Should old people no longer have a vote? Democracy?

Post Reply New Topic

Care to expand on that bit in bold?

I'd say poor kids are MUCH more likely to have REAL life experiences by 16. Many are on their own by that age here in the US...

Refugees eventually get EU citizenship. Inside the EU, Britain's borders are the EU's borders



Indeed, Burke said civilisation is a three-cornered contract between the dead, the living and the unborn. The legacy of the old is just as important, if not more so than what some petulant children "think" their future is.



This is balls, housing price is predicted to crash now that we've voted to leave and easy travel? Are the EU going to ban tourism now? You will be mildly inconvenienced at best, a quick check at the borders where once there was none, not the end of the world. People did actually visit and work in Europe before the EU you know.

Listen punk, we obviously don't agree on anything. That being stated, I haven't called you out directly; I will now however. You obviously have no clue how the world works. You bad mouth capitalize, you bad mouth liberty, you pretty much want to live in a nanny state. Unlike you, I don't like the idea of the government telling me what to do and I acknowledge the value of people being able to make their own free choices. Now why don't you go back to making bs posts, while using your PC or phone; just leave my name out of it. A PC, or phone developed as a direct result of Capitalism. I've met plenty of punks like you in real life and none of them ever have the guts they do in real life as they have online. It's really no surprise you have an anime avatar of an effeminate looking man, it quite suits your personality.

Pioneering technology is usually developed through passion or ingenuity, just dumping cash does not mean something new will be created, unless possibly in the pharmacological industry, but even then the lack of incentives mean antibiotics have stopped being produced and that couldn't possibly be in the best interest of anyone (although, as usual, old people have barely any stake at this point as the worst will probably be in a few decades). Liberty isn't anything negative but in cases where the foreign exchange is simply cheated and thousands lose pensions etc. is also a result of unfettered capitalism.

Aaaaand now I have really hot tea up my nose

Just wait until you are in your 40's - your opinion of those in their 30's will be very different. They have just enough life experience to convince themselves they know what they are doing but not enough to stop them from finding out that is not completely accurate. :p

< / sarcasm >

Agreed-- xenophobia reeks. A person should be judged by their behavior, not by the color of their skin, the name of their deity, the tilt of their eyes, their clothing, or any other way they resemble/don't resemble any other person.

Consider, also, that xenophilia can be very dangerous. Light-skinned persons of European descent, sadly, aren't the only ones capable of xenophobia, imperialism, or dominionism (other things that suck).

And yes, that's it precisely, as I understand it, for a lot of people. Once EU citizenship is granted (or forged), your borders are the EU's borders. I'm not implying that any ethnic group is 'good' or 'bad.' That's stupid. I am stating that quite a few people seem to feel that opening UK borders to anyone within the EU significantly elevates the risk of letting in more terrorists. I don't know if they're right or wrong-- plenty of the US's terrorists have been US-born-- but I do know that they deserve to have their voice in the decisions of their country.

Some of it seems to be an economic argument-- the wealthier nations are getting sick and tired of footing the bill for the poorer ones. I can't make a moral judgment there. I believe that the entire human race should help support and uplift its weaker members. That's what it means to be human.

At the same time-- If I am in a position of strength because I have worked hard, taken care of the things I need before the things I want, been careful to make wise choices, and striven to overcome or work around my issues, how many times should I be expected to come to the rescue of, say, my cousin who works only when she feels like it, buys herself toys before she buys groceries and pays the bills, made impulsive decisions without so much as an attempt to think it through, and chosen to sit on the couch swilling liquor and using drugs like someone in a conservative public service announcement?? Once?? Of course-- she's a fellow human being. Twice?? Yeah, anyone can repeat a mistake. Three times?? I've struggled with things too. Four times?? Whatever man, she's family. Five?? She's got kids I care for. Six?? Seven?? Twenty?? When does bailing her out, as she makes the same choices over and over and over again, endanger my ability to care for the people for whom I am directly responsible??

Those are hard questions to answer. I don't have answers for the simpler question of family dynamics. I sure don't have answers for international politics. But-- they're questions everyone has to work out for themselves, and everyone who's mature enough to reason it out deserves to have their answers considered in the running of a society.

How much stake do old people have in a society?? More than you think. No, they probably aren't going to have to deal with the consequences 20 years down the line. But, they're more vulnerable to the consequences between now and the time they die. They have less ability to adapt-- less health, less strength, less earning potential, basically less room to change plans. And the young have 15 years to figure out how they're going to deal with the consequences 20 years down the line. They've invested a lot more in building the current society than the young have-- a lot of them have a vested interest in seeing it not get worse.

How much wisdom can an old person have?? Cognitive declines certainly affect a person's ability to think. But cognitive declines aren't universal. One grandmother died at 87 not even knowing who or where she was (and she hadn't been to a ballot box in a while, trust me-- I don't think any of us would have been fool enough to take someone who struggled to remember how to operate a doorknob to the voting booth). The other one is 91 and, whatever might be breaking down in her body, her mind is perfectly intact. She's probably sharper than I am.

And, well, let's say that 38 understands the truth of things that 28 wouldn't have considered. Twenty-eight looked at the world as 28 thought that it ought to be. Thirty-eight has learned that one has to survive in the world as it is. I somehow imagine, anyway, that 58 or 68 has a little more insight into WHY it is the way it is, into how to survive in it, and maybe into what ought to have been done differently.

Why would anyone want to tell those people, with the wisdom that only comes of living, that they're too old to matter??

Do you want to be told you're too old to matter at some point in your future?? Because, unless tragedy strikes you, you WILL get there.

Disenfranchisement silences people. I guess everyone has some desire to silence the people whose views are diametrically opposed to their own. But that's not how democracy works. And I'm glad. Because that desire, and the ability to enforce it, is a two-way street.

Anybody who is voting age has the right to vote...period.

End of discussion.

Why are we even having this inane discussion?

Because there's no end to the human desire for hegemony. It is prevalent, virulent, and dangerous.

It's no different than the radical conservatives here in the States who say the we should revert to allowing only landowners, or landowning men, to vote, because they have a greater stake in the outcome of the election.

I am a landowner. I have developed, out of the depression and cynicism that has characterized my 30s, a pretty conservative worldview. A lot of those people probably agree with my views.

But that doesn't make it right to maximize their/our/my muscle in the system at the expense of disenfranchising everyone who lives in a rented structure, or parks a home with wheels under it on a rented lot.

I once parked a home with wheels under it on a rented lot. For ten years between 18 and 28.

Did I want to be disenfranchised then??

I know not what reversals of fortune might have me, once again, living in a rented structure or on rented land. If nothing goes wrong, someday Hubby and I will be old and growing frail. If our children are generous, we will live with them, owning no land, or perhaps near them in a rented structure where we are not responsible for the maintenance our bodies can no longer handle. If we are very, very fortunate, we might in the interim spend some years in travel between the homes of our children in a recreational vehicle, parking it for variable periods of time on land we do not own.

Do I want to be disenfranchised then??

Maybe I'd better not be in favor of that disenfranchisement now, though at this time it might benefit me.

Last edited by BuyerBeware on 24 Jun 2016, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In one way of thinking, the human desire for hegemony could be said to be what drives militaristic dominionism.

As soon as you start excluding people from voting, little by little more and more will be excluded until you get down to only the 1% being able to vote. Or a system where it basically ends up being two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

How many more nasty ageist threads attacking older people are you intending to open? There are already two so far on this page.

Does this topic violate WP guidelines?

I actually want the vote to be given to EVERYONE. That is literally how it sounds. I was trying to make a point with provocative titles and threads... that of true democracy, which we currently do not have.

Has no one heard any 17 year old whose entire future is affected not being able to vote because of a few days in their birthday? THIS is democracy? My point is, if old people are up and ready to destroy young people then they should either get their vote taken away from them... just as they did for young people! Or, of course, it should be a real democracy.

Real or not we're currently stuck with mostly an old people's decision that will, and has already started, the downward spiral of democracy itself (you think those supreme liars of leave Conservatives will suddenly improve this country? Any Questions indicated that people have concerns with the far-right already, and that is not even beginning to tackle the problem of 'Britain First' on whose efforts a supporter of human rights was murdered, and the extremists left in UKIP now that it's practically useless as a party).

... two year olds?

and Cats?

I think Mayor Stubb;s in Alaska should have a vote right as a duly elected official.
Heck , he does more for his community than some 17 yr old kid that lives with mom and dad.
And he is thinking of saving America

https://www.facebook.com/StubbsForPresident2016/