This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Heckler
A couple good articles to read:
Wall Street Isn't Winning – It's Cheating
, Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone 25-Oct
When you take into consideration all the theft and fraud and market manipulation and other evil sh** Wall Street bankers have been guilty of in the last ten-fifteen years, you have to have balls like church bells to trot out a propaganda line that says the protesters are just jealous of their hard-earned money.
People aren't jealous and they don’t want privileges. They just want a level playing field, and they want Wall Street to give up its cheat codes, things like: Free Money ... Credit Amnesty ... Stupidity Insurance ... Ungraduated Taxes ... Get Out of Jail Free ...
People don't want handouts. It's not a class uprising and they don't want civil war -- they want just the opposite. They want everyone to live in the same country, and live by the same rules. It's amazing that some people think that that's asking a lot.
Crony Capitalism Comes Home
, Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times 26-Oct
Whenever I write about Occupy Wall Street, some readers ask me if the protesters really are half-naked Communists aiming to bring down the American economic system when they’re not doing drugs or having sex in public.
The answer is no. That alarmist view of the movement is a credit to the (prurient) imagination of its critics, and voyeurs of Occupy Wall Street will be disappointed. More important, while alarmists seem to think that the movement is a “mob” trying to overthrow capitalism, one can make a case that, on the contrary, it highlights the need to restore basic capitalist principles like accountability.
To put it another way, this is a chance to save capitalism from crony capitalists.
Post by
Jubilee
I don't think ignorance should be represented in our government.
Thankfully the constitution protects people from what you think they deserve or don't deserve.
Thankfully? Protection from me?
Here, let's break it down a bit. I'll explain why I think people who choose to be ignorant of politics should not be represented, and you explain why you do think they should be represented.
I think that people who choose to remain ignorant of politics should not be allowed to vote because they cannot be accurately represented. The term "taxation without representation" indicates that an individual should be allowed to choose people to represent them in government. Therefore, a person who is completely ignorant of politics cannot be represented in government unless they vote for a person whose platform is one of self professed ignorance. Much of OWS is protesting the large amounts of money invested into politics. The huge amounts of money are a problem because they can overcome smaller amounts of money due to people's easily influenced opinions, due to ignorance. Certainly, responsible government can only be expected from an electorate with at least a cursory understanding of government. Much of the targeted electorate is the ignorant, to be pried and pushed by ads and catch phrases (Hope and Change, Yes we Can, Yes America Can, Country First, etc). By either demanding that the electorate pay attention, or be eliminated from the voting block, we can expect a massive reform in government. We can expect politicians who understand that the electorate is paying attention to more of the facts, and less of the smiles and slogans.
If they are voting they have made a decision. It's not your place to determine whether that decision was informed enough according to your standards. Their lives are affected just as much as everyone else's, so deserve just as much say. If they freely choose to not participate, I don't see a problem. The problem I find so repulsive is when people, oh so nobly, come to the rescue and try to save other people from their own ignorance by taking away their rights. Women, blacks, the poor. The exact same arguments you are using were used to keep those people from voting too.
Post by
Squishalot
Voting for no one isn't the same as not voting... right? Does Australia not have Write-ins where someone could write "Herman G. Notreal" or maybe "Myself" for Senate?
Seems to me we should be finding ways to positively encourage voting and being informed, not negatively punishing apathy or ignorance. Sort of like you can't force Democracy onto a country from without, I don't think you can force democratic ideals into a people through coercion or force. It's quite possible there's some level of intelligence between 0 and maximum where you are
more
of a political danger, not less -- most radicals are not completely ignorant of politics for example.
You can submit a blank ballot or scribble your own name on the paper, but it has as much influence over the vote counting (i.e. your vote is discarded) as abstention in the first place, which is why some people do it, but others who would otherwise absent themselves instead vote for fringe players whom they think won't make a difference.
I agree that we should be finding ways to positively inform, but by the same token, we elect representatives because as individuals, we don't have the time to inform ourselves on each and every national (or state level) pressing issue.
Once upon a time ago, I used to think that the best way to get the country 'working as intended' would be to hold a referendum-style vote for every bill to pass Parliament. Requiring two votes on each issue and allowing abstention would ensure that only those who are informed and want to make a decision on the issue will vote, and those who don't like the result of the first vote to step up and vote it down in the second if they feel strongly enough. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see how that doesn't really work, from a practical perspective, but the concept has merits in some specific 'big ticket' cases, where we wouldn't necessarily want to entrust our vote in a party-following representative.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
706709
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The problem I find so repulsive is when people, oh so nobly, come to the rescue and try to save other people from their own ignorance by taking away their rights. Women, blacks, the poor. The exact same arguments you are using were used to keep those people from voting too.This is not a racism thing... or a sexist thing. Please don't make it into one. I'd be just fine taking away a rich white Christian man's vote as I would a poor black Muslim woman's vote, if neither had any idea what they were voting for. I detest racism and sexism, just as much as you, count on that. I'm a bit bothered by your implied judgement of me. I don't detest black. I don't detest women. I detest ignorance.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
The problem I find so repulsive is when people, oh so nobly, come to the rescue and try to save other people from their own ignorance by taking away their rights. Women, blacks, the poor. The exact same arguments you are using were used to keep those people from voting too.This is not a racism thing... or a sexist thing. Please don't make it into one. I'd be just fine taking away a rich white Christian man's vote as I would a poor black Muslim woman's vote, if neither had any idea what they were voting for. I detest racism and sexism, just as much as you, count on that. I'm a bit bothered by your implied judgement of me. I don't detest black. I don't detest women. I detest ignorance.
Pretty much what Pikeyboy said.
I'm a bit bothered by the fact that anything I say will and can be interpreted by you as somehow tarnishing your character. I didn't imply that you were a racist or a sexist anywhere. I implied that you were discriminating just like those two discriminate. You don't need to be a racist to be a sexist, you don't need to be a sexist to be a racist, and you don't need to be a racist or a sexist to discriminate against some other group of people.
Post by
MyTie
Pretty much what Pikeyboy said.
I'm a bit bothered by the fact that anything I say will and can be interpreted by you as somehow tarnishing your character. I didn't imply that you were a racist or a sexist anywhere. I implied that you were discriminating just like those two discriminate.
Sorry. I just found it a little tough to swallow when you equated my arguments to arguments for bigotry, even though you weren't calling me a bigot, it seems, somehow.
Edit: And the discrimination would not be the same as the discrimination against blacks. I think it would be discrimination, but one that makes sense, such as the current discrimination against felons.
Anyway, addressing pikeyboy's point:If you really detest ignorance, you should campaign for better education, or at least support those who do. If there is "no money" to pay for that education, where did it go, and what did it buy instead?We (USA) spend more money per capita on education than any other country (
source
). More money does not necessarily mean better education. While I do agree that education will solve ignorance, I believe that awarness of politics should come from self education, not government provided education. Certainly, it could create a conflict of interest if the government is educating general voters about politics. I believe that is called propaganda. I think the poor education in america is a cultural thing, not a monetary thing (not that we are not being accountable for the monetary end of it). Further, I think that people's lack of knowledge about politics comes from a disinterest, not a lack of opportunity to learn. If people are disinterested in the facts, why do they vote? No votes= disorder, for obvious reasons. You don't like disorder Mytie. I'm not advocating for no votes, just no ignorant votes.The country you live in is already using its internal security forces to suppress peaceful protest and dissent in the same way as North Africa and the middle east (minus the live rounds so far, thankfully).That is quite a big difference you mentioned there. Let's not forget the amount of patience that is being shown to the protesters. Your analogy looks a bit like this: Mr.Rogers was exactly like Ted Bundy, except for the whole murderer thing.Your proposal to restrict voting would make that situation much worse.The way that government cracks down would get worse, or the amount of protests would get worse? I find it interesting that people would go through so much effort to protest against being excluded for ignorance, but so little effort reading a little basic information (such as "who is the current president").
In all of this, I really am playing the devil's advocate. There is one argument that is glaring everyone in the face, and I'm a little surprised it hasn't been highlighted more often: Government abuse. If government organizes elections, and government would distribute a knowledge test, what would stop government from becoming corrupt, and changing the test to one that only a certain voter block could pass, particularly: a voter block sympathetic to the incumbent party.
Post by
Patty
MyTie, your link is to health, not education.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, your link is to health, not education.
Oh, lol. Sorry. I thought it sounded wrong anyway. I was surprised by it. We do spend the most, but not the most per capita, nor the most by % of GDP.
Proper source
. Anyway, I stand by my point that throwing more money at it isn't going to somehow fix the problem.
Post by
Patty
Well, that's from 10 years ago. Naturally, in the last 10 years, that figure may have changed considerably. And more money on its own won't solve the problem - you need competent, enthusiastic teachers and co-operative parents. But more funding
will
provide more resources, which may help.
Post by
Jubilee
Edit: And the discrimination would not be the same as the discrimination against blacks. I think it would be discrimination, but one that makes sense, such as the current discrimination against felons.
That's exactly what they would say. Discrimination of women makes sense because their place is in the home not in politics. What makes your discrimination any more righteous than theirs?
Post by
MyTie
Well, that's from 10 years ago. Naturally, in the last 10 years, that figure may have changed considerably. And more money on its own won't solve the problem - you need competent, enthusiastic teachers and co-operative parents. But more funding
will
provide more resources, which may help.
I don't understand how throwing more money onto K-12 education will cause adults to pay attention to politics more. We provide 12 free years of education. If in 12 years we cannot teach people basic spelling, math, and who the current president is, I don't think the problem is a lack of resources.
Post by
Patty
Well, that's from 10 years ago. Naturally, in the last 10 years, that figure may have changed considerably. And more money on its own won't solve the problem - you need competent, enthusiastic teachers and co-operative parents. But more funding
will
provide more resources, which may help.
I don't understand how throwing more money onto K-12 education will cause adults to pay attention to politics more. We provide 12 free years of education. If in 12 years we cannot teach people basic spelling, math, and who the current president is, I don't think the problem is a lack of resources.I never said the problem was a lack of resources. I said more resources may help engage children more, which is one of the real problems.
Post by
Heckler
That's exactly what they would say. Discrimination of women makes sense because their place is in the home not in politics. What makes your discrimination any more righteous than theirs?
Especially given the subjective definition of "ignorance" in use. Every single one of us is guilty of
some level
of ignorance in politics, and therefore it's wholly improper for
any
of us to draw a line at how much ignorance is acceptable or unacceptable. Anyone who truly detests ignorance could spend his entire life trying to rid his own mind of its scourge (without success).
I read a fascinating article about OLSX (
Chancellor Giles Fraser Resigns from St. Paul’s Cathedral Staff
, firedoglake.com). It's worth reading, but a quick summary: the Chancellor of a Cathedral near the protests has stepped down, because he feels action will be taken by the cathedral and Corporation of London in the coming days which will result in violence, and they have removed his ability to try to prevent it.
Here's a really interesting quote in the article from the Chancellor, 16 Jun 2010 (prior to OWS, or accepting the Chancellorship):
The Bible says a lot more about money and wealth than it does about sex. Despite the churches’ pathetic obsession with what people do with their willies, we ought to be a lot more concerned with what people do with their wallets. Indeed, many are perfectly happy to accept unquestioningly the apparently plain meaning of anti-gay scripture, yet, when they are faced with Jesus telling the rich man that the only way for him to get to heaven is to give all his money away, they duck and dive and allegorise. But despite this slipperiness, it remains true that the best way to assess what someone believes is to look through their bank statement. Forget fancy words and sermons, money is the way we mean it – or we don’t. Money is the sacrament of moral seriousness.
Despite its antiquity, the well-known Old Testament story of the people of Israel living off manna in the desert remains God’s object lesson in alternative economics. In contrast to the Egyptian economy, where many had become slaves to the acquisition of wealth stored up in large barns, in the desert God offers food that cannot be stored. Those who gather more manna than they need will find that it has turned to worms by the morning. There is no possibility of storing and hoarding. In other words, there is such a thing as having enough. This is what Jesus had in mind when he advised his followers to live like lilies and birds, who are singularly uninterested in piling up their wealth in barns – or offshore bank accounts.
Here's an
alternative source for the same story
, from The Guardian.
Post by
MyTie
Edit: And the discrimination would not be the same as the discrimination against blacks. I think it would be discrimination, but one that makes sense, such as the current discrimination against felons.
That's exactly what they would say. Discrimination of women makes sense because their place is in the home not in politics. What makes your discrimination any more righteous than theirs?
I love how your terminology paints me as some sort of crusading paladin, and not without sarcasm. "oh so nobly", and my "righteous" discrimination. I feel like the villain off of Hunchback of Notre Dame.
The difference is that women are a positive force that should be represented in politics. Ignorant people cannot be described as a "positive force" that need to be represented. Further, I'm suggesting eliminating the kind of ignorance that could be resolved by reading for 15 minutes on wikipedia.
A person completely ignorant of politics walks into a voting booth, and marks the names he saw the most on the side of the road, or TV ads. That is a choice on that person to not get more information. I will stand by my subjective opinion that if a person makes a choice not to understand the consequences of the vote, that person should not be allowed to vote.
Why do you keep making bigot analogies? They don't fit. You insist you aren't trying to paint me as a bigot, then you throw bigot questions at me with overtones of religious intolerance. Not really cool, thinly veiled as they are.
Post by
MyTie
That's exactly what they would say. Discrimination of women makes sense because their place is in the home not in politics. What makes your discrimination any more righteous than theirs?
Especially given the subjective definition of "ignorance" in use. Every single one of us is guilty of
some level
of ignorance in politics, and therefore it's wholly improper for
any
of us to draw a line at how much ignorance is acceptable or unacceptable. Anyone who truly detests ignorance could spend his entire life trying to rid his own mind of its scourge (without success).
Certainly a tolerable level of ignorance exists, but finding that level is a matter of subjective opinion, as you point out. However, it may not be necessary to find that line. Can't we agree that not knowing the "number of states in the union" is an unacceptable level of ignorance? We may not be able to know how FAR we can push that level of unacceptability, but we may at least be able to agree that there is a level.
By the way, are you talking to me yet, or am I to immature still?
Post by
gamerunknown
^ The problem is resolved by referendum on platforms. One doesn't need to know how many states there are in the country to have an opinion on the death penalty (even an informed opinion), for example. If platforms were separated and politicians were made to actually adhere to the will of the people then separate tests could be made for understanding of those issues. By the way, the voting rights act covered your criticism about how the government might apply tests selectively: in the South, the Democrats often gave literacy tests to blacks as they couldn't spell as well and generally voted for Republicans* (up to Kennedy I think).
I think it's impossible to pin down any one trait to call "general intelligence" and it may be impossible to pin down political ignorance too. Pretty much anyone that can operate independently will have a position on the ways the government affects their life.
Oh yeah: here's a discussion about attainment in education that is kinda
pertinent
.
Edit: *Correction.
Post by
MyTie
gamerunknown: Agreed. There is a possibility to abuse such a test, which means I would never support an actual test. In the end, although there is currently no way to justly enact such a move, I believe that woefully ignorant people should not be allowed to vote.
Has there been any study on political ignorance, and which voting demographics are associated with the ignorance?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.