On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:59:38 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2012-11-09 14:24, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like
>>>> the Dark Ages...
>>>
>>> I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the
>>> dark ages, certainly.
>>
>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>> the world thinks about your country...
> 
> There are other countries?

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:35:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
>>> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
>>> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.
>>
>> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.
> 
> I do.

Obviously, or you wouldn't have invoked it. ;)

>> and a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted
>> on would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.
>>
>>
> Obviously it does to people who believe that.
> I see it as, if you are a person who is capable of deciding to vote then
> you should get a vote. If not where do you draw the line?
> If you deny the vote to people who are not competent then someone might
> decide that if you don’t want to vote for the “right” party then ipso
> facto you are not competent and have the right to vote removed.
> It is a slippery slope etc.

I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're 
saying.

It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party 
doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.  IOW, if 
there's a party that declares that the world is flat, people voting for 
those candidates are very clearly voting for someone who doesn't support 
reality as it is.

We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.

We expect people driving cars on the road to demonstrate competence in 
manouvering several thousand pounds of mechanical equipment at high 
speeds.

We /should/ expect our politicans to have at least a rudimentary 
understanding of the things they're tasked with creating laws around.

And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to understand 
that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying the facts of 
the world around us.  That evolution is real, for example.  That climate 
change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are 
in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with 
those issues.

I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and 
weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based on 
an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and 
sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured 
view of their past or childhood).

Reality sometimes sucks, and denying reality doesn't make it suck any 
less.  Sticking your head in the sand and saying "climate change isn't 
real" or mumbling some nonsense about 'hockey-stick graphs' as the reason 
for denying that the world is getting warmer and we /can/ do something 
about it if we /put our minds to it/ doesn't actually get the problems 
fixed, and that sometimes doing nothing is amongst the worst things you 
can do.

> I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than
> picking one who put themselves forward.

I'm with you on that.  Maybe something closer to the way the Greeks did 
it - election by lottery - would be a better solution.  At least then it 
wouldn't be a career path (which I think is one of the biggest problems 
in the US political system).

>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
> 
> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?

I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a 
part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal 
service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though, 
but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of 
sacrifice - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many 
who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat 
unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always 
understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into combat.

That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation are 
more likely to make a better-informed decision.

Which is not to say that military service is/should be the only path to 
eligibility to vote.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2012 4:12 AM, scott wrote:
>> We need to have some sort of intelligence test for our elected leaders.
>> If they can't pass basic science, history, and math, they shouldn't be
>> allowed to hold political office.
>
> No, you need some sort of intelligence test for the *voters*, otherwise
> they will just vote against such leader testing or vote to make it so
> easy it's pointless.

"The problem is not that certain classes are unfit to govern.  Every 
class is unfit to govern."

The notion that our political problems can be solved by granting power 
to the right people is inherently flawed.  Power always winds up in the 
hands of the least trustworthy because the most trustworthy have utterly 
no interest in power.

First of all, the basic desire for power--that is, the desire for the 
ability to compel others--is inherently anti-rational.  This places it 
in direct conflict with the rational virtues, such as honestly and 
self-control.  Hence politicans, of every party, will always come from 
the shallow end of the virtue pool.

Second, every worthy sentiment has avenues of expression outside of 
politics.  You can feed the poor, shelter the homeless, cure diseases, 
create beauty, make money, and/or save the world without garnering even 
one vote in an election, because the realm of human endeavor has scope 
for all of these activities in the private sector even more so than in 
the public sector.  Not so with power.  If you want power, real power, 
politics is the only game in town.  Therefore those who enter politics 
with a genuinely noble purpose have an outlet for their sentiments in 
private life, and will feel the call of that life, especially in the 
face of the slings and arrows of public office.  Those who enter 
politics for the power have no outlet.  They must win if they are to 
have what is most important to them.  Being more desperate to obtain or 
retain power, and less concerned with honor and honesty to start with, 
they are more than willing to lie, cheat and slander in order to 
prevail, and more willing to endure whatever lies, cheating and slander 
hinders them.

So not only are the rotters overrepresented among the political class, 
they are even more overrepresented among the victorious of any political 
campaign.

Third, holding power has a distinct negative effect on personal ethics. 
  Simply holding power--or even imagining oneself to have power--has 
been seen in behavioral testing to make a person more likely to lie, 
overestimate their abilities, and excuse their own wrongdoing, and less 
likely to tolerate wrongdoing in others or emphasize with other people.

In short, power attracts the worst among us, winds up in the hands of 
the worst who seek it, and makes anyone who gets it worse people than 
before.

The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only 
thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> The notion that our political problems can be solved by granting power 
> to the right people is inherently flawed.  Power always winds up in the 
> hands of the least trustworthy because the most trustworthy have utterly 
> no interest in power.

A large society (meaning more than a few hundreds of people) cannot work
properly and efficiently without some kind of organization and people who
are in charge of organizing. In order for society to work, everybody (or
at least those who are able) have to work to make it work. But not
everybody can (nor should) have the same tasks. Organizing the tasks and
economy of very large amounts of people just requires a hierarchy of
people to organize it, to lay out plans, to distribute tasks.

Government is a necessity in any society larger than a few hundreds of
people, if that society wants to have standards of living better than
mud huts and hunting-gathering.

Many forms of government have been tried during the entire history of
humanity. So far representative democracy seems to be the one that
achieves the most good with the least amount of negative sides. (One of
its major advantages is that it's, in principle, self-corrective: If
incompetent people end up in the government, they will eventually be
replaced by better candidates. At least in theory. Of course there are
many stumbling blocks in the path of achieving this perfect situation,
psychology being one of the biggest ones.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-13 21:17, John VanSickle a écrit :
> On 11/6/2012 4:12 AM, scott wrote:
> In short, power attracts the worst among us, winds up in the hands of
> the worst who seek it, and makes anyone who gets it worse people than
> before.
>
> The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only
> thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.

It just moves power in the hands of someone else.  If govt is not 
involved in a field, whether it's education, garbage removal, road 
repair, nuclear defense, you name it.  Someone else needs to be in 
charge of it, and that someone is not any more or any less impervious to 
be corrupted by power.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/14/2012 9:12 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-11-13 21:17, John VanSickle a écrit :
>> On 11/6/2012 4:12 AM, scott wrote:
>> In short, power attracts the worst among us, winds up in the hands of
>> the worst who seek it, and makes anyone who gets it worse people than
>> before.
>>
>> The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only
>> thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.
>
> It just moves power in the hands of someone else.  If govt is not
> involved in a field, whether it's education, garbage removal, road
> repair, nuclear defense, you name it.  Someone else needs to be in
> charge of it, and that someone is not any more or any less impervious to
> be corrupted by power.
>
And, when the situation requires immediate solutions, they often lack 
the time, raw resources, people, and access to necessary expertise, to 
actually do the job. There is a reason we don't let corporations, since 
like the very early days, when people first started making paved roads, 
decide which roads get paved. There was this odd tendency for some to 
make crappy roads, for them to place tolls all over, if they bothered to 
make other roads at all, or for them to only build and maintain the 
roads **they** needed. When cities are in charge, the roads suck 
slightly less. When the state is in charge, and they are not 
underfunded, and pushing the money to other crap, it worked well. Right 
up until they "defunded" those projects, in favor of their own biased 
idiocies, and let the roads rot. And so on.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/11/2012 11:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:35:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>>> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.
>>
>> I do.
>
> Obviously, or you wouldn't have invoked it. ;)

First time.


>
> I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're
> saying.
>

Not always but it is there and can happen.

> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party
> doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.

Tell that to the marines. ;-)

> IOW, if
> there's a party that declares that the world is flat, people voting for
> those candidates are very clearly voting for someone who doesn't support
> reality as it is.
>

Bad example, I think. Parties like the Monster Raving Loony Party, here 
in the UK are for disaffected voters.

My answers to the following statements are all the same. Maybe it is 
because I am old and disillusioned.

> We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.
>

Hope our doctors...

> We expect people driving cars on the road to demonstrate competence in
> manouvering several thousand pounds of mechanical equipment at high
> speeds.
>

Hope people driving cars...


> We /should/ expect our politicans to have at least a rudimentary
> understanding of the things they're tasked with creating laws around.
>

Hope expect our politicians...

Actually you should expect every other road user is an idiot and drive 
defensively.

> And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to understand
> that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying the facts of
> the world around us.

Cloud cuckoo land, that one IMO.

> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate
> change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are
> in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with
> those issues.
>

I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big 
Business" supporters would even say that.


> I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and
> weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based on
> an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and
> sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured
> view of their past or childhood).
>

Again, that is American centric. The 50's in Europe was not that good. 
The 50's in Glasgow was a bit of a nightmare actually. I remember 
playing on bomb sites and being told not to play in the green stagnant 
puddles in the street.


>
>> I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than
>> picking one who put themselves forward.
>
> I'm with you on that.  Maybe something closer to the way the Greeks did
> it - election by lottery - would be a better solution.  At least then it
> wouldn't be a career path (which I think is one of the biggest problems
> in the US political system).
>

Probably. Take our Mr. Blair (please do and try him for war crimes). He 
was a posh boy who picked a side to get into politics. Then proceeded to 
change the Labour party into a mini Tory party so that he could succeed. 
(Not just my opinion)

>>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>>
>> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>
> I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a
> part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal
> service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though,

That is the one I was thinking about.

> but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of
> sacrifice

Does paying your taxes count?

> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many
> who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat

I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but 
the donkeys certainly don't. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys


> unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always
> understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into combat.
>

I don't think that you can know what it could be like. Unless you happen 
to live an an area where there has been fighting.

> That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation are
> more likely to make a better-informed decision.
>

Maybe Jon Stewart should be made compulsory viewing over there?

On a lighter not. Did you get the new ISIHAC? It was broadcast on Monday

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/11/2012 2:50 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>>
>> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>>
>>
> Yes, and not all of them. He was definitely, for example, a major
> misogynist, and like Ayn Rand, his books can appeal to people that a)
> haven't grown up enough to really think about everything he said, or b)
> don't bother growing up at all. Some of his ideas are not bad, others..
> not so great (unlike Rand, who well...).

I haven't read Rand but when I tried to re-read Heinlein I could not 
because his views got in the way of the story.
I was thinking about having to have had public service (read military) 
before getting the franchise.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14/11/2012 2:17 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> The solution?  Limit the size and power of government.  It is the only
> thing that appears to limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.

I agreed with most of what you said except the above "solution"

In Europe we had about 1500 years of small countries with small 
governments. We also had about 1500 years of constant warfare. Since 
Europe was united after WWII it has been quite peaceful here (not 
counting Ireland and exporting troops to other areas).
IMO we need big governments to protect the common man from big business.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/14/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party
>> doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.
>
> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>
Or any parties.

>> We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.
>>
>
> Hope our doctors...
>
Unless you are, say, Ireland, where you kill a woman, because the 
"Catholic law" says you can save the mother, if needed, but not if the 
baby still has a heart beat. The problem, of course, being the 
definitions of a) endangered and b) heartbeat. Apparently.. "Won't 
live", doesn't count for the later, and the former... well, that only 
counts once septis has set in, and her odds of surviving, even if you do 
something, has been reduced to near 0. Makes you wonder.. If appendixes 
where "sacred", would you have to wait until they burst to remove them too?

One hopes, but isn't at all encouraged, that this will result in 
"something" happening as a consequence.

>> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate
>> change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are
>> in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with
>> those issues.
>>
>
> I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big
> Business" supporters would even say that.
>
>
Haven't looked at Australia then? Mind, that isn't Europe, but, still. 
Wackos every place. What is worse, a study on the subject showed that 
both skeptics and people that denied climate change, overestimated the 
percentage of the population holding the, "We think its fake.", view. 
The skeptics thought it was as much as 20%, the anti-climate change 
people thought it was more like 45%. The real number was like.. under 
10%, but I don't remember the exact number. What differed the most is 
the refusal of the anti-climate change people in even accepting that 
there was a consensus, at all, among scientists. Bets on the numbers of 
creationism being similar...

>> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many
>> who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat
>
> I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but
> the donkeys certainly don't. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys
>
Maybe in Europe.. Over here, it seems like being shot at, and almost 
killed makes one almost as great a hero as throwing a football, and the 
ones that have been in combat think the military is, "too small", and we 
haven't had, "enough wars". This isn't the case of all of them, or even 
a majority, of course, but.. those people are not the ones running for 
office, on the stance that, among all their other idiocies, "We are 
undermining our ability to spread fear to all the people that will then 
attack us, since they don't fear us any more." Uh.. yeah, and somehow I 
can't be surprised we are seeing a remake of Red Dawn, where the high 
school team is the Wolverines. Apparently, only American's fight like 
cornered animals, when invaded, or abused, or treated like shit, or 
threatened, or our professed saviors side with the nutcase next door, 
because they offered an oil deal. Sigh...

In any case, no.. A lot of the people I have seen that have been, "in 
combat", and vote conservative, are completely bloody nuts, and have no 
problem at all getting more people (as long as its someone else this 
time) killed in wars. If this was a criteria for having someone want to 
avoid them, Europe would have found peace during the middle ages, when 
*everyone* was at war with everyone else. Bigger weapons has only scared 
"some" of the people out of this sort of bullshit, "We can win, with 
acceptable casualties!", thinking.

Post a reply to this message