[Ombrageux]

Have any of you read any classical or modern philosophy recently?

I have only read a bit but, in general, the greats seem to be extremely skeptical of indiscriminate democracy and egalitarianism. Goes for Machiavelli, Schopenhauer, Plato, many others I've not read I'm sure..

Isn't this discussion then appropriate for the Agora?

[Pants-of-dog]

Have any of you read any classical or modern philosophy recently?

I have only read a bit but, in general, the greats seem to be extremely skeptical of indiscriminate democracy and egalitarianism. Goes for Machiavelli, Schopenhauer, Plato, many others I've not read I'm sure..

Isn't this discussion then appropriate for the Agora?

Is that supposed to be an appeal to authority? Logical fallacies (especially poorly made ones) do not make an argument.

Also, please stop sending me PMs. I have a filter that blocks your PMs, so I am not reading them anyway.

[Rugoz]

Just because something is impractical doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

I don't see a discussion, you simply ignore arguments against your proposals.

As far as I can tell they're not based on rational thought anyway. You seem to have some romantic notion of motherhood and military service being magically connected to civic virtue.

[Ombrageux]

I really don't think you should be so dismissive. The Greek city-states tied citizenship to soldiering. Some of the early American colonies also allowed men who had served in the militia to benefit from suffrage, not just men with property, which I would argue was an enlightened measure.

The question is a serious one: should we simply ignore the fact that wisdom and virtue are unevenly distributed among the citizenry? That is what universal and equal suffrage does, and that strikes me as a conceit. If we admit universal and equal suffrage, what measures could we have to take account for the inequality of the citizens in terms of wisdom and virtue? (The Founding Fathers, for instance, thought the Senate should be a check on the arbitrariness of public opinion and democracy in the House of Representatives. In fact, to this day a Californian's vote in the Senate is effectively worth less than that of a Rhode-Islander. I would argue that is arbitrary, but it does exist.)

Why should all featherless bipeds get a vote? What about multirecidivist rapists? What about semi-brain-dead couch potatoes? What about the criminally insane? What about three year olds?

One often has the impression that the pretense of democracy is in fact an oligarchic conceit, a kind of demagogy: the media-masters gradually shape public opinion and whip up the mob against their enemies. This is a very powerful force in the age of television and an age where people, having more and more comfortable lives, really have less and less real life experiences of their own.

In my opinion, that is why the average person today is infinitely more foolish than their grandparents were. And also why, in general, boomers are more foolish than millennials, the latter being comfortable, but who at least have been exposed to the Internet, breaking the media's monopoly on culture. (The latter is just an opinion.)

Of course, if thinking about this topic bores you or offends your sensibilities, you are free to ignore it..

[Pants-of-dog]

You really love to read your own words.

Why not address some of the actual arguments being made? Afraid of a liitle debate?

[Pants-of-dog]

I really don't think you should be so dismissive. The Greek city-states tied citizenship to soldiering. Some of the early American colonies also allowed men who had served in the militia to benefit from suffrage, not just men with property, which I would argue was an enlightened measure.

Yes, allowing more people to vote is more enlightened than letting less people vote. Thus, your proposal to limit enfranchisement is less enlightened.

But your point is about soldiering. Now, if we only allow soldiers to run things, we can essentially call it a gov't by the military. I have lived in such a country. It sucked sweaty donkey balls during that era. A corrupt gov't embezzled funds, tortured children, and sold out the country to foreign companies. In fact, can you think of a single military gov't that has done better than liberal democracies in terms of long term peace, stability, and freedom?

Neither can I.

The question is a serious one: should we simply ignore the fact that wisdom and virtue are unevenly distributed among the citizenry? That is what universal and equal suffrage does, and that strikes me as a conceit. If we admit universal and equal suffrage, what measures could we have to take account for the inequality of the citizens in terms of wisdom and virtue? (The Founding Fathers, for instance, thought the Senate should be a check on the arbitrariness of public opinion and democracy in the House of Representatives. In fact, to this day a Californian's vote in the Senate is effectively worth less than that of a Rhode-Islander. I would argue that is arbitrary, but it does exist.)

Universal and equal suffrage does not simply ignore the fact that wisdom and virtue are unevenly distributed among the citizenry. It simply sees this spectrum of wisdom and virtue as being relatively unimportant. This is for two reasons: the first is that voting is not about finding wisdom and virtue in gov't (whatever that means) but instead is about holding the gov't accountable, and it has been (logically and correctly, in my mind) decided that even people who are not wise or virtuous also have this right and duty. The second reason is that it is not necessary to be either wise or virtuous to formulate good policy or even choose people who would. This is simple logic. An unwise or unvirtuous person may come to the right decision even for all the wrong reasons, or simply because he or she is having a rare good moment. To assume otherwise is to "poison the well".

Why should all featherless bipeds get a vote? What about multirecidivist rapists? What about semi-brain-dead couch potatoes? What about the criminally insane? What about three year olds?

Pretending that the current model of universal suffrage has anything to do with these straw men would be a disservice.

One often has the impression that the pretense of democracy is in fact an oligarchic conceit, a kind of demagogy: the media-masters gradually shape public opinion and whip up the mob against their enemies. This is a very powerful force in the age of television and an age where people, having more and more comfortable lives, really have less and less real life experiences of their own.

I think only people who assume that the majority of the electorate are mouth breathing morons with no agency might get that impression. My real life experiences have led me to the belief that this assumption is incorrect.

In my opinion, that is why the average person today is infinitely more foolish than their grandparents were. And also why, in general, boomers are more foolish than millennials, the latter being comfortable, but who at least have been exposed to the Internet, breaking the media's monopoly on culture. (The latter is just an opinion.)

While I am glad you feel you can share your opinion with us, it would be nice if you could support said opinion with an argument. Something using logic or evidence. This is a debate forum, and many of us would appreciate a discussion that involves more than just opinions.

Of course, if thinking about this topic bores you or offends your sensibilities, you are free to ignore it..

[Rugoz]

I really don't think you should be so dismissive. The Greek city-states tied citizenship to soldiering. Some of the early American colonies also allowed men who had served in the militia to benefit from suffrage, not just men with property, which I would argue was an enlightened measure.

Those were completely different circumstances. The militia was essential for defending the community against external threats and military power was more or less proportional to the number of soldiers serving. Today you rather have people paying taxes for buying expensive military equipment and only a number of professionals actually using them. Its called division of labor.

[Ombrageux]

What do you think would a modern version of such an institution?

[Pants-of-dog]

If the argument is that only those people who have shown themselves capable of thinking about the future should be allowed to vote, then progressive political activists should also be on the list.

I like your logic.

[Ombrageux]

I believe in long-term "demographic progress." If a person is conscious of the need for the genetic and cultural improvement of our people, that we should be smarter, healthier, more cohesive, more beautiful, more united, then they would be a good candidate for participating in policymaking.

Unfortunately, both liberals and conservatives today are utterly different to demographic progress and decline. Liberals in particular however, as egalitarians, are rabidly hostile to the notion that some people are better than others, thus they actively push, whether they mean to or not, for very short-sighted and destructive demographic policies. In the long run, this will be unsustainable, and would mean the intellectual and national degeneration of Western and European countries into fragmented and low-performing ones, probably similar to Mexico and Brazil.

[Pants-of-dog]

I believe in long-term "demographic progress." If a person is conscious of the need for the genetic and cultural improvement of our people, that we should be smarter, healthier, more cohesive, more beautiful, more united, then they would be a good candidate for participating in policymaking.

This is an argument for eugenics.

It is also basically a framework for sneaking your racist arguments into this discussion. Interestingly, your post here completely avoids any intelligent explanantion as to how not letting college kids vote will all of a sudden make everyone white and beautiful and patriotic.

Unfortunately, both liberals and conservatives today are utterly different to demographic progress and decline. Liberals in particular however, as egalitarians, are rabidly hostile to the notion that some people are better than others, thus they actively push, whether they mean to or not, for very short-sighted and destructive demographic policies. In the long run, this will be unsustainable, and would mean the intellectual and national degeneration of Western and European countries into fragmented and low-performing ones, probably similar to Mexico and Brazil.

I already discussed this earlier and you ignored it.

This tactic of yours where you say something, ignore all rebuttals and then repeat it, this tactic sucks.

[Ombrageux]

That eugenics, well understood, is a good seems almost tautological. Strictly speaking, eugenics is separate from White Advocacy/Nationalism.

Given that beauty, health, intelligence, and personality are all significantly genetically-determined, all peoples can benefit from the spread of good genes and the elimination of bad genes. Unfortunately, egalitarians in general do not "discriminate" between in-born good and bad in people, so they unknowingly allow evil to spread..

[Pants-of-dog]

That eugenics, well understood, is a good seems almost tautological. Strictly speaking, eugenics is separate from White Advocacy/Nationalism.

Given that beauty, health, intelligence, and personality are all significantly genetically-determined, all peoples can benefit from the spread of good genes and the elimination of bad genes. Unfortunately, egalitarians in general do not "discriminate" between in-born good and bad in people, so they unknowingly allow evil to spread..

This has nothing to do with the topic. Please note that taking a thread off topic deliberately is against the rules.

Also, please note that many of us with better genes did not get this way because of voting rights.

[Paradigm]

Mod note: Please keep this thread on-topic. Ombrageux's avatar is not relevant to the discussion here. Thank you.

[anasawad]

Eugenics can be considered to some extent a logical paradox BTW. Since it would mostly remove it self from humanity if applied.