Y.C. ...no? But in Great Britain????? It doesn't sound like it.
Quote:
Anyone suggesting Ann Coulter's advise might be considered as favoring her views.
That's true. Where did I suggest supporting her views? Suggesting ignorance is dangerous is supporting Coulter? Coulter is ignorance personified. I have not supported her 1%. I quoted the post where I suggested a solution and you ignored it. Why?
"....and you ignored it. Why?"
I'm afraid I did not see any solution you offered....perhaps it was covered up by static.
I was hoping YOU would respond and tell us something about the way the state of New York educates it's voters. Why haven'y you mentioned anything? Do they have ANY kind of public education at all????????? Because, if they did, you will have to concede New York voters are NOT uneducated? And if this were true in N.Y. might it not be true in other states?
I've read SOME of your comments and they mostly seem to follow a theme:.
"The Brexit vote was decided by the least educated, the least informed part of the population of Great Britain. Clearly they have a ways to go in perfecting democracy, and we have even farther to go."
"The "leave" voters were older and less educated. Fine me a source that says otherwise. People can delude themselves that the less educated do more research than the more educated. Perhaps, if they had ever studied logic, the absurdity of that would appear obvious, but in the US and apparently in GB as well, fact is irrelevant to an ever growing segment of the population. Democracy is a fraud, because ignorant people cannot sustain a democracy."
"The leave vote was disproportionately cast by older, less educated voters. Dispute this, or you have no basis for your diatribe. Less educated people do less research"
"My basic fact remained undisputed. The leave vote was disproportionately cast by older, less educated voters."
Soooooo, it seems there is a pattern here. This is what I responded to. Nowhere do you say anything about our rights, instead you denigrate:
"the least educated, the least informed....older and less educated....Democracy is a fraud, because ignorant people cannot sustain a democracy."....older, less educated voters....Less educated people do less research....older, less educated voters"
I hope you understand the picture you provide to readers. In addition you maneuvered around some very good advise given to you by others on this thread; they were all sensible ideas...you should re-read some of the other's posts.....and don't do it with a chip on your shoulder...we're here because we want to learn...not argue.
20 Jul 2016, 5:25 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Yep...this certainly sounds like an aristocratic point of view all right. A right to "controlling power" is always what lies behind every tyrannical and brutal plan. May all such thinkers, past and present, suffer the "slings and arrows" they would control others with.
And you say: "This is the social contract and free societies thrive and fail by it. Always have, always will."
Your social contract (without the consent of all) sounds like the reason we fought for our independence. There will always be someone who wants to take away Constitutional rights for any made up reason that will lead to their presumed profit.
However I dispute your use of the word "free".... Perhaps you could give examples where true freedom has caused "free societies" to fail? This might help clarify what you mean by "free."
Edmund Burke was a staunch supporter of the American revolution. Burke's social contract is EXACTLY what we fought our revolution for.
Burke's controlling power in a free society is MORALITY and SELF CONTROL.
Burke's theory is that the ideal citizen in a free society will prefer justice over greed, will be thoughtful rather than impulsive, will respond to wisdom instead of flattery. That's all.
He also supposes that a free society with citizens that do the opposite will fail on their own. In the link/quote I posted, he is specifically talking about France.
The French revolution was propelled by the same ideas as the American revolution, but the french revolution degenerated into political terror followed by military dictatorship.
Burke predicted this failure based upon his estimation of the French citizenry.
I'd also point to the Roman Republic as another "free society" that failed, not because of too much freedom, but because of lack of self restraint.
That's what too many Americans fail to grasp... The founders did not conceive of freedom as the ability to do anything you wanted, but rather the RIGHT TO CONTROL YOURSELF.
That's what Burke means by that last bit "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
If you are a society of greedly, foolish, jerks, you cannot maintain a free society it will fail everytime.
The social contract is more simply put: society gives freedom to people who promise to control themselves.
When people start abusing their freedoms, free societies will fail EVERYTIME.
OK! Thanks for that....so which countries would you elect as "stable" and who are not: "...a society of greedly, foolish, jerks...?" Where in this world is there a country, run by politicians, where there is not failure "on the horizon?"
You speak about uncontrolled human nature....where is the country where people do not have this trait, or who have learned to control it (the Tibetan government in exile is excluded)?
20 Jul 2016, 8:02 pm
ZenDen wrote:
EbenCooke wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
EbenCooke wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Sure enough I identified the connection behind people wanting to make it harder for the "under educated" to vote...I knew the source of such discriminatory ideas would be easily found:
In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.
Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.
The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.
Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”
Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”
While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”
In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.
Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.
In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.
The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”
WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?
I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.
And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.
In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.
Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.
The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.
Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”
Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”
While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”
In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.
Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.
In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.
The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”
WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?
I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.
And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.
Yeeesh, you're trying to put me in the same boat as Anne Coulter? I'm a flaming lib, mate. I believe in no tests, poll taxes, etc. TRY ASKING ME what my solutions to ignorance are. ANNE FREAKING COULTER?!? Are you kidding me? That nutjob has no place in a rational discussion of the effect of ignorance. Anne Coulter is ignorance personified.
Anyone suggesting Ann Coulter's advise might be considered as favoring her views. If you think you might be in the same boat with Ann you would argue against her having a voice??????? Ann is an American citizen and can say whatever she pleases...unfortunately there are many who might agree with her...but being despicable is not grounds for taking away a person's right to vote (except felon's rights in some states) or to speak their mind.
The solution should be better government efforts to reach people with the information they need. EXAMPLE: Here the government (state and local) supply informational booklets to every registered voter that describes: The issues...arguments pro and con (by the respective parties supporting or opposed)....fiscal considerations by local or state auditors...short range effects...long range effects.....ETC.
I imagine they must have something similar in N.Y.C. ...no? But in Great Britain????? It doesn't sound like it.
Quote:
Anyone suggesting Ann Coulter's advise might be considered as favoring her views.
That's true. Where did I suggest supporting her views? Suggesting ignorance is dangerous is supporting Coulter? Coulter is ignorance personified. I have not supported her 1%. I quoted the post where I suggested a solution and you ignored it. Why?
"....and you ignored it. Why?"
I'm afraid I did not see any solution you offered....perhaps it was covered up by static.
I was hoping YOU would respond and tell us something about the way the state of New York educates it's voters. Why haven'y you mentioned anything? Do they have ANY kind of public education at all????????? Because, if they did, you will have to concede New York voters are NOT uneducated? And if this were true in N.Y. might it not be true in other states?
I've read SOME of your comments and they mostly seem to follow a theme:.
"The Brexit vote was decided by the least educated, the least informed part of the population of Great Britain. Clearly they have a ways to go in perfecting democracy, and we have even farther to go."
"The "leave" voters were older and less educated. Fine me a source that says otherwise. People can delude themselves that the less educated do more research than the more educated. Perhaps, if they had ever studied logic, the absurdity of that would appear obvious, but in the US and apparently in GB as well, fact is irrelevant to an ever growing segment of the population. Democracy is a fraud, because ignorant people cannot sustain a democracy."
"The leave vote was disproportionately cast by older, less educated voters. Dispute this, or you have no basis for your diatribe. Less educated people do less research"
"My basic fact remained undisputed. The leave vote was disproportionately cast by older, less educated voters."
Soooooo, it seems there is a pattern here. This is what I responded to. Nowhere do you say anything about our rights, instead you denigrate:
"the least educated, the least informed....older and less educated....Democracy is a fraud, because ignorant people cannot sustain a democracy."....older, less educated voters....Less educated people do less research....older, less educated voters"
I hope you understand the picture you provide to readers. In addition you maneuvered around some very good advise given to you by others on this thread; they were all sensible ideas...you should re-read some of the other's posts.....and don't do it with a chip on your shoulder...we're here because we want to learn...not argue.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=7222823
Here's my suggestion, and this is the third time I am posting it. This is the only solution I have suggested so far.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
20 Jul 2016, 8:37 pm
ZenDen wrote:
OK! Thanks for that....so which countries would you elect as "stable" and who are not: "...a society of greedly, foolish, jerks...?" Where in this world is there a country, run by politicians, where there is not failure "on the horizon?"
Well, let's consider what's happened in the past.
The Roman people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called Julius Caesar when that republic fell.
The French people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called Napoleon Bonaparte when the first French republic fell.
The German people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called... Well, you get the idea.
When republics go bad, the people seem to go for rightwing, authoritarians. I'd say Turkey is the democracy most likely to fail at the moment. But, any country with a strong rightwing nationalist/populist political movement is at some amount of risk.
Quote:
You speak about uncontrolled human nature....where is the country where people do not have this trait, or who have learned to control it (the Tibetan government in exile is excluded)?
I'd say the US in the first part of the last century was not too bad. American oligarchs learned to value justice over rapacity just long enough to pass enough social reforms (like the new deal) to keep the anarchists, socialists, and fascists confined to Europe. That was damn good call and a big reason why we didn't give power to a rightwing strongman in the 30s.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
21 Jul 2016, 6:30 am
If brexit older voters are ignorant, younger voters are brainwashed and easily manipulated.
Economy versus indepependence was the real issue.
England isn't just land. Ignorant brainwashed children have no right to give it away.
One thing i know, the OP is coming on way too strong with the benefit of life experience to balance his opinions. I hope when he grows up and mellows out he looks back to these posts with shame. The alternative being that he never mellows out and grows up and is always a backstabbing judas that thinks might is right.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
21 Jul 2016, 6:34 am
Lukeda420 wrote:
EbenCooke wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
EbenCooke wrote:
I feel like I've turned over a rock and seen some pretty ugly thing crawl out. Yes Virginia, there is a far right in the US. Yes, dear Virginia, there are champions of ignorance. I don't think these replies should engender debate, just bug spray. No one has chosen to dispute Jefferson and FDR, for obvious reasons. All the ignorant can do is obfuscate. Is FDR wrong? Is education in America producing informed, engaged citizens? Say yes or no and explain why.
No. In school I was taught American Government for a few weeks in 8th grade and once again for a semester when I was a sophomore in high school and it was very watered down at that. It was basically as educational as school house rock. We were never taught what our local governments responsibilities were and we were never shown just how important it was to get involved in all levels of our government and community. Studies show that the younger generations education on history I abysmal. Therefore many people lack the proper context to judge the quality of our representatives and our government.
Education needs to be reformed to focus more on history and civics.
This is a tiny baby-step in the right direction:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge ... ight-track
We should mandate these kinds of tests and put some real rigor in the requirements.
You're right, that is a tiny part of it. I think the bigger issue is restoring trust in the institutions of government.
You guys are on the right track. One of the foundations of sociology is the Thomas Theorem: When men deem a thing to be true, it is true in its consequence. This is why propaganda works. Repeat a lie often enough it really does become true in its impact.
So, when people constantly run down institutions, governent, press, etc. it has a really harful effect.
Once upon a time, we tried to educate children to be good citizens, instill republican values (small r). And, the truth is we need to do this because we need a common framework to make society work.
The problem is, too many people saw this sort of education as "indoctrination" and we stopped teaching citizenship.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
21 Jul 2016, 8:21 am
GoonSquad wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
OK! Thanks for that....so which countries would you elect as "stable" and who are not: "...a society of greedly, foolish, jerks...?" Where in this world is there a country, run by politicians, where there is not failure "on the horizon?"
Well, let's consider what's happened in the past.
The Roman people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called Julius Caesar when that republic fell.
The French people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called Napoleon Bonaparte when the first French republic fell.
The German people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called... Well, you get the idea.
When republics go bad, the people seem to go for rightwing, authoritarians. I'd say Turkey is the democracy most likely to fail at the moment. But, any country with a strong rightwing nationalist/populist political movement is at some amount of risk.
Quote:
You speak about uncontrolled human nature....where is the country where people do not have this trait, or who have learned to control it (the Tibetan government in exile is excluded)?
I'd say the US in the first part of the last century was not too bad. American oligarchs learned to value justice over rapacity just long enough to pass enough social reforms (like the new deal) to keep the anarchists, socialists, and fascists confined to Europe. That was damn good call and a big reason why we didn't give power to a rightwing strongman in the 30s.
YOU SAID:
"Well, let's consider what's happened in the past.
The Roman people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called Julius Caesar when that republic fell.
The French people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called Napoleon Bonaparte when the first French republic fell.
The German people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called... Well, you get the idea.
When republics go bad, the people seem to go for rightwing, authoritarians."
I would wonder how deep the roots of your investigation go? For example we can look at your first example:
"The Roman people gave their power to a rightwing strongman called Julius Caesar when that republic fell."
We all know something about Julius Caesar, his winning and his loosing but the question is: Exactly who was it who "...gave their power...?" Were there voting booths set up at the "bread and circuses" so the average well-informed citizen could make their choice? Weren't these decisions made in the Senate? Were there ANY members of the Senate not wealthy/prosperous statesmen and businessmen?
So obviously I am questioning your use of the word "people." I seriously doubt the Romans, French, or German peoples had a serious role in granting power in the cases you describe.....nothing but history's lip service.
In any country you name there will be powerful people, who have been powerful enough to support regime change. The reasons for this seem always to have something economical/fiscal driving them. Do you think the Krupps of Germany had anything to do with putting the war machine in motion??? These people have learned to keep their heads down when they peddle their influence.
As has been posited by our erstwhile friend EbenCooke, you need an informed populace to make informed decisions, so my question is: Do you feel this has been the case in your examples, or is it rather rich, powerful, influential people that pull the strings of government this-way-and-that, the "aristocratic people" that know exactly what is going on and know how to manipulate information to their own advantage, the way it's done in most places today???
It seems the later to me.
21 Jul 2016, 8:39 am
mark224 wrote:
If brexit older voters are ignorant, younger voters are brainwashed and easily manipulated.
Economy versus indepependence was the real issue.
England isn't just land. Ignorant brainwashed children have no right to give it away.
One thing i know, the OP is coming on way too strong with the benefit of life experience to balance his opinions. I hope when he grows up and mellows out he looks back to these posts with shame. The alternative being that he never mellows out and grows up and is always a backstabbing judas that thinks might is right.
Economy versus indepependence was the real issue.
England isn't just land. Ignorant brainwashed children have no right to give it away.
One thing i know, the OP is coming on way too strong with the benefit of life experience to balance his opinions. I hope when he grows up and mellows out he looks back to these posts with shame. The alternative being that he never mellows out and grows up and is always a backstabbing judas that thinks might is right.
So do the recent (yesterday?) decisions concerning the "distribution" of labour and controlling the power of the unions, that were made by the heavily socialist EU masters, still effect you stalwart folks (stalwart in the face of the huge publicity storm by rich and powerful people all over the world...I was afraid you might not "make it.")
((P.S....I don't think we should call anyone "...a backstabbing judas..." because they have just as much right to their opinion as anyone. Perhaps mis-informed or mis-led might be better. And everyone has a right to change their opinion.
))
21 Jul 2016, 1:58 pm
ZenDen wrote:
We all know something about Julius Caesar, his winning and his loosing but the question is: Exactly who was it who "...gave their power...?" Were there voting booths set up at the "bread and circuses" so the average well-informed citizen could make their choice? Weren't these decisions made in the Senate? Were there ANY members of the Senate not wealthy/prosperous statesmen and businessmen?
And to extend the details for Napoleon and Hitler:
Napoleon took over in an explicit military coup.
Hitler was handed the Chancellorship and several Cabinet posts in a back-room deal that did not involve any elections. Indeed, Hitler and his party had failed in achieving dominance through the ballot box. So they cut a deal with the Army.
21 Jul 2016, 2:33 pm
bryanmaloney wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
We all know something about Julius Caesar, his winning and his loosing but the question is: Exactly who was it who "...gave their power...?" Were there voting booths set up at the "bread and circuses" so the average well-informed citizen could make their choice? Weren't these decisions made in the Senate? Were there ANY members of the Senate not wealthy/prosperous statesmen and businessmen?
And to extend the details for Napoleon and Hitler:
Napoleon took over in an explicit military coup.
Hitler was handed the Chancellorship and several Cabinet posts in a back-room deal that did not involve any elections. Indeed, Hitler and his party had failed in achieving dominance through the ballot box. So they cut a deal with the Army.
That's not exactly correct. Hitler won a little over a third of the vote in Germany giving him a third of the seats in the Reichstag. He was then appointed chancellor as a way to appease him and keep him in check. This didn't work. Once the Reichstag was set on fire, Hitler argued to suspend civil rights and give total power to himself in order to keep the country safe. There was a vote in parliament to install Hitler as the Furor and the Nazis won.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
21 Jul 2016, 4:44 pm
ZenDen wrote:
We all know something about Julius Caesar, his winning and his loosing but the question is: Exactly who was it who "...gave their power...?" Were there voting booths set up at the "bread and circuses" so the average well-informed citizen could make their choice? Weren't these decisions made in the Senate? Were there ANY members of the Senate not wealthy/prosperous statesmen and businessmen?
I don't think you know much about Caesar. By Caesar's time Roman Politics is dominated by two parties, the Optimates (best men) and the Populares (populists). Bread and circuses was actually social policy of the populares.
Caesar was a populares and became immensly popular with the people after his conquest of Gual because he provided bread and circuses with the spoils. As a consequence of this popular support, Caesar was able to bully the senate into making him dictator for life (and king in all but name).
The Republic fell (and the social contract was broken) when the liberators killed Caesar for aspiring to be king and the Roman mob rejected their efforts to restore the republic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_ ... assination
Quote:
The result unforeseen by the assassins was that Caesar's death precipitated the end of the Roman Republic.[108] The Roman middle and lower classes, with whom Caesar was immensely popular and had been since before Gaul, became enraged that a small group of aristocrats had killed their champion. Antony, who had been drifting apart from Caesar, capitalized on the grief of the Roman mob and threatened to unleash them on the Optimates, perhaps with the intent of taking control of Rome himself.
...
The crowd at the funeral boiled over, throwing dry branches, furniture, and even clothing on to Caesar's funeral pyre, causing the flames to spin out of control, seriously damaging the Forum. The mob then attacked the houses of Brutus and Cassius, where they were repelled only with considerable difficulty, ultimately providing the spark for the civil war, fulfilling at least in part Antony's threat against the aristocrats.
...
The crowd at the funeral boiled over, throwing dry branches, furniture, and even clothing on to Caesar's funeral pyre, causing the flames to spin out of control, seriously damaging the Forum. The mob then attacked the houses of Brutus and Cassius, where they were repelled only with considerable difficulty, ultimately providing the spark for the civil war, fulfilling at least in part Antony's threat against the aristocrats.
Quote:
So obviously I am questioning your use of the word "people." I seriously doubt the Romans, French, or German peoples had a serious role in granting power in the cases you describe.....nothing but history's lip service.
As you can see from the source above, when I say 'people' I mean the Roman mob and common folk. By the time Caesar came around, they did not give a damn about their democracy anymore.
What interesting is that just a few years before, Sulla did the samething Caesar did--marched into Rome and took over. But after purging the populares from the government, (he was an optimate) he gave power back to the Senate and people and retired to thhe country.
The difference between Sulla and Caesar is that Sulla and his supporters were bound by the social contract (Romans rule themselves and don't bow to kings) and Caesar and his supporters broke the contract (They wanted Caesar to be king).
Quote:
In any country you name there will be powerful people, who have been powerful enough to support regime change. The reasons for this seem always to have something economical/fiscal driving them. Do you think the Krupps of Germany had anything to do with putting the war machine in motion??? These people have learned to keep their heads down when they peddle their influence.
I'm a conflict theorist, so yes, I think economics is a prime mover in human affairs.
Quote:
As has been posited by our erstwhile friend EbenCooke, you need an informed populace to make informed decisions, so my question is: Do you feel this has been the case in your examples, or is it rather rich, powerful, influential people that pull the strings of government this-way-and-that, the "aristocratic people" that know exactly what is going on and know how to manipulate information to their own advantage, the way it's done in most places today???
It seems the later to me.
It seems the later to me.
Sure, I don't dispute that the powerful manipulate information to get what they want. That's why the founders wanted a free press. The press is supposed to call BS when the powerful try to manipulate info.
This is why we need a press we can trust and why it' dangerous to undermine the press when it isn't justified....
This is why Burke's points about moral restraint in a free society are so important.
If we cannot trust the press to tell the truth.... if we cannot trust anybody to act in anything but self interest... we cannot build a common good or a free society. Somebody is always going to try to oppress and exploit someone else. That kind of society is inherently unfree and cannot possibly be nonviolent for long.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
