Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The problem with only letting a small subset of people vote is that there will be enormous pressure to take certain people out of that subset who don't think like you.

the guy who posted this threat is a complete retard. there are so many things wrong wit what you said. one of the things that stood out to me the most was that in democracy we only have the choice of yes or no and there's no debating. but if you werent stupid as shit, you'd know that all the laws that are made that go through congress are debated before they are voted on, and changes are made. want a recent example? the wall street bailout; they debated on it, they voted no, so they changed it, and they voted again, and it passed. at least we have a fuckin choice. in many countries the citizens don't even get to say yes or no. you're jus another dumbass trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about when really he has shit of a clue.

At 11/7/08 11:03 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Damn straight I do. And if you have any sense, YOU WILL TOO.

Does it surprise anyone that Putin is allowing his President (Mr no-name) to re-write the Russian constitution to allow Putin to become President AGAIN.

being Prime-Minister and running _everything_ from the shadows is not enough it seems..

At 11/7/08 07:46 PM, T-W-I-D wrote: want a recent example? the wall street bailout; they debated on it, they voted no, so they changed it, and they voted again, and it passed. at least we have a fuckin choice. in many countries the citizens don't even get to say yes or no. you're jus another dumbass trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about when really he has shit of a clue.

You can't be FUCKEN serious. Bailout 2.0 was a cash handout for everyone who voted against Bailout 1.0.

NICE DEMOCATIC PROCESS!!

At 11/7/08 05:07 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 11/7/08 04:53 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: It's funny how funk ended up supporting utopical socialists, equal opportunities, etc.

Wait wut? Where? I .... I hate all life... this... this cannot be!

It certainly is; Saint-Simon (French), who set the base for the popular "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", founder of the utopic socialism, positivism, and some even say founder of Sociology itself, believed that the best (the most rational) from of government was the one in which the "wise" ruled. He, along with his secretary, Comte, were Technocratic (but Saint-Simon was more meritocratic, since he believed that these experts should come from all social classes, since people should be given equal opportunities). The World would then be ruled by a great "Council of Newton", and Order and Progress would take place.

Far as I see, there's a huge hole in your problem: what's to stop the smart people in charge from declaring stupidity to be disagreeing with them? it's the same reason that even as a Christian, ESPECIALLY as a Christian I oppose theocracy: you simply can't have a free system where it's feasible for the people in charge to make disagreeing with them unlawful, which is conicidentally why Bush is mere inches away from being a de facto dictator.

There is no perfect government because all governemnt is run by people.

Might as well try to make the best with what you have till you are dead.

Elitism doesn't fly in our over-politically correct society. So unfortunately, the idea of having "rulers" will never fly.

Plus that whole nonsense of "Power corrupts always". Yea, our system is pretty terrible, but it could be a lot worse.

Now, socialism. That's an idea I could get behind.

At 11/7/08 11:03 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Damn straight I do. And if you have any sense, YOU WILL TOO.

For crying out loud. Just say you're mad prop 8 passed and be done with it.

No system, not even democracy, can stop the truly intelligent from ruling. I hate to say you're wrong, FUNKBRS, but you're wrong. Just because the majority that "rules" in a democracy can never be elite, does not mean that the elite do not control the majority. In fact, by the definition of representative democracy, the person who is chosen to represent the majority is elite.

But wait a second, that doesn't mean that the person who is elected is intelligent, does it? Actually, yes, it does. That is because "intelligence" is best defined as the ability to consciously adapt to a given situation. In a democracy, if you want to be in power, you have to convince the majority to vote for you. In some other systems, you have to conspire to take power by force. But regardless of the system, the truly intelligent will always rule, because the truly intelligent are those who best adapt themselves to the situation, or the situation to themselves, whichever is necessary.

History has shown that the intelligent always rise to power, and the only time they are displaced is when someone who is more intelligent (better adapted to the situation) comes along. This even holds true when the presumed leader is actually a puppet *cough* GWB *cough*. Even though the puppet is not intelligent, the puppeteer certainly is.

Watch, he is going to ban everyone who doesnt agree with him.

To say that only the educated should ba able to vote is stupid on at least two levels:
- How do we determine who's intelligent?
- This would lead to poor people's rights plummeting straight down to the industrial standards. The average people would turn back into the enslaved working class they once were.

At 11/8/08 01:17 AM, AbstractVagabond wrote to the O.P.:

For crying out loud. Just say you're mad prop 8 passed and be done with it.

He might be. If so, he has a good point.

The U.S. is not a Democracy, it's a Representative Republic for precisely that reason: why should a majority have the right to take away the rights of a minority? You've heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority"? That's what Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche and others were warning us about.

I'm not sure whether the Democracy Meme was set loose to run through U.S. culture as part of a conspiracy, or if it just popped up on its own, but if it wasn't a conspiracy it might as well have been. Those in power love it. Little is easier than scaring sheeple into giving away their neighbors' freedoms.

* * *

I believe there should be some kind of minimum qualification to vote. The idea that someone like T-W-I-D (see above--he might be a kid, but he'll still be a moron when he reaches the age of 18) has exactly the same vote as someone who knows the difference between a Democracy and a Republic should scare anyone who gives it a moment's thought...

Incidentally, hey T-W-I-D! Tthat example you cited was facepalm stupid. You provided one that's the antithesis of a democratic decision in your support of the Democratic form of government (on top of the fact that our Representatives made a catastrophic decision after being threatened and hammered by lobbyists). Go sit in a corner. While your there, ponder the wonder of your caps key, and the idiocy of calling others "retarded" and "stupid as shit," when obviously, you're stupid as shit.

Pardon me, I digress. Anyway, if we're going to require some kind of qualification to vote, what kind? The original requirement of either being a property owner or paying a minimum amount of taxes doesn't look that bad in hindsight. At least it demonstrates a certain level of functionality. But it's wrong for today, now that we've mortgaged every dysfunctional mope in the country up to the eyeballs (which is one of the reasons our economy is collapsing, but... nevermind).

In Starship Troopers (the book, not the godawful movie allegedly based on it), Robert Heinlein came up with a fairly good one: require government service to vote. It at least demonstrates willingness to put the needs of society ahead of the needs of the self. In another non-fiction essay, Heinlein admitted that his idea was less than perfect, and lamented that he couldn't come up with a better one. But surely, he thought, some kind of minimum requirement should be met.

He was right.

I myself think being able to identify the Bill of Rights would be an improvement. Anyone could learn to do it, possibly even T-W-I-D. At least that would require everyone who wanted to vote to become familiar with it.

Scary fact: in a survey, not only could most Americans not recognize the Bill of Rights, most would not sign a petition to ratify them. They thought the Bill of Rights went too far!

* * *

Heinlein was right: most people are sheep. They hate freedom, and will endeavor to stamp it out wherever it appears.

He was also right about the need for requiring some kind of minimum qualification to vote.

At 11/8/08 04:45 AM, I wrote: The idea that someone like T-W-I-D (see above--he might be a kid, but he'll still be a moron when he reaches the age of 18)...

Sorry for the double post, but Jesus... He's twenty.

I should have looked at his profile before I posted. I figured T-W-I-D was about twelve.

see this all intertwines with the whole freedom thing.

who are you or anyone else to tell me who i have to follow, as a living being, i have a right to know who the hell is gonna be running things here. On the whole id say i live a pretty decent life so far.

and to MultiCanimefan, only white people have the right to vote, blacks have a privilege, we have to have our rights renewed every 26 years so there ya go.

At 11/8/08 09:50 AM, CherinoGears wrote: ...only white people have the right to vote, blacks have a privilege, we have to have our rights renewed every 26 years so there ya go.

What the fuck?

That's the first time I ever heard that nonsense. Turns out it's another fucking lie that "everyone knows." Here's what Snopes has to say about it.

Blacks were given the right to vote with the 15th Amendment in 1865. That's final. Apparently some people are just up in arms over the expiration of the Voting Rights Act of '65, which was never intended to be permanent. All it did was provide federal enforcement when it was needed most. Any citizen (African, Asian, Muslim, Jew, female, gay, etc.) who feels he or she has been discriminated against at the polling place still has the federal courts to fall back on. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't occur (against being a member of the wrong party in some places, too); I'm merely saying it's a no-no regardless.

Special enforcement for Blacks is no longer necessary. Unfortunately, some sort of oversight to ensure fair local voting practices probably is.

I agree that there is a huge problem with idiots controlling the elections, but there is one huge advantage to democracy that everyone seems to overlook.

In a democracy when people are upset with their rulers they will vote against them. In almost any other system they will assassinate their leaders, usually causing civil war. Yes, democracies have their civil wars, but they are almost always more stable than other systems of government.

I agree democracy has its problems, but until i see a better system I will support democracy. However, democracy can be reformed to fit the problem you talk about. Poll tests (i know that back 50 years ago they were used to supress blacks, but I mean it not for that purpose and only for the purpose of supressing idiots.) However the main problem is that a small group of people might abuse the poll tests and use them to keep out the people who disagree with them. That system would just be too vulnerable to corruption.

I just simply cannot think of a system that would solve the problems you talk about without creating problems that are even worse.

A meritocracy or merit-based aristocracy would be the best system if done correctly, but it is very vulnerable to corruption.

At 11/7/08 01:27 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
I'd PREFER a dictatorship, but I'll accept a merit-based aristocracy. (meritocracy sounds gay)

How do we go about convincing the stupid people that they're stupid?

At 11/7/08 11:20 AM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: The alternatives are no better.

you kidding communism works a thousand times better

my opinion is that the success of a true democracy is dependant on the intelligence and political awareness of its general populace. even in a representative democracy or republic, politicians will often support popular views no matter how stupid they are just for the sake of winning support. whilst it might be idealistic i'd say the preffered solution to this problem is not to allow power only to an elite intelligensia, but to do everything possible to educate the masses.
the idea of an oligarchy of intellectuals might have been appealing at say the time of the american and french revolutions, when every second politician seemed to be some genius polymath (imagine someone as smart as jefferson or franklin being in power these days,) but the standards have dropped drastically since. maybe im just cynical but most politicians seem to be in it for the sake of a comforable well paid job rather than with the honest intention of improving peoples standards of living and security these days, with a few exceptions.

At 11/8/08 10:54 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: ...there is one huge advantage to democracy that everyone seems to overlook. / In a democracy when people are upset with their rulers they will vote against them....

That was the idea. As Winston Churchill famously observed (paraphrasing someone else), "...democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The problem is, the two-party system, corporate hegemony and its tool the Mediaocracy have combined to ensure that all new bosses will be Sold-Out Whores.

I think that of Obama too. Why? Because he got his campaign financed and the Mainstream Media pundits didn't laugh him off the stage, that's why.

He'll have to prove me wrong. I hope he does, but I won't be holding my breath. You might have noticed that no matter who wins, the federal government never gets smaller. It never becomes less intrusive either... unless you're a global megacorporation. If you are, the Republicans are your friends.

If you're Joe Schmoe the Unlicensed Plumber, you're shit out of luck.

* * *

At 11/8/08 11:42 AM, freddorfman wrote: ...you kidding communism works a thousand times better

Communism is an economic system, not a political system. The Soviet Union was a Republic with democratically elected leaders, same as the U.S. The only difference was that in the Soviet Union, only one party (by name, anyway) was permitted.

However, the same is true in the U.S. We have only one party with two wings: the Big Government Nanny Party (Democrat), and the Big Government War Party (Republican). It wasn't necessary to ban all others. The Corporatocracy just has its media lapdogs keep the competition off the stage.

Force is not necessary when silence and ridicule work just as well.

But really, I suspect you're just trolling, Dorf. You seem too stupid to be real.

* * *

At 11/8/08 01:43 PM, mrdurgan wrote: my opinion is that the success of a true democracy is dependant on the intelligence and political awareness of its general populace.... i'd say the preffered solution to this problem is not to allow power only to an elite intelligensia, but to do everything possible to educate the masses.

The Founding Fathers would have agreed with you; however, there are two problems:

1) Our Corporate Masters don't want a well-educated public. They want a Public "Education" System that breaks the human spirit and turns out unimaginative drones who have learned to accept the whip, and...

2) You can't educate the stupid. You can teach them to parrot a bit of memorized bullshit by rote, but memorization is not thinking; it's regurgitation.

Good thing we give stupid people lots of self-esteem. That way, they think they're smart, and that anyone who disagrees with the bullshit they memorized by rote is stupid.

The problem isn't the voters, they are fine enough people with good values and a relatively good sense of what's good and bad for the country when it comes to issues, democracy certianly finds it hard to micromanage in its current form, and is limited by being restricted to electing representatives mostly who don't share the values of voters.

The problem with our democracy is mostly the media being controlled by private interests who have no interest in policy that is good for most people, and the private funding of political parties and elections, the other problem is the centralization of authority in our democracy and our economy, which inevitably causes inefficiencies. Most of the important decisions are not made by government but are made by private companies. An economy must be democratic to be legitimate, ours is a fascistic plutocracy that takes little note of the desires of most employees (even that word is loadedly insulting, workers should own their companies and be partners in it's maintenence and development) and does little to involve them in the decision making processes. Give people control of their own workplace and they will care about that workplace, work harder and smarter, leading innovation to new heights.

Nothing that diminishes the concentration of power is possible without reforming the news media through public funding and detachment from the influence of political parties and government in general.

FUNKbrs...I like you, I've been comming here to the newgrounds BBS for years now and you've always been a cool guy.

So when I say this I don't only say it to you but to every person in the United States of America who shares this view.

If you don't like the way something is done in America, you have two options.

1) Take the appropriate actions to change what ever it is that you don't like.

2) Get the fuck out.

Sadly, answer that applies to most peope is the 2nd choice. I'll be the first to tell anybody that America is not perfect, but you need to understand that everything is possible in this country because it's built on the ideals of freedom and perserverance. Anything is possible in America and if you doubt that I'll remind you that Barack Obama is our president elect now and all one needs to do is study the specifics of his campaign to realize that anything is possible and attainable in this country.

So FUNKbrs..which choice? Or are you along with the legion of hopeless other just going to gripe on this internet and solve nothing?

At 11/8/08 04:22 PM, marchohare wrote: That was the idea. As Winston Churchill famously observed (paraphrasing someone else), "...democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The problem is, the two-party system, corporate hegemony and its tool the Mediaocracy have combined to ensure that all new bosses will be Sold-Out Whores.

I must have been working on my last labor of troll love at the same time you were, it's seems in many ways we were of the same mind at the same time.

I think that of Obama too. Why? Because he got his campaign financed and the Mainstream Media pundits didn't laugh him off the stage, that's why.

/agree who is Rahmbo the new cheif of staff? a rabid pro-Isreal policy zealot that's who, and mr. VP Biden? well he's one of the most right wing members of the democratic party when it comes to war issues, so great, new economic agenda and social agenda to some degree, same amoral foreign policy in a shiny new package.

He'll have to prove me wrong. I hope he does, but I won't be holding my breath. You might have noticed that no matter who wins, the federal government never gets smaller. It never becomes less intrusive either... unless you're a global megacorporation. If you are, the Republicans are your friends.

If you're Joe Schmoe the Unlicensed Plumber, you're shit out of luck.

likewise, /agree, though I'm so much an antisize of government guy as I am an anti size of government in it's current form, but then our government agencies operate like little fascist organizations themselves (well the military is one duh but even the post office is hardly a democratic institution) and aught to operate with more input from the people and not just who they elect appointing the leaders of the entire federal government, as well as intraagency democracy by the workers in those agencies would sit well with me, Instead it's all inefficient heirarchy, the pharoh appoints his clerics and they go off to serve the serve their living god with the full intention of only attempting not to be noticed, by not being innovative and taking risks that might get them fired from their cushy job that gaurantees them a multimillion dollar salary in the private sector they regulate once the leave their post.

Communism is an economic system, not a political system. The Soviet Union was a Republic with democratically elected leaders, same as the U.S. The only difference was that in the Soviet Union, only one party (by name, anyway) was permitted.

It would be interesting to see a truelly democratic communism (or capitalism for that matter), not that I care for communism.

However, the same is true in the U.S. We have only one party with two wings: the Big Government Nanny Party (Democrat), and the Big Government War Party (Republican). It wasn't necessary to ban all others. The Corporatocracy just has its media lapdogs keep the competition off the stage.

I think you missperceive (or probably just aren't elaborating your more detailed view) the democratic party and republican parties, the democrats have had a similar track record on aggressive war policy to the repubs and it's the repubs that insist on all the corperate welfare, also if you go to my post in the "abolish the electoral college" forum I threw in some great numbers on how it's red states that eat at the welfare troph of blue state federal taxmoney.

Force is not necessary when silence and ridicule work just as well.

democracy in a capitalist state is just an illusion to keep the plutocrats from getting their heads cut off.

The Founding Fathers would have agreed with you; however, there are two problems:

1) Our Corporate Masters don't want a well-educated public. They want a Public "Education" System that breaks the human spirit and turns out unimaginative drones who have learned to accept the whip, and...

/agree

2) You can't educate the stupid. You can teach them to parrot a bit of memorized bullshit by rote, but memorization is not thinking; it's regurgitation.

Good thing we give stupid people lots of self-esteem. That way, they think they're smart, and that anyone who disagrees with the bullshit they memorized by rote is stupid.

I'm not quite as severe in my estimations of the "stupid" though I do find the emphasis in our education system on memorization increases the stupidity of the students that need to be working out what brains they have to advance beyond their starting intelligence. I also don't think promoting self-esteem is bad, as people with better self-esteem preform all tasks better than the depressed, mind over matter after all, there was an interesting study just done that seems to show that people that can lie to themselves are more successful in most all things than people who can't and are happier. (I'm terrible at lying to myself, explains alot)

At 11/8/08 04:55 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: FUNKbrs...I like you, I've been comming here to the newgrounds BBS for years now and you've always been a cool guy.

So when I say this I don't only say it to you but to every person in the United States of America who shares this view.

If you don't like the way something is done in America, you have two options.

1) Take the appropriate actions to change what ever it is that you don't like.

2) Get the fuck out.

Sadly, answer that applies to most peope is the 2nd choice. I'll be the first to tell anybody that America is not perfect, but you need to understand that everything is possible in this country because it's built on the ideals of freedom and perserverance. Anything is possible in America and if you doubt that I'll remind you that Barack Obama is our president elect now and all one needs to do is study the specifics of his campaign to realize that anything is possible and attainable in this country.

So FUNKbrs..which choice? Or are you along with the legion of hopeless other just going to gripe on this internet and solve nothing?

What is wrong with them talking about their opinions here? As mentioned if people don't understand the issues democracy doesn't work. On this thread i see people intelligently talking about political issues. People who talk about issues in an open and public forum are essential.

At 11/8/08 05:07 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:
What is wrong with them talking about their opinions here? As mentioned if people don't understand the issues democracy doesn't work. On this thread i see people intelligently talking about political issues. People who talk about issues in an open and public forum are essential.

If you hate democracy and the way it works, either try and change is or leave the United States. It's that simple. Talking solves and proves nothing. Sure express your opinions thats fine but don't be a hypocrite about it. I'm sick of people bad mouthing America, and the majority of people who do it our Americans! Thats insane to me, land of opportunity is not just some line they feed us in speeches, it's the truth.

I love America I'm not asshamed to say that. Sure it's not perfect but the beauty of the whole thing is we have the capacity to change whatever is wrong. So sure voice your problems thats important but act to change them, otherwise your just a crybaby.

I am an American and I do not hate America by any means. Yes, there have been human rights abuses such as slavery, genocide of native people, and disgraces like Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo Bay; but America is still a great nation.

Hating democracy does not mean hating America. In my opinion the biggest problem in America is that we do not challenge the most basic assumptions. No matter how obvious an answer seems you must question it. I have questioned whether or not democracy, slavery, charity, genocide, or other practices should be carried out, no matter what the connotation is behind the words. I have questioned whether or not 1+1=2, and I have come to the conclusion that one plus one does indeed equal two.

No matter what idea has been spoon fed to you in the past, question it. Question all. That is what should be the American Way.

At 11/8/08 04:22 PM, marchohare wrote:

The Founding Fathers would have agreed with you; however, there are two problems:

1) Our Corporate Masters don't want a well-educated public. They want a Public "Education" System that breaks the human spirit and turns out unimaginative drones who have learned to accept the whip

exactly, im not expecting this 'intelligising' to ever be led by a government or education system, they have too much invested in keeping us ignorant of the system which has so much control over our lives. it would probably only be possibly through a grassroots movement from the people themselves. as i said, im idealistic in this respect =P.

2) You can't educate the stupid. You can teach them to parrot a bit of memorized bullshit by rote, but memorization is not thinking; it's regurgitation.

no, but you can often educate the ignorant. if as many people as possible are willing to and have the means to properly understand the political situation, we will be all the better for it.

At 11/7/08 11:26 AM, poxpower wrote: I tend to agree.

So.

How do we determine who's smart and educated enough to vote?

I propose a race around the world. I shall depart from London on the morrow.