A lot of people seem to think that the right to vote is a fundamental human right - that everybody should have the vote, and any question of restricting votes is abhorrent.
Why is this the case?
Why cannot the right to vote be a privilage which can be taken away?
Or why cannot we have a test that must be passed before we can vote?
Let's face it - why should gibbering morons have a say in anything?
This is one of the failures of democracy - everyone gets a say, no matter who stupid or ill-informed.
Originally posted by VargWhat criteria for voter eligibility do you suggest?
Why cannot the right to vote be a privilage which can be taken away?
Or why cannot we have a test that must be passed before we can vote?
What percentage of those you deem unfit to vote do actually vote?
What standards would you apply to someone's fitness to run for office?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageShould be single , not a home owner, therefore by not having a stake in the status quo, would be more likely to approve policies that they would oneday have to wear.
What criteria for voter eligibility do you suggest?
What percentage of those you deem unfit to vote do actually vote?
What standards would you apply to someone's fitness to run for office?
Originally posted by kmax87House-partners don't get to vote, as they haven't applied for a job in yonks. (This and other obvious inferences lead me to conclude that this would be a bold step backwards to republicanism, Roman style. Bonus paterfamilias. But I could just be soft-head).
Should be single , not a home owner, therefore by not having a stack in the status quo, would be more likely to approve policies that they would oneday have to wear.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What criteria for voter eligibility do you suggest?
A simple competency test, taken at 16 perhaps with the usual examinations. Like a driving test but for voters. It would be nice to do before each election to make sure people actually understand the issues, but probably unfeasible.
What percentage of those you deem unfit to vote do actually vote?
I'm not sure. Are you suggesting that some people self-exclude them from from the election process? Why take that risk 😉
What standards would you apply to someone's fitness to run for office?
Difficult, because you want them to be competent, but not to be corruptable. And most politicians tend to have business interests that makes them eminently corruptable. There are rules in place (currently being sidestepped, ignored and overuled by A.R.P. Blair and cronies) to prevent this from happening but I suppose if you exclude those with an interest in getting rich you might exclude the best candidates.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMaybe a giant step backwards occasionally would be a good thing, I mean where have all the last 200 years of modernity and more recent great leaps forward actually given humanity. In a holistic sense, not just the technological marvels, but also the environmental erosion and degradation that undergirds it.
House-partners don't get to vote, as they haven't applied for a job in yonks. (This and other obvious inferences lead me to conclude that this would be a bold step backwards to republicanism, Roman style. Bonus paterfamilias. But I could just be soft-head).
Originally posted by kmax87Environmental catastrophe goes way back. Two years ago I was in Anglesey, former bastion of Celtic druidry; the island is largely treeless. On learning that the forests which it was covered with were felled by the Romans two millenia ago (for the same reasons as Agent Orange was dispensed over Vietnam) I lapsed into apathy.
Maybe a giant step backwards occasionally would be a good thing, I mean where have all the last 200 years of modernity and more recent great leaps forward actually given humanity. In a holistic sense, not just the technological marvels, but also the environmental erosion and degradation that undergirds it.
More than technology, laws are responsible for the current state of affairs. Laws that allow business to be conducted irresponsibly in the name of the bottom line, that same business being held up as the be-all and end-all of civic responsibility (a joke to relish, if you are sick).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Easter island is another even better case in point. they deforested the entire island for the sole perpouse of building giant stone statues, and crashed almost the entire ecosystem, and as they were on an island and had no wood to make boats they were trapped, starving and declaered war on each other. we're doing the same thing to earth only bigger. and we need technology to solve it, either that or mas extermination, death lottery anyone?
Would you listen to you three, boo frickin hoo, why don't you all go off and slit your wrists things are sooooo bad. googoo you're excused you can build a space ship and take off.
More people are living longer healthier lives than ever in earths history and the number continues to grow, absolute number wise and percentage wise. People that talk of the good old days pffft, the good old days are now. I have a friend alive now who only 6/7 years ago, had she been afflicted by the same medical condition, would be dead. Is she happy to be alive....happier than you three freaks that's for sure.
So take your step backwards occasionally no-one's stopping you but you'll excuse the rest of us as we keep moving on to a better future.
Originally posted by WajomaI take your point, although you can't deny that the environment is in a shocking state. Plus I don't think citizens of countries ravaged by war, famine and disease (life expectancy in some countries has fallen) are likely to share your gung-ho optimism (this aspect of misery has remained constant throughout recorded history). But the only way is forward, agreed.
So take your step backwards occasionally no-one's stopping you but you'll excuse the rest of us as we keep moving on to a better future.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI do deny the environment is in a shocking state.
I take your point, although you can't deny that the environment is in a shocking state. Plus I don't think citizens of countries ravaged by war, famine and disease (life expectancy in some countries has fallen) are likely to share your gung-ho optimism (this aspect of misery has remained constant throughout recorded history). But the only way is forward, agreed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Wajomagoogoo?!~@:~}??? technology is great, the quality of life (in developed nations) is a vast improvement over what it used to be. HOWEVER the fact that life now is a vast improvement over what it used to be does not mean there isn't more improvement to be made, and there is no denying that India (to name one of many) is draining water out of it's underground aquafers much faster than they are being replenished (especially with the monsoon failing), places that used to sink stone lined wells 15 foot deep are now drilling down 300 meters to find water. when they run out you will have crop failiors across india, pop 1,103,371,000 appx (based on Population July 2005 UN estimate) and rising. this problem is solvable with technology, but it wont be cheap, and it wont be easy. it requires stepping forward. there is a better future waiting out there, but we will only get to it by critically analysing what we are doing and making nesecery improvements. next time make sure you know what you are talking about before insulting people. smile 🙂
Would you listen to you three, boo frickin hoo, why don't you all go off and slit your wrists things are sooooo bad. googoo you're excused you can build a space ship and take off.
More people are living longer healthier lives than ever in earths history and the number continues to grow, absolute number wise and percentage wise. People that talk of the goo ...[text shortened]... ne's stopping you but you'll excuse the rest of us as we keep moving on to a better future.
Originally posted by WajomaDecreasing bio-diversity is a net gain for you? A place with disappearing forests (Amazon, Madagascar) is better off? Smog is better than clean air? Does sustainability mean anything to you?@ Please show me what I'm missing.
I do deny the environment is in a shocking state.