The Glade 4.0

And I suggest the empirical evidence proves otherwise; after all, there's a spectacular correlation between expanding government power and the expansion of the franchise and mandatory education in the United States.

_________________

I don't think either provide any protection from boneheaded idiocy. Most of modern "liberalism" is based on ivory-tower academia and is utterly lacking in any type of real world functionality. Conversely, I get the impression most military types approved of Dubya, at least at first. Neither are particularly confidence inspiring when it comes to decisions regarding governance.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Don't you normally suggest that public education severely reduces the quality of education received? You're just proving him right, here.

Xequecal:

I'm not proving him right at all. I'm assuming, based on past posts, that Aizle thinks our education system functions as a net-positive. The conclusion, therefore, that Aizle believes our education system improves the quality of governance is not a stretch.

_________________

My comments have nothing to do with the merits or demerits of our education system, but education in general.

Education in general -- then, isn't the military a very intense and practical educational experience?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Aizle:

And what, exactly, constitutes "education in general"?

_________________

When you consider that voters have at least indirect power over taxation, I can understand the practical value in only allowing people who own real property to vote. However, this solution to the problem has never set entirely well with me. An alternate solution to the problem which I can more heartily endorse is to design a government with very limited power, especially when it comes to taxation.

But in the long run, our ability to change the form of our government by amendment becomes a problem. Assuming we could design a perfect form of government, it could still be abused by merely changing the form of that government first. Ultimately, I don't have a good solution for that problem. An immutable government isn't a good idea, but mutability is easily abusable.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Not Aizle, but let me express my opinion:

Yes and no. It is intense and may or may not be practical, depending upon a number of variables regarding service.


Now, as to the idea of military service being the mandate for voting: adamant NO, from me; at least in this country. Equally adamant to my opposition to universal suffrage and the belief in a "right" to vote. Our founders didn't believe in a standing army. They certainly didn't believe in mandating service to government (the armed forces) in order to have a say in government, and I find it anathema to a free society.

While one could reasonably argue that property ownership or education are also highly subjective, the question quickly arises with the idea of military service as a requisite: where is the bar drawn? In which armed service must you serve? For how long? Do you have to see combat? Etc. etc. Education or property ownership seems much more able, to me, to find a clear line in the sand. Again, others could find plenty of reasons to refute that, I'm sure.

Regardless, military service is not something open to all people, and hence would make an inadequate obstacle to attaining the privilege to vote. Advocating for such a prerequisite, therefore, would be advocating for the supremacy of one group over another, not inherently but through opportunity. Discrimination of opportunity, in a nutshell.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Well, I guess if push comes to shove, I mean a college/university education. Preferably from an acredited school with a diverse program.

That is not to say that there is no value or education in military service.

And what, exactly, is your opinion of the University of Minnesota's new hiring practices?

_________________

did you mean their screening for their teaching students or did they have a new hiring program I missed?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

I don't know enough about them to really have an opinion.

Uncle Fester that's part of it; they seem to be extending those philosophies to real professors as well.

_________________

They have real professors? I thought it was a liberal indoctrination camp.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

How do you intend to prevent this enfranchised minority from turning the disenfranchised population into their own personal serfs? Hell, how do you ensure that the "standard" for becoming enfranchised stays static, and that the same minority doesn't turn it into a dynasty?

Frankly I think such a system would turn into a copy of today's Dubai, a small minority of citizens sit around in palatial luxury without having to do anything while millions of essentially slave laborers labor for their enjoyment.

As opposed to the direction we're currently going, in which case a sizeable minority of citizens sit around in mediocre idle lives while millions of increasingly serfish laborers labor (and are taxed) for the benefit of their lack of productivity and ambition.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Who is to say that the enfranchised are a minority? If the criteria is achievable by all citizens, then why could all citizens not meet the hurdle?

The answer to your question is to ensure the freedom of movement and a weak federal government. If the disenfranchised feel that they're being taken advantage of, they move to a state in which the enfranchised aren't "turning the population into their serfs." See the emigration from NY state and other tax-heavy states, combined with Kaffis' statement, as the inverse proof against your statement.



Again, you create a weak federal system so that any state that becomes oppressive simply loses it's workforce through emigration.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

How do you ensure the existence of a weak federal system and freedom of movement if the enfranchised can change this at will?

Define "at will?" This isn't a direct democracy for a reason.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You elect people who will discriminate against the disenfranchised. They have no say in who gets elected, so this is easy. If this violates the nation's Constitution, you elect people who will change it, or hold a convention to change it, whatever the process is. Even if you structure the system to resist this, like say letting everyone vote on constitutional amendments, it's still pretty damned easy to attack from the side if your target can't vote.

Our current federal government's unparalleled mastery of massively violating the spirit of the Constitution while upholding the letter (the health care bill is a great example) should give you some idea on what is possible. The ways are endless. Elect an executive who will appoint rubber-stamp judges to the Supreme Court. Get around Constitutional protections by not giving force of law of unconstitutional provisions, instead just levy a huge tax on anyone who doesn't "choose" to comply. Change military recruiting or education standards so no one can pass the bar on citizenship. How evil do you want to get? You could pay a neighboring country to come bomb your own disenfranchised dissidents and order your military to ignore them.

Not at all, considering the bar to enfranchisement is attainable by anyone. Futhermore, you haven't established the underlying assumption here: that the enfranchised are in the majority.



Except, again, if your system is constructed to be difficult to change and the bar to enfranchisement is able to be overcome by anyone, and the appropriate checks on power are in place, this is wholly unlikely.



Except that the current federal government doesn't fit any of my criteria. In fact, it's a perfect example of an evolution from a system similar to one I describe to one advocated by the more "liberal" in society:
1) It does not have limited suffrage
2) It has a broad and virtually unlimited central government
3) It has no real check on the central government, nor representation of lesser [read: more localized, such as state-level] entities.



Unless we used the non-modern method and viewpoint of the executive: existing solely to represent the states to one another and to outside powers, and therefore elected by the states



Which required an amendment to the constitution after qualifications for voting (beyond those that shouldn't have existed in the first place) were largely removed. Thus also not proving your point.



Notice how I said I'm not in favor of the military being the requirement? Education that isn't a government monopoly removes that concern as well, as the market would push against what you're talking about.



Or, before you go into la-la land, you could deal with that fact that nothing you've stated supports your position concretely.


Edit: Look, I'm not trying to be snarky, but in order to demonstrate your position that a limited voting bloc under a democratic republic leads to the harms you're talking about, you need to actually cite instances at least similar. All you've done so far is cite situations under which the voting public was either 1) not limited at all or 2) not limited on grounds which they could overcome (such as gender or race).

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

@Xeq:

Perhaps one of the Italian "republics" during the Italian renaissance might have an example of abuse by a limited electorate that would better fit your contention? I'm not real familiar with the history of the region, but it seems more likely than the US to fit the bill of your contention.

You'd still probably be missing certain elements like freedom of movement or something, but it'd be closer.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I cannot point to a real life example of your ideas because it doesn't exist and I'm pretty sure it never has, I've never heard of a civilization or country where not everyone can vote, but the majority still can.

I'm not sure how having the enfranchised be the majority changes anything, though. The disenfranchised will still be exploited. I totally do not understand how making enfranchisement "obtainable by anyone" changes this. First there is the fact that at any point they want the enfranchised can change the enfranchisement rules. Second, I have to assume that in your system a substantial amount of people will not be enfranchised, because otherwise it's no different than what we have now. Those people will be discriminated against. I'm sure you could argue that it's their own fault for being too stupid or lazy to surpass the "easy" barrier, but it doesn't change the fact that it will happen. The enfranchised have basically nothing to lose, at least in the short term, by ruinously exploiting them. Doing so might actually be bad for the long term, but as history clearly shows, voters generally don't care about the long term, that's why we get immense taxes on the wealthy.

You're the one who contended that it would be exploitative rule by the minority under a limited franchise system. For that to be correct, you have to demonstrate one of two things about that minority: 1) that they cannot become the majority, or that those unenfranchised cannot become enfranchised, and 2) that powerful minorities have nothing to fear from non-powerful minorities.

You haven't proven (1) and the American, French, Cuban, Russian, and other revolutions disprove (2).



Because it means that at any time the roles can switch.



Using what methodology? Is this under our Constitutional system? Is this at the state level. If it's Constitutional, changing the Constitution is very difficult. If at the state level, overcoming freedom of movement must first be attained.



Define "discriminated against."



No, we get immense taxes on the wealthy because the majority of the people are not wealthy and they all get a vote.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine