EPTThere is nothing to do with personal preferences. I'm okay if a smart person I dislike is going to vote. But I'm not okay if a stupid person for any reason I like him is going to vote.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1000
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
There is nothing to do with personal preferences. I'm okay if a smart person I dislike is going to vote. But I'm not okay if a stupid person for any reason I like him is going to vote. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 21 2017 03:41 Dav1oN wrote: For me it sounds like a false reasoning. At the moment everyone in your country has a right to vote, so tell me honestly, did u get rid of racism? Yes, these are different shades of racism, but still, racism came from very ancient times of our ancestors - not from modern politics and right to vote. But I agree about outdated governments. Everyone in my country has the right to vote in theory. In practice, many do not due to laws and systems created to strip them of the right to vote. Many of them black or brown. Systems created to so they can be denied the right to vote at the polls or have it stripped away by a criminal court. Our highest court gutted a law called the Voters Rights act a few years ago and it’s a free for all ever since. On November 21 2017 03:46 Dav1oN wrote: In my perfect world - there are people who deserves it and who don't. There is nothing to do with personal preferences. I'm okay if a smart person I dislike is going to vote. But I'm not okay if a stupid person for any reason I like him is going to vote. In your perfect world, anyone could be stripped of the right to vote for nothing being smart enough by the people in power. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 21 2017 03:42 LegalLord wrote: In my ideal world, the people I like will be able to vote, and the people I don’t will have no right to vote. That’s pretty much what we’re getting at so why not just straight up say it? It's at least not what I want. I want my enemy to have the same voting rights as I have. It's the typical false friend of politics: Those who believe they have a superior opinion believe they should create a system in which those who have the inferior opinion should not have the same rights. But that's simply wrong. People are self-determined beings. You take away their responsibility and their power and they will eventually take it back, by force or by chance. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
People are different, some of them superior and some inferior, yes. But does it mean a random person should be allowed to vote for ANY question? Simply as that? With no direct responsibility for a vote? That's risky to say at least. Okay, what if everyone remains with 1 vote and some "Elon Musks" vote would count as 2, or 3 depending on social achievements? | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 21 2017 03:57 Dav1oN wrote: I never said we should take ppls responsibilities, and "self-determined" term does not mean rational in all cases. People are different, some of them superior and some inferior, yes. But does it mean a random person should be allowed to vote for ANY question? Simply as that? With no direct responsibility for a vote? That's risky to say at least. Okay, what if everyone remains with 1 vote and some "Elon Musks" vote would count as 2, or 3 depending on social achievements? Well, then you basically don't believe in democracy. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 21 2017 03:57 Dav1oN wrote: People are different, some of them superior and some inferior, yes. By what standards? By your standards? By my standards? By majority standards, which implies a democratic standard to begin with? On November 21 2017 03:57 Dav1oN wrote: But does it mean a random person should be allowed to vote for ANY question? Simply as that? With no direct responsibility for a vote? That's risky to say at least. Basically yes. If a society wants something, it will get it. That's the simply explanation. You can make rules, you can enforce them but you are not going to prevent a society from overcoming your rules, as they are not physical manifestations. If the rules don't serve society, society will bend and break them or make your beloved leaders do it or die making that effort. Any rule that we impose to restrict our votes has to go through a democratic vote first. Only when we confront ourselves with our own, contradictory choices, our self-proclaimed and accepted moral standards and our self-imposed limitations we have somewhat of control of our system. Okay, what if everyone remains with 1 vote and some "Elon Musks" vote would count as 2, or 3 depending on social achievements? It's an interesting idea but who decides? Who creates those weights initially? Why would I accept those weights if I didn't have a say in creating them and didn't at least accept the mechanism how to create them? | ||
Nixer
2774 Posts
On November 21 2017 03:57 Dav1oN wrote: I never said we should take ppls responsibilities, and "self-determined" term does not mean rational in all cases. People are different, some of them superior and some inferior, yes. But does it mean a random person should be allowed to vote for ANY question? Simply as that? With no direct responsibility for a vote? That's risky to say at least. Okay, what if everyone remains with 1 vote and some "Elon Musks" vote would count as 2, or 3 depending on social achievements? This is a very dangerous line to walk on. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
Second, such system designed to motivate, not to de-motivate citizens. Yes, it's a hybrid of democracy. And no, people are not equal, Lawrence Krauss can easily sell fruits, but an average fruit seller is not even close to Nobel Prize. That's an example of "equality" you are running for. I'm not afraid to rise such questions, these might be interesting to speculate about and to share personal thoughts. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 21 2017 04:10 Dav1oN wrote: First of all, in a great scheme it doesn't matter if few thousands got two votes instead of one, it won't change drastically the results. With math it's easy to count. Second, such system designed to motivate, not to de-motivate citizens. Yes, it's a hybrid of democracy. And no, people are not equal, Lawrence Krauss can easily sell fruits, but an average fruit seller is not even close to Nobel Prize. That's an example of "equality" you are running for. But who decides that they only get two votes? And that they are only a few thousands? Or the criteria for them? Where in the World do you find these Angels? | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18713 Posts
On November 21 2017 04:10 Dav1oN wrote: First of all, in a great scheme it doesn't matter if few thousands got two votes instead of one, it won't change drastically the results. With math it's easy to count. Second, such system designed to motivate, not to de-motivate citizens. Yes, it's a hybrid of democracy. And no, people are not equal, Lawrence Krauss can easily sell fruits, but an average fruit seller is not even close to Nobel Prize. That's an example of "equality" you are running for. I'm not afraid to rise such questions, these might be interesting to speculate about and to share personal thoughts. I don't think anyone in this topic believes that all people are equal. The problem is only who decides superiority? | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
We must take such responsibility and define our common goal for humanity, not divided by a country/culture/lands/skin color or any other biases. Nobody said it would be easy. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On November 21 2017 04:01 Plansix wrote: How do you prevent the people who get one vote from losing all faith in the system that doesn’t treat them as equal? What if all the people with one vote happen to be poor? How to prevent the people with 2-3 votes from voting to assure their children also get 2-3 votes, regardless of merit? Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO. - Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision. Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person. We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO. - Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision. Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person. We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain. You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts. Of course the rules they created were just an excuse to use violence and repression keep power. But the concept of the meritocracy has a powerful allure on people, despite how easy it is to abuse. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On November 21 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote: You are talking about a pure meritocracy, which only works if we have an unbiased way to measure the value of a human. As that is impossible and all value and worth is subjective, this system is doomed to failure. It also comes dangerously close to the political ideology professed by the Nazis, who used the concept of merit to the state to justify unspeakable acts. Of course the rules they created were just an excuse to use violence and repression keep power. But the concept of the meritocracy has a powerful allure on people, despite how easy it is to abuse. Okay, fair point. So in this case we can't define common goal/standarts of humanity if we got so many different countries and culures. | ||
|
Archeon
3271 Posts
On November 21 2017 04:10 Dav1oN wrote: First of all, in a great scheme it doesn't matter if few thousands got two votes instead of one, it won't change drastically the results. With math it's easy to count. Second, such system designed to motivate, not to de-motivate citizens. Yes, it's a hybrid of democracy. And no, people are not equal, Lawrence Krauss can easily sell fruits, but an average fruit seller is not even close to Nobel Prize. That's an example of "equality" you are running for. I'm not afraid to rise such questions, these might be interesting to speculate about and to share personal thoughts. You separate people into dumb/useless and smart/useful, but that's not how people are. A winner of the Nobel Prize of physics doesn't necessarily understand politics or sociology. A winner of a Nobel Prize in literature might believe that the earth is flat, because he never really cared about physics to begin with and he found the theory intriguing. People with extreme achievements are likely to have a less broad horizon because they've spent a lot of time actually getting good in one single field. But intelligence and knowledge aren't one-dimensional. On the other side I've been surprised multiple times by people I thought weren't too bright. Also direct democracy takes care of people with obscure believes since it's still a majority vote and people with the same absurd believes are on average very few in numbers. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On November 21 2017 04:33 Dav1oN wrote: Let me explain how I see it. That's just IMO. - Any person when born get a vote by reaching 18 (21) years old eventually; - Any person may achieve another vote by making something useful for humanity (let's say a cure for cancer, or inventing some sort of green energy); - Make total amount of votes restricted by 3 for a single person (we can define the actual number as well); - Voting right is not a bequest, so by any means additional vote must be earned and cannot be transferred; - A citizen may refuse to own an additional vote by own decision. Such system motivates people to make something useful but in a greater sheme it does not change the democracy, only slightly affecting the number in vote results. If you feel yourself treated inequally by having only one vote instead of two - earn it, there will be tons of ways to do so. And there will be not many people with 2 or more votes for person. We can moderate additional votes, let's say with an additional vote you will be able to vote only for questions in specific domain. Who is that we that gets to decide who gets additional votes? What if, as soon as i get elected, i try to get more votes to the people who are more likely to vote for me? Which means i get elected again, and can give more votes to my voters. Just take a look at gerrymandering in the US. That shit doesn't even change the amount of votes people have, and is still abused to no end by trying to make the districts benefit your party most. And that is not even getting into the dumpster fire that is figuring our what constitutes "being good for humanity", and how to reach a consensus here. People who help catch terrorists are surely good people, right? What about people who help catch average criminals? And people who denounce dissidents who conspire against the country, those are definitively good people! Those most loyal to the party are obviously most interested in the good of the people. Or maybe people who produce true-born aryan sons do something good for the country and thus humanity. That seems like a good thing. This whole thing is just a horrific bag non-euclidean bag shit. It manages to have barely any upsides, but incredible amounts of downsides and dangers. The whole idea of democracy is that you have a country where all the people are part of the common good. And thus all the people have the power to influence the way of that country. As soon as you start to fiddle with that, you have a country where some people are more than others, and the country is no longer a commonwealth, but an organization for the "important" people, in which the rest of the people are allowed to stay. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
That's basically the centrally planned version of politics and it runs into the same calculation problem that economic central planning runs into. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
German Chancellor Angela Merkel emerged without agreement from marathon talks on forming a new coalition government, raising the prospect of new elections. Merkel met with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier to inform him that she was unable to come to a deal after the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) pulled out of talks. According to Reuters: "The decision to meet [Steinmeier], who has the power to call a new election, signaled that Merkel would not seek a minority government with the Greens ..." NPR's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, speaking to Morning Edition from Berlin, says fresh elections are "a definite possibility ... [but] it's problematic at best. There are a lot of procedural things that have to happen for that to go forward." "It is a day of deep reflection on how to go forward in Germany," Merkel told reporters. "As chancellor, I will do everything to ensure that this country is well managed in the difficult weeks to come." She said the parties had been close to consensus but that the Free Democrats "decided abruptly to pull out just before midnight Sunday - a move she said she respected, but found 'regrettable,'" according to the AP. The future of Merkel's government has been in limbo since elections in September, when her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) lost significant support. She has been trying to forge an alliance between the CDU, Bavaria's Christian Social Union, the FDP and the Green Party. Merkel, who has led Germany since 2005, is among the country's longest-serving chancellors and she has emerged as a global statesman and the European Union's strongest advocate. Concern that her government could collapse sent jitters through the markets, with the euro slipping against the U.S. dollar. What's more, polls show that a new election is unlikely to create clarity but instead produce a parliament similar to the current one. That could mean more instability for one of the world's most important economies. Source | ||
| ||
