20 Dec 2007, 2:14 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Corrupted? The only evidence I see of this is college kids getting drunk or holding crazy protests and heck, teenagers get drunk too and college kids, very rarely protest or vote. Heck, most of the privileges of adulthood aren't used.
Younger people are more politically liberal than older people which may actually indicate that they are more sympathetic than those who are older. ..... not proven that bitterness or lack of sympathy lead to bad things.
I always longed to be an adult but it wasn't rights that made me feel like I wasn't an adult so much as the fact that I really wasn't equal to an adult because of internal and external factors more so than political factors.
The first 16-18 years are bound to be a period of craven creeping anyway. The issues of self-image are cultural, not political.
Younger people are more politically liberal than older people which may actually indicate that they are more sympathetic than those who are older. ..... not proven that bitterness or lack of sympathy lead to bad things.
I always longed to be an adult but it wasn't rights that made me feel like I wasn't an adult so much as the fact that I really wasn't equal to an adult because of internal and external factors more so than political factors.
The first 16-18 years are bound to be a period of craven creeping anyway. The issues of self-image are cultural, not political.
A particularly ironic, if it weren't so sad, proof of corruption in people becoming adult is actually the thing that you refer to as proof of immunity, the fact that so many do not take their new responsibilities seriously, do not vote, do not remain interested in politics as when were at school, passionate about the state of the world. They have "got there", no need to fight for the oppressed anymore.
The disengagement of "adults" from political agendas, except the most reactionary, ( specialising in the tyranny i mentioned) is increasingly obvious aspect of universities and workplaces. Rather than becoming involved in their communities, to control vandalism, a "small" but costly problem, for example, "adults" are leaving it all up to paid services, the police etc.
Having "got there" more and more adults just want to enjoy the privileges without the responsibilities. They do not seem to see why they should concern themselves with helping to run society. ( benevolent despots in fact).
The liberality in many young people looks more like indifference, the "laid back" attitude of people who aren't interested in how it works anymore, as was case with men about sexism; who couldn't afford to look to closely at a system on which they depended for their privileges.
Issues of self-image are not just cultural except in that culture includes politics; politics construct notions of identity and value by the heirarchies and power dynamics approved by society. A vote means that you matter, in some way, to the society as a whole.
But i understand that your priority is to reduce the voting-pool, so the idea of adding to it might seem equally obnoxious, whoever i was talking about giving the vote to.
Last edited by ouinon on 20 Dec 2007, 2:54 pm, edited 4 times in total.
20 Dec 2007, 2:33 pm
20 Dec 2007, 2:39 pm
just very curious. What is a "best voter"? And who is "we" when you say that want them to vote most often?
Last edited by ouinon on 20 Dec 2007, 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
20 Dec 2007, 2:47 pm
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Heheh this is crazy, it's like when Zhang Fei and Kuan Yu duked it out with Lu Bu, and neither side was looking like they'd give in (Sits down and gets some pop corn), so who's going to be Liu Bei? 
Ahhh well, you know what happened to Lu Bu in the end right?
Ahhh well, you know what happened to Lu Bu in the end right?
I wanna be liu bei!! oh wait I don't really know what this topic is about. Nevermind acutally I'd be Zhou Yu ... :: snickers:: oh wait sorry for hijacking the thread.
20 Dec 2007, 2:53 pm
20 Dec 2007, 2:58 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
"best voter"? That is just a term I use to describe a voter who is very well-educated, informed, wise, well thought-out and who has a lot of other good qualities that we can assume would be desirable in a voter. At least in terms of having the power of the vote.
Would such a person be more or less likely to vote than the general population?
At the moment the political voicelessness of under-18s is perhaps causing such disengagement from politics that before long the only people to stand for election, and the only ones to vote for them, will be amongst the most corrupt and/or sheeplike of the population, because more radically minded, more sensitive people will have become sickened by the apparent pointlessness of it. While the system remains fundamentally corrupt, in which the vote is still a privilege, the democratic process will represent only those who pose very few questions.
Last edited by ouinon on 20 Dec 2007, 3:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
20 Dec 2007, 3:11 pm
20 Dec 2007, 3:30 pm
ouinon wrote:
Would such a person be more or less likely to vote than the general population?
More. There is a correlation between education and voting likelihood.
Quote:
At the moment the political voicelessness of under-18s is perhaps causing such disengagement from politics that before long the only people to stand for election, and the only ones to vote for them, will be amongst the most corrupt and/or sheeplike of the population, because more radically minded, more sensitive people will have become sickened by the apparent pointlessness of it. While the system remains fundamentally corrupt, in which the vote is still a privilege, the democratic process will represent only those who pose very few questions.
The sheep are less likely to vote. Old people and educated people are the ones who vote. Most sheep are too busy watching American idol. As for corruption, that really depends on what you mean. Everyone is corrupt in their own way. Why do we want the radically minded? Corruption is still ill-defined, voting has always been a privilege and should always remain thus, and the democratic process is meant to select good leaders, given our population it would be wisest if huge numbers were not "represented" due to the idiocies crawling in their heads. Really though, why should we seek questions when the job of politics is to find answers?
20 Dec 2007, 3:31 pm
MrMark wrote:
"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us canidates."
HA HA HA!!
20 Dec 2007, 4:32 pm
20 Dec 2007, 4:39 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Old people and educated people are the ones who vote. Most sheep are too busy watching American idol.
Voting has always been a privilege and should always remain thus,
it would be wisest if huge numbers were not "represented" due to the idiocies crawling in their heads.
Voting has always been a privilege and should always remain thus,
it would be wisest if huge numbers were not "represented" due to the idiocies crawling in their heads.
I don't think that education or old age are necessarily anti-sheep factors.
Why should voting remain a privilege? Interesting though that you say it always has been; it's only today that i really see why this is the case.
I just found out why some people are really pissed about the 18/21 voting age. Because they are taxed on income from age 16 but have no right to participate in deciding how much or for what. Taxation without representation it's called.
And another reason; that people aged 14 can be condemned for crimes as if are an adult, while not having adult rights.
And that can be sent to fight for country in a war before being allowed to vote.
I also found a site called "Taking Children Seriously", and an article there about childrens rights and the law, a well argued case for dropping all age of consent laws.
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/ ... nd_the_law
Another good article on the site is about children and school.
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/ ... ool_phobic
Last edited by ouinon on 20 Dec 2007, 5:13 pm, edited 4 times in total.
20 Dec 2007, 5:05 pm
ouinon wrote:
I don't think that education or old age are necessarily anti-sheep factors.
Why should voting remain a privilege? Interesting though that you say it always has been; it's only today that i really see that this is the case.
Why should voting remain a privilege? Interesting though that you say it always has been; it's only today that i really see that this is the case.
I think they would correlate, not be the same. The reason for the education one would be due to the correlation between education and IQ, and the reason for old age is because of the fact that our culture focuses on the young.
Because voting is power over others, this type of power should be reserved for those who are capable of dealing with it. It has been though, I think you already noted that property owners were the original voters in our society.
Quote:
I just found out why some people are really pissed about the 18/21 voting age. Because they are taxed on income from age 16 but have no right to participate in deciding how much or for what. Taxation without representation it's called. Yes, it is taxation but our representatives don't really represent much anyway. Frankly, the government has a hand in their lives from day 1 without them having much of a choice and has expanded far beyond the original plans of the founders. I am not sure I really consider the US's war of independence to be very legitimate either, so our current system sharply differs from the ideas of the founders as does my justification of it. Really though, I would consider the tax to be the crime rather than the lack of representation.
Quote:
And another reason; that people aged 14 can be condemned for crimes as if are an adult, while not having adult rights.
So? That is a matter of the legal system. We can argue whether or not the punishments are just but the exclusion from rights is just.
Quote:
And that can be sent to fight for country in a war before being allowed to vote.
I also dislike the draft and consider it to be relatively abominable in most situations.
Quote:
I also found a site called "Taking Children Seriously". It's all about childrens rights and the law. First article i read presented well argued case for dropping all age of consent laws.http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/ ... nd_the_law
I thought the argument sucked. It avoided the entire issue with subjectivism and assuming the rationality of very young children without proving it. Yes, one can take a subjectivist position to the point where allowing children to do anything would not be a bad thing, however, if we are going to be that methodologically subjectivist, why not argue the abolition of the law and go that direction? If you argue we should reduce or remove the age of consent upon the subjectivist argument, then why can't I argue that based upon the subjectivist argument, all government should be done away with?
20 Dec 2007, 5:47 pm
What i liked about the argument was how it explained the uses of Contract Law in regulating exactly the sort of "sensitive" transactions/exchanges between people in the past which presented similar dangers as those between a "child" and an "adult" nowadays, or would if under-18s real consent was allowed for, acknowledged.
I admit that i am surprised to find my argument for child rights of most interest to someone who wants the existing voting pool reduced, but can see that it must seem very important to establish whether any real reasons exist for anyone to have the right to vote, starting with the reasons of the only remaining group of people with no vote.
The National Youth Rights Organisation of america calls it The Last Civil Rights Movement, which sounds very depressing. And they're only arguing for the lowering of voting, drinking, driving and etc ages to around 16 or so!! Their main argument seems to be "consistency"; not between ages, but across rights and responsibilties, so that criminal accountability, taxation etc coincides with voting age. Which is also a good argument. 
My main reason for wishing it; is that i think it ( the discrimination/exclusion) is damaging the mental and physical health of many thousands of people , contributing to several disquieting trends in society, and drastically spoiling the chances of those under-18s who are simply trying to express their full humanity in a role which is too small for them, which behaviour is being labelled abnormal/aberrant.
Now that everybody else has the vote i believe it is a cruel and damaging discrimination to withhold it from under-18s.
I might not be against an entirely different system of government in which a few who could be trusted ran things, if this could be done with safeguards to protect the population. It is not the vote per se which i am attached to, but equality. That under-18s should have same rights as over-18s.
Which is why i liked the article above, because it explains how this might genuinely work out.
PS: you say "voting is power over others" ; that is only true so long as there is any group without voting rights. If everybody can vote.... you are talking about the "tyranny of the majority".. ? Yep, agree is poss problem. Like i say am not for the vote as such so much as equality of rights, so this is not a thread about whether the vote is a good thing.
It was the nobility, the first voters. A privilege granted along with Titles awarded for winning land, and thieving, in the name of a sovereign.
20 Dec 2007, 6:19 pm
ouinon wrote:
What i liked about the argument was how it explained the uses of Contract Law in regulating exactly the sort of "sensitive" transactions/exchanges between people in the past which presented similar dangers as those between a "child" and an "adult" nowadays, or would if under-18s real consent was allowed for, acknowledged.
I admit that i am surprised to find my argument for child rights of most interest to someone who wants the existing voting pool reduced, but can see that it must seem very important to establish whether any real reasons exist for anyone to have the right to vote, starting with the reasons of the only remaining group of people with no vote.
The National Youth Rights Organisation of america calls it The Last Civil Rights Movement, which sounds very depressing. And they're only arguing for the lowering of voting, drinking, driving and etc ages to around 16 or so!! Their main argument seems to be "consistency"; not between ages, but across rights and responsibilties, so that criminal accountability, taxation etc coincides with voting age. Which is also a good argument.
My main reason for wishing it; is that i think it ( the discrimination/exclusion) is damaging the mental and physical health of many thousands of people , contributing to several disquieting trends in society, and drastically spoiling the chances of those under-18s who are simply trying to express their full humanity in a role which is too small for them, which behaviour is being labelled abnormal/aberrant.
Now that everybody else has the vote i believe it is a cruel and damaging discrimination to withhold it from under-18s.
I might not be against an entirely different system of government in which a few who could be trusted ran things, if this could be done with safeguards to protect the population. It is not the vote per se which i am attached to, but equality. That under-18s should have same rights as over-18s.
Which is why i liked the article above, because it explains how this might genuinely work out.
PS: you say "voting is power over others" ; that is only true so long as there is any group without voting rights. If everybody can vote.... you are talking about the "tyranny of the majority".. ? Yep, agree is poss problem. Like i say am not for the vote as such so much as equality of rights, so this is not a thread about whether the vote is a good thing.
It was the nobility, the first voters. A privilege granted along with Titles awarded for winning land, and thieving, in the name of a sovereign.
I admit that i am surprised to find my argument for child rights of most interest to someone who wants the existing voting pool reduced, but can see that it must seem very important to establish whether any real reasons exist for anyone to have the right to vote, starting with the reasons of the only remaining group of people with no vote.
The National Youth Rights Organisation of america calls it The Last Civil Rights Movement, which sounds very depressing. And they're only arguing for the lowering of voting, drinking, driving and etc ages to around 16 or so!! Their main argument seems to be "consistency"; not between ages, but across rights and responsibilties, so that criminal accountability, taxation etc coincides with voting age. Which is also a good argument.
My main reason for wishing it; is that i think it ( the discrimination/exclusion) is damaging the mental and physical health of many thousands of people , contributing to several disquieting trends in society, and drastically spoiling the chances of those under-18s who are simply trying to express their full humanity in a role which is too small for them, which behaviour is being labelled abnormal/aberrant.
Now that everybody else has the vote i believe it is a cruel and damaging discrimination to withhold it from under-18s.
I might not be against an entirely different system of government in which a few who could be trusted ran things, if this could be done with safeguards to protect the population. It is not the vote per se which i am attached to, but equality. That under-18s should have same rights as over-18s.
Which is why i liked the article above, because it explains how this might genuinely work out.
PS: you say "voting is power over others" ; that is only true so long as there is any group without voting rights. If everybody can vote.... you are talking about the "tyranny of the majority".. ? Yep, agree is poss problem. Like i say am not for the vote as such so much as equality of rights, so this is not a thread about whether the vote is a good thing.
It was the nobility, the first voters. A privilege granted along with Titles awarded for winning land, and thieving, in the name of a sovereign.
not to be negative but women fought for the right to vote but now hardly vote. With children I'd have to think the same would occur I'm 23 and I really don't want to vote just because politics is more about group thinknig and agendas then really finding a person who represents your thinking how politics should be run. I feel that if children were used the majority would be put to enforcing their families agenda and not based on what they want in a candidate. There is also the fact that most 16 year olds would not be able to use that power responibly I think we'd find alot more politicans playing to their likes and receiving votes then having similar views on what they want honestly. I think things would happen like rappers with no political power or views going for presidency and receiving alot of votes just because of their popularity and not based on qualifications I just don't feel a 16 year old would have the capacity to handle the responibility no matter if they are emancipated or not. Its just my opinion though.
20 Dec 2007, 6:34 pm
Abangyarudo wrote:
not to be negative but women fought for the right to vote but now hardly vote. I think we'd find alot more politicans playing to their likes and receiving votes then having similar views on what they want honestly. I think things would happen like rappers with no political power or views going for presidency and receiving alot of votes just because of their popularity and not based on qualifications
I don't know what the voting figures are in the USA, but in Europe the range is between 47%- 76% participation, depending on the election, and women vote about as much as men. Under-18 year olds would probably vote more than that to begin with.
I agree that the political choices on offer by vote do not seem very interesting; it seems to be more a matter of preventing the worst group getting in. I personally would favour referendums on individual issues.
But the main issue is that however unexciting a prospect having the vote may seem to you it never the less represents participation and contribution in society to such an extent that people have nearly starved themselves to death to get it.
And while everybody but under-18s have this privilege it reinforces institutionalised discrimination and disempowerment which is very bad for pyschological and physical health. If you are under-18 you do not count/matter as much as other people.
I don't think people over-18 show that much discernment about who they vote for, as previously mentioned in the thread on several occasions.
20 Dec 2007, 6:40 pm
ouinon wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
not to be negative but women fought for the right to vote but now hardly vote. I think we'd find alot more politicans playing to their likes and receiving votes then having similar views on what they want honestly. I think things would happen like rappers with no political power or views going for presidency and receiving alot of votes just because of their popularity and not based on qualifications
I don't know what the voting figures are in the USA, but in Europe the range is between 47%- 76% participation, depending on the election, and women vote about as much as men. Under-18 year olds would probably vote more than that to begin with.
I agree that the political choices on offer by vote do not seem very interesting; it seems to be more a matter of preventing the worst group getting in. I personally would favour referendums on individual issues.
But the main issue is that however unexciting a prospect having the vote may seem to you it never the less represents participation and contribution in society to such an extent that people have nearly starved themselves to death to get it.
And while everybody but under-18s have this privilege it reinforces institutionalised discrimination and disempowerment which is very bad for pyschological and physical health. If you are under-18 you do not count/matter as much as other people.
I don't think people over-18 show that much discernment about who they vote for, as previously mentioned in the thread on several occasions.
but then you have to compare the differences adults can handle the responibility. I fear if teenagers had power of voting they would abuse it and we'd see 50 cent for president... Can you imagine? "What that dude from China said whatttttttttttt ?!?!?!" Lets smoke em." and now we have a war with china and a music video to go with it. I don't think children show the reasoning skills to be able to handle that responibility yes some can but the majority cannot.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| My nightmare child. A rant. Don't need/expect advice. |
01 Nov 2024, 9:15 am |
| Going Back to School |
28 Oct 2024, 3:56 pm |
| School b+ student |
15 Nov 2024, 9:32 am |
| I pretty much failed school |
05 Dec 2024, 9:40 am |
