If user fees go into effect I'm done

Mxsmanic wrote:

A civil war is extremely unlikely. The usual pattern is a succession of
increasingly troublesome crises, terminating with the end of democratic
government and a new dictatorship. Democracies are their own worst enemies,
and they tend to regularly self-destruct. The problem with giving everyone a
voice is that many people are stupid.


I have to agree with you completely on that.

It benefits a government for its subjects to be ignorant, and if you can
control the educational system then you can insure a continued dumbing
down of society to a point that rebelion is less likely. Like piglets
sucking on a hogs teats, the people can be placated in various ways.

There truly *should* be some sort of test before one can vote so as
to weed out the both the ignorant and the stupid people.

ktbr writes:

It benefits a government for its subjects to be ignorant, and if you can
control the educational system then you can insure a continued dumbing
down of society to a point that rebelion is less likely.

Yes. That's why widespread lack of education (particularly illiteracy, and
particularly among women) is seen in countries with high rates of corruption
and severely autocratic regimes.

Like piglets sucking on a hogs teats, the people can be placated in
various ways.

Bread and circuses. Many people care about little else, and will always vote
in favor of this. Even in Russia, there are people who pine for the old days
of the Soviet Union: sure, you didn't have much freedom, but you didn't really
have to work hard, you couldn't go broke, etc., because the state looked after
you.

There truly *should* be some sort of test before one can vote so as
to weed out the both the ignorant and the stupid people.

Yes, but unfortunately those tests invariably become corrupt, as they are used
to create a voting elite, rather than to assess competence to vote. The
problem is that the tests are usually imposed by the same people who are
elected by the voting, which is a conflict of interest.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes, but unfortunately those tests invariably become corrupt, as they are used
to create a voting elite, rather than to assess competence to vote. The
problem is that the tests are usually imposed by the same people who are
elected by the voting, which is a conflict of interest.


True enough... Perhaps there should be a merit based approach to
voting to allow for cancelling out the ignorant. Sort of allow
for Darwin's theory to have its productive influence on govenrment,
instead of the reverse effect as is now the case.

As an example: If you _graduate_ from High School you get one vote.

Then, you can get additional votes like:

Service in the military - you get an additional vote.
Graduate from college - get an additional vote.
For each $10,000 in taxes you paid - get an additional vote.
For each child you raised who becomes a productive citizen
you get an additional vote.


You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon, and one vote for each $10,000 in welfare
benefits you were given.... if you pay it back then you get an
extra vote that year.

In this way people would be more vested in their country and have
incentives to work hard, make good decisions. I believe you would
still need term limits however.

ktbr writes:

True enough... Perhaps there should be a merit based approach to
voting to allow for cancelling out the ignorant. Sort of allow
for Darwin's theory to have its productive influence on govenrment,
instead of the reverse effect as is now the case.

Literacy tests came close to that. But then someone observed that people
deprived of an education would necessarily fail such tests, and they went
away.

Of course, one could argue that anyone who hasn't received a decent education
isn't qualified to vote, irrespective of _why_ he hasn't received an
education, but that is politically incorrect.

Even today, with 1/3 of the U.S. population illiterate, there aren't too many
people who are qualified to vote, even though most of them are allowed to
vote.

Service in the military - you get an additional vote.
Graduate from college - get an additional vote.
For each $10,000 in taxes you paid - get an additional vote.
For each child you raised who becomes a productive citizen
you get an additional vote.

All of these are subject to abuse, unfortunately.

You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon ...

That is already the case.

In this way people would be more vested in their country and have
incentives to work hard, make good decisions. I believe you would
still need term limits however.

Yes.

My idea would be to draft people into elections. Instead of letting anyone
who wants to run enter the election, you'd choose people based on some sort of
objective criteria and then draft them into the election (they'd have the
option of declining). Then the candidates would all be qualified, rather than
simply ambitious and self-centered.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Of course, one could argue that anyone who hasn't received a decent education
isn't qualified to vote, irrespective of _why_ he hasn't received an
education, but that is politically incorrect.

That is precisely what I am arguing. In this country education up
to the 12th grade is paid for by taxpayers (whether they have children
or not). There is no excuse why someone should squander their
chance at an education through HS... and if you do well there are
scholarships through college.

Even today, with 1/3 of the U.S. population illiterate, there aren't too many
people who are qualified to vote, even though most of them are allowed to
vote.

Exactly my point.


All of these are subject to abuse, unfortunately.


You think so? give me an example then. I doubt its any easier
to abuse than the current welfare system.... or even the
current politcal system where politicians buy votes from
the ignoreant by promising them more "stuff"...

You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon ...


That is already the case.

Only in some states... and lots of politicians want to put an end
to that, including Hillary Clinton I believe (at one time anyway).


My idea would be to draft people into elections. Instead of letting anyone
who wants to run enter the election, you'd choose people based on some sort of
objective criteria and then draft them into the election (they'd have the
option of declining). Then the candidates would all be qualified, rather than
simply ambitious and self-centered.


If Washington was actually reformed (all the old farts kicked OUT) and
term limits in place it might be necesary to "draft" some people.
Heheh.. I really like the sound of that.... sort of like jury duty.

My idea would be to draft people into elections. Instead of letting anyone
who wants to run enter the election, you'd choose people based on some sort of
objective criteria and then draft them into the election (they'd have the
option of declining). Then the candidates would all be qualified, rather than
simply ambitious and self-centered.

That's how the electoral college was supposed to work. It didn't take
long for that to develop... flaws.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Even today, with 1/3 of the U.S. population illiterate, there aren't
too many people who are qualified to vote, even though most of them
are allowed to vote.


And where exactly do you get that 1/3 of the US population is illiterate?

The CIA world fact book says...

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

But that is the CIA, so I can understant if you say "Bull" to that.

But this link http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/St...x?StoryId=2553 is
written by a guy saying that Cuba is doing a great job and compares the US
to Cuba and even he says 97%.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

And where exactly do you get that 1/3 of the US population is illiterate?

A number of studies that I've read, in the days when I was interested in
trying to help reduce illiteracy. As much as half the population cannot even
understand a help-wanted advertisement or a W-2 form.

The CIA world fact book says...

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

Most countries, including all developed countries, dramatically overstate
their literacy figures. The United States is no exception. Furthermore, most
countries count a person as literate if he knows the alphabet and can
recognize simple words. In fact, that isn't even close to literacy in any
practical sense, and the number of people who are _functionally_ literate is
generally only a fraction of those who meet these minimal criteria.

But this link http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/St...x?StoryId=2553 is
written by a guy saying that Cuba is doing a great job and compares the US
to Cuba and even he says 97%.

That may be true, as a rigid and compulsory educational system can raise
literacy rates by forcing everyone to learn to read. However, 97% is probably
optimistic.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

That may be true, as a rigid and compulsory educational system can
raise literacy rates by forcing everyone to learn to read. However,
97% is probably optimistic.

I gave you rates that were from widely different sources and they varied by
only 2%. You said "A number of studies that I've read..." which one of those
responses seems the more authoritative?

My idea would be to draft people into elections. Instead of letting anyone
who wants to run enter the election, you'd choose people based on some sort of
objective criteria and then draft them into the election (they'd have the
option of declining). Then the candidates would all be qualified, rather than
simply ambitious and self-centered.

Well, MX, this is a most excellent idea. In my future, perfect
political party, this will be a main plank in our platform.

Take the rest of the day off...with double pay.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"