A political science question for fellow PF'ers: The Kings/Queens, or self government?

Theres certainly an argument for the 'good king' style of government. It really does work best when one person has all the authority to make the best decision quickly. The problem is that good kings are rare, they eventually die, their authority doesnt, and they always seem to raise the most terrible children...

I cant remember whether it was said about capitalism or democracy, but I think it fits both equally perfect- its the worst system, except for all the others.

 

If the voting criteria were mutables (IOW, facts of one's life which are accessible to all), there could be no genuine complaint. I don't agree with the children criteria for this reason. Some people are infertile .. that's an imutable. I would prefer to see something like completion of high school with a minimum level of literacy and numeracy (exemptions for the medically impaired), a clean personal history with no misbehaviour - criminal or civil, and either personal private property or access/rights to family property. I would also prefer that individuals have a minimum tenure in the location of their vote.

 

The difficulty is that Western culture has abandoned the mechanisms which support self-regulation. Once we became fat and safe, we decided we didn't need to keep adulting at that level. We deemed it 'too hard' 'too restrictive' 'too fun-killing'.

Of course we didn't know that the berserker level of safety we attained after WWII, was going to be very short-lived, and we really didn't care to consider what might happen once that fragile house of cards collapsed.

 

That was said by Winston Churchill, about democracy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ns-or-self-government.603071/#post-1073677139

 

I can't argue that, without question the number of people in our culture who have abandoned the fundamental values that make a society strong and functional has been increasing for a long time. It is at a tipping point, where if something does not happen to restore our support for those things, the curve of decline will accelerate.

We are no stronger, the quality and safety of our society no better than the composite quality and strength of those who make up our society- we, the people.
The place to start- is leadership. The people who make the rules should be held to the highest standards of honor in respecting the rules.
The examples they set in following those standards become more powerful than the rules they write; they in fact tell us if they believe in the rules or are just gaming the people.
When leaders fail to honor the rules- there are no "rules", and society has no choice but to dismiss honor and play the game on those terms.
We need a way to put teeth in the rules in regards to leaders, because those who evade them aren't fit to hold office. It MUST start at the top- and that's Congress, not the president. .

 

Is there data proving any system is better than another? Can you demonstrate that one version of representative government is better than another version, or a monarchy? I await the data.

 

So you think if service was the path to the voting franchise, only "not college material" would be eligible to vote? No one else would be interested in participating in government?

Actually I recommend now that you read the book.

 

That's another possible version; in the US there is a citizenship test that immigrants have to take and pass to actually get citizenship. If taking and passing that were a requirement for voting that would also be a path to a better and more informed voting public.

 

As you had said, this would depend on how one defined "better." So, there is no real data, other than history, to go by. Hence, there is no compelling rationale for any of your plans, to deny the right to vote, to any who currently hold it. Don't you get that? I do not need to supply any sort of proof, to validate allowing people to retain their voting rights; it is upon anyone who wished to justify removing that right from some citizens, where the burden of proof falls.

 

To quote one of your likely idols, "There you go again." I did not say that only 18 year olds who were " 'not college material,' would be eligible to vote." You had been refencing the Vietnam War--

Lil Mike said: ↑
The Vietnam war was an interesting analogy. It's really the reason we have the 26th Amendment; people didn't want to be drafted and didn't like the idea that they could be drafted and still not be able to vote. Now of course you can vote, but can't drink. That would have not been an issue under a Starship Troopers Republic of course, since those are the people who vote and by extension, make the decisions on going to war--

when I answered:

DEFinning said: ↑
So you would leave the decision to go to war, up to a disproportionately large number of 18 year olds, who were not college material. Interesting. Does it not bother you that this is directly contradictory to your other stipulated change to voting, of postponing that right, until people reach the age of 30?
[End]

Are you trying to contend, at the time of the start of the Vietnam War:
1) The number of 18 year olds, in the military was not disproportionate, to their percentage of society, on the whole?
2) Of 18 year olds (& other young members of the armed forces), the majority were those who were clear college bound students, but who joined the military in order to get money for college, because they could not afford it?

I would guess that, at that time, most young men in the military were there as an alternative to college. My main point, though, had been that this one system you suggest, leaves voting to a group that is proportionally high in younger people (not to mention, disproportionately male), while the other primary method you offered-- only people over 30-- clearly suggests that you feel younger voters are not as sagacious, in their voting choices, as people with more experience. So your two criteria, obviously, contradict one another. Get it?

 

Then I guess you can stop with constant squalling about data. I'm glad you finally recognized your request didn't make sense.

As I said posts ago, this is all theoretical; which polity would provide the greatest good for the greatest number and all that. Obviously I'm not taking anyone's voting away, but if I was starting my own country, this might be how I handle deciding who gets to decide.

 

I'm pretty sure I had mentioned veterans, not just active duty military. Again, since you never understood the Starship Troopers reference, I think it's pointless to go over it with you once again since saying "this one system you suggest, leaves voting to a group that is proportionally high in younger people (not to mention, disproportionately male)" means you still don't understand the concept.

 

I do understand the concept, or else you did an horrendously bad job, explaining it. One last time: this part of our conversation, had to do specifically with the start of the Vietnam War (that is, Pres. Johnson's great escalation, due to the Gulf of Tonkin incident). Is it not fair to say, at that juncture, that all military and veterans, were overwhelmingly male, as compared to the overall population of the country? As long as you understand that concept of proportionality, you likewise cannot deny that the percentage of young men, among those "Troopers," was higher than the percentage of people that age, & especially young men, in the general population.

This is the concept-- which is one that should be understood by every High School graduate, w/out need of any special references-- that your own comments, indicate you are unable to grasp. Are there proportionately more 17 - 22 year olds among the general population (everyone from the age of 0 to 100), or among both active and former military (17 - 100)? The answer, is the latter. But as long as you have so dragged out admitting this obvious fact, I will add the clear gender bias that your system would install. Unless women were to buck their natural proclivities regarding military service-- in relation to those of men, prior to your advocated change-- your proposed system would largely be stripping away the right to vote, back from women.

This thread, BTW, clearly is focused on actual countries, specifically the U.S., not on new, make-believe nations, with each of us as the omnipotent power, determining their structures.

EDIT:

 

I acknowledged I didn't explain it well since you are still ranting about issues I thought we had gone over. On the Vietnam War, this is what I said.

Since I've already explained your "17 - 22 year olds" issue, I suppose either at this point either you are not going to get it, in which case again I apologize, or you are purposely being obtuse, which based on your previous posting history, is also likely. Meanwhile you've made zero contributions to the topic.

 

Would that, on occasion, at least, you really did understand those things, which you give pretense to understanding. I am not saying that my request didn't make sense. I will dumb this down for you: right now, every American (essentially) 18 or over, has the right to vote. If anyone is recommending some new system, in which not all those people would still, automatically, qualify as voters-- FYI, this would include you-- then it is incumbent on that person to give an impelling reason, for restricting voting rights. If I am not advocating any restriction, then I have no need to show cause, for not restricting them. You still lost?

 

1) We're definitely at tipping point. The next few years are going to be brutal for those who've convinced themselves nothing bad could happen - but even if it does, Govt will save them. Many still can't/won't make the connection between their daily actions, and their chances of weathering tomorrow.

2) I don't believe leadership can change anything, to be fair. If you construct a society which reinforces the disconnection mentioned above (by protecting people from the consequences of their actions), that's the only message they'll take away. The personal integrity of a leader might help a little, but ultimately it's the full bellies and sound sleeps which direct us. The only thing that might steer us back onto the path of our own personal integrity, is the very disaster we're now entering. We need to feel hungry and be afraid to sleep, to remember WHY other cultures are 'restrictive' etc. We need to grow up again.

 

That's a good one. Functional literacy, geography, numeracy etc appear to be lacking in some otherwise 'normal' adults in America. I do still like the property one, though. While it's increasingly out of reach for the lower income sector, they can still purchase houses for $10k way out in the boonies, while renting elsewhere. The point of the exercise is to have skin in the game. Private property changes your perspective and improves your 'maturity', far more than most people realise. It forces you to take more things into consideration than just trends and feelings.

 

How does reposting something that I have already read, "explain" anything? Where, in your following repost, do you explain that the electorate-- in the system you are apparently borrowing, from elsewhere-- would not be proportionately higher in YOUNG (male) voters, as compared to the electorate, based on CURRENT law?

Lil Mike said: ↑
The Vietnam war was an interesting analogy. It's really the reason we have the 26th Amendment; people didn't want to be drafted and didn't like the idea that they could be drafted and still not be able to vote. Now of course you can vote, but can't drink. That would have not been an issue under a Starship Troopers Republic of course, since those are the people who vote and by extension, make the decisions on going to war.

[End]


While I understand the sentiment, that those who would do the actual fighting and dying, in a war, might have their opinions given special weight, it does not logically follow that this same group should be the voters whose is the only voice being represented in all electoral politics. You could simply suggest a change to the Constitution, when going to war is at issue, making requisite a positive polling of all military personnel. As a veteran yourself, however, I'm sure you understand that this is utterly contrary to the tradition of the military, which is not in the least bit, governed by democratic principles.

 

As I said in post #39 (which I will avoid reposting to prevent another triggering episode by you) I'm sorry if you don't understand.

 

While i understand your perspective, and agree with it in general- this nation is worth too much to give up on it. I for one feel like we have to try to bring it back on course. I've been part of a group working on this for more than a decade, and just in the last year we've taken a whole new approach to the problem that we think has a solid chance of working, and a fair chance of being put into place. The trick is to change leadership. Not so much different people, but a way to change thinking and conduct. The psychology behind all this stuff is complicated, but it all distills down to a pretty simple source; kind of a magic bullet. You've heard the old saying of the deal you can't refuse? That's what we knew ti would have to be, and it is. It's ready now; we will be taking this public as soon as production and developing are completed. Nothing in it for us, this is for the future and our great-grandchildren.

 

Though you never actually explained your mathematics-- is that the word, of which you fail to grasp the meaning?-- I, nevertheless, researched it, in lieu of your explaining yourself, and I will here admit that, as counterintuitive as this seems to me, and though over 60% of our current military is under 30 (and 15% of our veterans), this does not represent too significantly greater a percentage of young voters, than our current electorate, which is composed of about 17% who are under 30.

So I will drop that critique of your inconsistency, between your various suggestions, though if your military service system of voting were to take effect, this could easily change. Yet, as we have no way to predict what would happen, I will stick to my original criticism, that you would be restricting the right of voting, without giving any evidence that your depriving some of voting (variously, either until they reached 30, or had a family, or joined the military), you offer no compelling evidence for this restriction.

(Once again, anyone not advocating the limiting of voting, to fewer than those who currently enjoy that right, has no need of proving anything).

 

Absolutely. Giving up isn't an option!

I guess my view is that it has to come from the ground. I don't think it can actually come from the top, because the top is now locked into being 'daddy' to the masses. Generations of dependence means even the most honourable leader and leadership, is now obliged to keep carrying the dependent. That just reinforces the message ... we need do nothing to save ourselves.

The solution (for want of a better word) is likely going to be the same organic "hard times" which have always produced alterations in the evolutionary course. Hard times create strong men .... etc etc.

 

I would have opposed the American revolution if given the choice, but ultimately I would have just been one of the third of people who left the colonies rather than replace one entitled person with a legion of them as my masters.

 

This may be a shock to you, but no one has to justify anything to you. Odd that you've not been on @AmericanNationalist 's back about a monarchy that would remove everyone's vote. Anyway, I've explained the theory and you never really understood it, so it doesn't seem like you are going to. If there is any question it's why this suggestion triggers you so. It's not about limiting votes, since as I've already mentioned you're not concerned about a monarchy eliminating everyone's vote, and I had previously mentioned another idea about limiting the vote to those who pass the citizenship test, again not a peep...no it's either the military, or veterans, or both together that sticks in your craw. Why don't you explain what problem you have about them and maybe I can understand why you are so freaked out about this, and only this, suggestion?

 

To anyone reading your reply, here, it is clearly YOU who is "triggered," or "freaked out." I don't consider asking you to explain your rationale-- beyond just your saying, "Starship Troopers"-- as being "on (your) back." You keep maintaining that you have explained your idea, but have never addressed my main point, of why you believe there is any mandate for your idea, as it is all about restricting voting. I understand that, just fine, despite your unwillingness to accept it.

Of course you don't need to justify anything to me (this does not "shock" me, FYI); it is the way that debates work, however, and I took your posting here as acknowledgement that you had been willing, to debate your suggestion.

Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but I am under no compulsion to explain to you, why I am questioning you, and not someone else-- it is not for you to dictate, how I participate in this thread. But I have no problem explaining, if that will make you feel better.

Ironically, what probably drew me first to your suggestion, included my expectation that it should be something that could readily be resolved, because it was so straightforward. I had, BTW, replied directly to the OP, as well-- see post #2. American Nationalist replied to me, in post #11:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ns-or-self-government.603071/#post-1073676586

If you read this response, you should be able to recognize that it covers sundry ideas, and also mixes up, in part, Golem's reply with my own. IOW, it is, on its face, not a simple, single, clear idea, such as your: "The key is the electorate. Who gets the vote? Who gets to participate in the political process? There are a lot of ways to cut that pie (post #12.)" As to why I didn't jump on your "citizenship test," the answer is simple: I had yet to resolve the first issue I had, with your initial suggestion. Does it seem odd to you, that someone would want to proceed one issue at a time, sequentially, rather than bounce from one argument to another, without ever reaching a resolution?

If you have no explanation of why "the key is the electorate," and no desire to defend the picking and choosing of "who gets to vote," that is fine. You could have perhaps responded more clearly, from the beginning, saying, as you do here, that you don't feel the need to explain your rationale to me (or to anyone). This would have ended my replying much more efficiently, especially if you didn't lace your begging off of giving any further argument in support of your announced concept, with attempted slights against me, as I have previously covered (so please, rather than making me repeat what I have already spelled out, go back & reread my replies, if you are not aware of what belittling comments of yours, I am referring to, here).

I hope you get your air conditioner fixed, or resolve whatever difficulty it is that has you so irritable, at merely being asked to support your argument.