Damn illegal alien... Catholic.. nuns... no vote for you!
-
Patrick S wrote:
Unless you actually had access to that list (and I suppose an unscrupulous politician might), it would be very difficult to vote in thousands of other people's names
The classic citation for this is Mayor Daley's Chicago in 1960. Kennedy was so popular a candidate there, apparently, that the dead climbed out of their graves and voted for him - enough so that Chicago's vote overwhelemd the southern Illinois vote for Nixon. And Illiois's vote determined that Kennedy would be the next President. Ask yourself how much of today's world was determined by that voter fraud. Ask yourself how much of the last eight years was determined by the highly irregular election of 2000 in a few counties in the single state of Florida, or the last four years by the outcome of the election of 2004 in the state of Ohio. It seems to mde that photo ID would have stopped Daley cold (for better or worse.) and might have insured that a lot of voters in Florida were not challenged or intimidated into not voting.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The classic citation for this is Mayor Daley's Chicago in 1960.
Fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
It seems to mde that photo ID would have stopped Daley cold (for better or worse.) and might have insured that a lot of voters in Florida were not challenged or intimidated into not voting.
Ok, so here's the real challenge. Can there be any other way to do it that doesn't require a voter to present ID at the poll? (You could require them to do so anywhere else, but not at the poll). Can you think of one? What I'm getting at is that if, after serious consideration and alot of study, we determine that yeah, in today's world, an ID requirement really is the best way to go, then I'll acquiesce. It seems to me, though, that much of the call for an ID is a knee-jerk reaction.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
But it is one of, or the, primary forms of voter fraud that is being targetted. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Actually, I'm not sure what leads you to believe this is a worse problem now than it has ever been. I don't say this as an indictment against you - actually, I'm pointing out a possible gap in my own knowledge. I really have no idea where this sudden paranoia about voter fraud is coming from. It's something that has existed since the founding the United States, in small degrees, and I'm not sure where the perception that it is worse now, or should be dealt with more stringently, is coming from.
Oakman wrote:
As to "strict voter ID," I am afraid I see a requirement to have a photo ID in the 21st century to be a minimal intrusion into the process, especially since the state is will to provide the ID for free.
I point to my prior answer regarding my experience at the polls in Maryland. And I'll add, not all states provide a free ID. If one is required to exercise a civil right, it should be provided free of charge.
Oakman wrote:
And eliminating voter fraud is an excellent step in that direction.
That's the thing though - it can't be completely eliminated without becoming the very dictatorships we decry. There's a diminishing return on the attempt to crush voter fraud, and there's no evidence that it's so widespread a problem as to require this kind of response.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Actually, I'm not sure what leads you to believe this is a worse problem now than it has ever been.
Never before have we had a large block of illegal aliens accustomed to exercising the rights of citizens while remaining loyal to another country. Photo ID won't catch all of them, by any stretch of the imagination, but it will lessen their impact on the elections. As to better or worse, I have in another post mentioned three national elections that either were or could have been decided by voter fraud in a few key precincts.
Patrick S wrote:
I point to my prior answer regarding my experience at the polls in Maryland
I was struck with how easily circumvented Maryland's precautions could be circumvented. I can only hope it is not a swing state.
Patrick S wrote:
If one is required to exercise a civil right, it should be provided free of charge.
In my long and dissolute past, I have learned that more fights, including wars, have been waged because someone decided that something "should" be done than any other reason. It is a word that falls easily onto the page when you are writing. Perhaps you'd like to start offering up more reasons for your "shoulds" than speaking ex cathedra from your navel? If for no other reason that to stop setting off warning bells when I read your missives?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
The classic citation for this is Mayor Daley's Chicago in 1960.
Fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
It seems to mde that photo ID would have stopped Daley cold (for better or worse.) and might have insured that a lot of voters in Florida were not challenged or intimidated into not voting.
Ok, so here's the real challenge. Can there be any other way to do it that doesn't require a voter to present ID at the poll? (You could require them to do so anywhere else, but not at the poll). Can you think of one? What I'm getting at is that if, after serious consideration and alot of study, we determine that yeah, in today's world, an ID requirement really is the best way to go, then I'll acquiesce. It seems to me, though, that much of the call for an ID is a knee-jerk reaction.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Can there be any other way to do it that doesn't require a voter to present ID at the poll?
Why would that make life easier? South Carolina has exactly the system you seem to favor (so that they can check to make sure your license/ID is valid) but since the voting card they issue is not a photo ID, it becomes relatively easily forgeable. And the hassle for the ancient, crippled, blind, nuns of the world has been increased, not decreased.
Patrick S wrote:
What I'm getting at is that if, after serious consideration and alot of study, we determine that yeah, in today's world, an ID requirement really is the best way to go, then I'll acquiesce. It seems to me, though, that much of the call for an ID is a knee-jerk reaction.
Some of us have lived long enough to believe that not every decision has to be made by consensus in a committee.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
Actually, I'm not sure what leads you to believe this is a worse problem now than it has ever been.
Never before have we had a large block of illegal aliens accustomed to exercising the rights of citizens while remaining loyal to another country. Photo ID won't catch all of them, by any stretch of the imagination, but it will lessen their impact on the elections. As to better or worse, I have in another post mentioned three national elections that either were or could have been decided by voter fraud in a few key precincts.
Patrick S wrote:
I point to my prior answer regarding my experience at the polls in Maryland
I was struck with how easily circumvented Maryland's precautions could be circumvented. I can only hope it is not a swing state.
Patrick S wrote:
If one is required to exercise a civil right, it should be provided free of charge.
In my long and dissolute past, I have learned that more fights, including wars, have been waged because someone decided that something "should" be done than any other reason. It is a word that falls easily onto the page when you are writing. Perhaps you'd like to start offering up more reasons for your "shoulds" than speaking ex cathedra from your navel? If for no other reason that to stop setting off warning bells when I read your missives?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I was struck with how easily circumvented Maryland's precautions could be circumvented.
"could be" and "are" are very different things. If we can't rely on some basic decency (that is, the vast majority of people won't lie when they step up to the table to check in), no power in the world will enforce it. Frankly, the right thing to do in the thrown elections you mentioned above would have been to re-do them. It is merely political expediency and posturing that prevents it. No, it may not be easy to do so, but doing the right thing rarely is.
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to start offering up more reasons for your "shoulds" than speaking ex cathedra from your navel?
Why an ID for voting should be free? Because if you have a choice between feeding your children and paying for your ID, you'll feed your children. I don't find it just to disenfranchise someone entitled to vote simply because they couldn't pay for the ID you tell them is necessary to protect the very vote you then deny them. You're right, the word 'should' is often such an easy thing to fight over. I didn't use it easily when I said a voting ID should be free. I'd be interested in how you can justify denying it to someone who is entitled to have it. And for what it's worth, it's not quite accurate to say the ID would be free, even to the person obtaining it; it would be paid for by the taxes they pay everytime they buy something or on income. And even if for some individuals it would end up being truly free - is it not a sufficient public good that every eligible voter be aided and allowed to do so, that it might be worth providing them an ID? Certainly that argument can't be extended to things like cars or a house, but something so fundamental as the right to vote?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Patrick S wrote:
Can there be any other way to do it that doesn't require a voter to present ID at the poll?
Why would that make life easier? South Carolina has exactly the system you seem to favor (so that they can check to make sure your license/ID is valid) but since the voting card they issue is not a photo ID, it becomes relatively easily forgeable. And the hassle for the ancient, crippled, blind, nuns of the world has been increased, not decreased.
Patrick S wrote:
What I'm getting at is that if, after serious consideration and alot of study, we determine that yeah, in today's world, an ID requirement really is the best way to go, then I'll acquiesce. It seems to me, though, that much of the call for an ID is a knee-jerk reaction.
Some of us have lived long enough to believe that not every decision has to be made by consensus in a committee.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Some of us have lived long enough to believe that not every decision has to be made by consensus in a committee.
No; instead by the few intelligent enough to tell everyone else how to behave. In a democratic society, where rules ARE made by everyone, for everyone, that's exactly what you have to believe. Believe me, there are times when I think I know better than everyone else what is good for them, and have an undeniable impulse to force it on them. And then I remember what sort of horrors we have created in the past based on that impulse.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
I was struck with how easily circumvented Maryland's precautions could be circumvented.
"could be" and "are" are very different things. If we can't rely on some basic decency (that is, the vast majority of people won't lie when they step up to the table to check in), no power in the world will enforce it. Frankly, the right thing to do in the thrown elections you mentioned above would have been to re-do them. It is merely political expediency and posturing that prevents it. No, it may not be easy to do so, but doing the right thing rarely is.
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to start offering up more reasons for your "shoulds" than speaking ex cathedra from your navel?
Why an ID for voting should be free? Because if you have a choice between feeding your children and paying for your ID, you'll feed your children. I don't find it just to disenfranchise someone entitled to vote simply because they couldn't pay for the ID you tell them is necessary to protect the very vote you then deny them. You're right, the word 'should' is often such an easy thing to fight over. I didn't use it easily when I said a voting ID should be free. I'd be interested in how you can justify denying it to someone who is entitled to have it. And for what it's worth, it's not quite accurate to say the ID would be free, even to the person obtaining it; it would be paid for by the taxes they pay everytime they buy something or on income. And even if for some individuals it would end up being truly free - is it not a sufficient public good that every eligible voter be aided and allowed to do so, that it might be worth providing them an ID? Certainly that argument can't be extended to things like cars or a house, but something so fundamental as the right to vote?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
If we can't rely on some basic decency (that is, the vast majority of people won't lie when they step up to the table to check in), no power in the world will enforce it.
Usually it helps people be decent to provide enough enforced rules to assure them that they are protected from the cheaters.
Patrick S wrote:
Frankly, the right thing to do in the thrown elections you mentioned above would have been to re-do them. It is merely political expediency and posturing that prevents it. No, it may not be easy to do so, but doing the right thing rarely is.
Ain't gonna happen. We need to stay within the bounds of the possible or we are so far over the line into "should" as to never be able to get home.
Patrick S wrote:
And for what it's worth, it's not quite accurate to say the ID would be free, even to the person obtaining it; it would be paid for by the taxes they pay everytime they buy something or on income.
I have no problem with this. Indeed I am unaware of any state that requires photo IDs for voting that doesn't. I was simply following your assurance that it is not always so. However, Free or Not Free is merely an implementation issue, not the basic choice.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Some of us have lived long enough to believe that not every decision has to be made by consensus in a committee.
No; instead by the few intelligent enough to tell everyone else how to behave. In a democratic society, where rules ARE made by everyone, for everyone, that's exactly what you have to believe. Believe me, there are times when I think I know better than everyone else what is good for them, and have an undeniable impulse to force it on them. And then I remember what sort of horrors we have created in the past based on that impulse.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
No; instead by the few intelligent enough to tell everyone else how to behave.
If one substitutes the word "informed" for "intelligent," isn't that the definition of a republic? And aren't we still a republic?
Patrick S wrote:
Believe me, there are times when I think I know better than everyone else what is good for them, and have an undeniable impulse to force it on them. And then I remember what sort of horrors we have created in the past based on that impulse.
According to the textbooks I read, less than 33% of the population of the 13 colonies wanted to break with England. An even lower percentage of the US population wanted to invade the Confederacy. Lincoln assumed almost dictatorial powers during his presidency and yet he is revered today as the man who saved the Union.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
If we can't rely on some basic decency (that is, the vast majority of people won't lie when they step up to the table to check in), no power in the world will enforce it.
Usually it helps people be decent to provide enough enforced rules to assure them that they are protected from the cheaters.
Patrick S wrote:
Frankly, the right thing to do in the thrown elections you mentioned above would have been to re-do them. It is merely political expediency and posturing that prevents it. No, it may not be easy to do so, but doing the right thing rarely is.
Ain't gonna happen. We need to stay within the bounds of the possible or we are so far over the line into "should" as to never be able to get home.
Patrick S wrote:
And for what it's worth, it's not quite accurate to say the ID would be free, even to the person obtaining it; it would be paid for by the taxes they pay everytime they buy something or on income.
I have no problem with this. Indeed I am unaware of any state that requires photo IDs for voting that doesn't. I was simply following your assurance that it is not always so. However, Free or Not Free is merely an implementation issue, not the basic choice.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Usually it helps people be decent to provide enough enforced rules to assure them that they are protected from the cheaters.
... I find people are generally decent simply because they think it's the right thing to do; not because of any assurance that everyone is sufficiently policing everyone else.
Oakman wrote:
Ain't gonna happen. We need to stay within the bounds of the possible or we are so far over the line into "should" as to never be able to get home.
I agree, actually. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do to re-do the elections. We live in an imperfect world, where we have to accept that sometimes the right thing simply can't happen. It's the same reason slavery was left in the Constitution. Attempting to force the Southern states to reject it would have meant the document would have never been ratified. That means, we have to accept the possibility of voter fraud if we want to make sure people who can vote, get to, within a reasonable limit. That 'reasonable' is what we're debating. I'm still not convinced it's a big enough problem to warrant a solution that may be worse than the problem (and I'm not saying it is or would be - we don't know what the electoral landscape would look like if every state enacted a law like Indiana's). Hell, maybe I'm the one who's overly concerned with the outcome. Maybe the effect would be negligible. What I do fear is that the only way to find out is the hard way.
Oakman wrote:
However, Free or Not Free is merely an implementation issue, not the basic choice.
I see what you're getting at. No, I wouldn't advocate an uncompensated cost either.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Patrick S wrote:
No; instead by the few intelligent enough to tell everyone else how to behave.
If one substitutes the word "informed" for "intelligent," isn't that the definition of a republic? And aren't we still a republic?
Patrick S wrote:
Believe me, there are times when I think I know better than everyone else what is good for them, and have an undeniable impulse to force it on them. And then I remember what sort of horrors we have created in the past based on that impulse.
According to the textbooks I read, less than 33% of the population of the 13 colonies wanted to break with England. An even lower percentage of the US population wanted to invade the Confederacy. Lincoln assumed almost dictatorial powers during his presidency and yet he is revered today as the man who saved the Union.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
If one substitutes the word "informed" for "intelligent," isn't that the definition of a republic?
I was almost about to agree, and then it occurred to me - that simply increases the informed's responsibility to either inform those who are uninformed, or coerce their agreement some other way. It's the quality of leadership that determines how well such a person, or group of people, can elicit cooperation in the face of disagreement.
Oakman wrote:
According to the textbooks I read, less than 33% of the population of the 13 colonies wanted to break with England. An even lower percentage of the US population wanted to invade the Confederacy. Lincoln assumed almost dictatorial powers during his presidency and yet he is revered today as the man who saved the Union.
The Civil War is what cemented the Federal Government's centralized power over the states, the fallout of which we are experiencing today: a monolithic, top-heavy government nearly incapable of effectively solving any problem. Lincoln is revered because the Union wrote the history books. I'm not saying that Lincoln shouldn't have done what he did. It eliminated slavery, an unmitigated good. It just came with a very high price. But to your larger point, that sometimes forcing something on a populace results in a net positive outcome, well, that's the weight of wisdom. Although sometimes that results in good things happening, maybe even frequently, it's a force that should be used sparingly. For every example of a good that came of such actions, I can give you an example of a horror that resulted instead. I generally don't trust government enough to put that choice in their hands.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
John Carson wrote:
Fair enough, but is this likely to be a big problem long term? Are there really a lot of eligible would-be voters who can't manage to get themselves ID in order to vote?
That is yet to be seen. The Supreme Court's ruling was only a couple of off weeks ago and many states had held of instituting such laws precisely because previously, they couldn't pass Constitutional muster. Now that this Supreme Court says they do, expect to see voting become alot more difficult for people who typically go out of their way to stay out of government offices (even if there's no reason to do so).
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Friday, May 9, 2008 3:05 PM
Patrick S wrote:
expect to see voting become alot more difficult for people who typically go out of their way to stay out of government offices (even if there's no reason to do so).
Interesting. I have known a number of self-employed developer types who have not registered to vote because of the potential loss of income that would occur if they were called for jury duty - selected from the rolls of registered voters. Have you at any point felt a need to decry this blatant misuse of voter registration?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
If one substitutes the word "informed" for "intelligent," isn't that the definition of a republic?
I was almost about to agree, and then it occurred to me - that simply increases the informed's responsibility to either inform those who are uninformed, or coerce their agreement some other way. It's the quality of leadership that determines how well such a person, or group of people, can elicit cooperation in the face of disagreement.
Oakman wrote:
According to the textbooks I read, less than 33% of the population of the 13 colonies wanted to break with England. An even lower percentage of the US population wanted to invade the Confederacy. Lincoln assumed almost dictatorial powers during his presidency and yet he is revered today as the man who saved the Union.
The Civil War is what cemented the Federal Government's centralized power over the states, the fallout of which we are experiencing today: a monolithic, top-heavy government nearly incapable of effectively solving any problem. Lincoln is revered because the Union wrote the history books. I'm not saying that Lincoln shouldn't have done what he did. It eliminated slavery, an unmitigated good. It just came with a very high price. But to your larger point, that sometimes forcing something on a populace results in a net positive outcome, well, that's the weight of wisdom. Although sometimes that results in good things happening, maybe even frequently, it's a force that should be used sparingly. For every example of a good that came of such actions, I can give you an example of a horror that resulted instead. I generally don't trust government enough to put that choice in their hands.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
I was almost about to agree, and then it occurred to me - that simply increases the informed's responsibility to either inform those who are uninformed, or coerce their agreement some other way.
There you go with a "should" again. In fact, what I offered was pretty close to a standard definition of a republic.
Patrick S wrote:
For every example of a good that came of such actions, I can give you an example of a horror that resulted instead. I generally don't trust government enough to put that choice in their hands.
You are the one who is suggesting that we have accept some bad along with the good and not try for perfection. Who gets to decide how much is too much?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
expect to see voting become alot more difficult for people who typically go out of their way to stay out of government offices (even if there's no reason to do so).
Interesting. I have known a number of self-employed developer types who have not registered to vote because of the potential loss of income that would occur if they were called for jury duty - selected from the rolls of registered voters. Have you at any point felt a need to decry this blatant misuse of voter registration?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Have you at any point felt a need to decry this blatant misuse of voter registration?
Hey, if they want to give up their right to vote willingly, I'm not going to complain. I'll call them f**king stupid for doing so, but that's their choice. That's different from government denying them the right, however. Just because you have a particular right, you're not obligated to exercise it; and one common interpretation of rights is that the only rights we really have are the ones we actively observe and fight for (rights being merely a philosophical construct).
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Patrick S wrote:
I was almost about to agree, and then it occurred to me - that simply increases the informed's responsibility to either inform those who are uninformed, or coerce their agreement some other way.
There you go with a "should" again. In fact, what I offered was pretty close to a standard definition of a republic.
Patrick S wrote:
For every example of a good that came of such actions, I can give you an example of a horror that resulted instead. I generally don't trust government enough to put that choice in their hands.
You are the one who is suggesting that we have accept some bad along with the good and not try for perfection. Who gets to decide how much is too much?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
There you go with a "should" again.
Suggest an alternative. I realize the impulse to rule over "those idiots" is very strong, but if one presumes that the whole purpose of national discourse is to allow the people to make, and participating in making, their own rules, then disagreement is something leaders will always deal with, and you'll have to coerce their willing agreement somehow, even if grudgingly. Being informed is always an obligation of a free nation. We may not actually do so, to our detriment; but that is what the founders intended when they gave us the power to screw up so royally.
Oakman wrote:
accept some bad along with the good and not try for perfection
We have a saying in engineering... the perfect is the enemy of the good. You can try so hard to achieve perfection at the cost of getting nowhere at all.
Oakman wrote:
Who gets to decide how much is too much?
Ultimately... the people, in the ballot box. If the people make a terrible choice, let them. It's their mistake to make. That's the great gamble, and the great danger, in a free society, and it always has been.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
Have you at any point felt a need to decry this blatant misuse of voter registration?
Hey, if they want to give up their right to vote willingly, I'm not going to complain. I'll call them f**king stupid for doing so, but that's their choice. That's different from government denying them the right, however. Just because you have a particular right, you're not obligated to exercise it; and one common interpretation of rights is that the only rights we really have are the ones we actively observe and fight for (rights being merely a philosophical construct).
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Hey, if they want to give up their right to vote willingly, I'm not going to complain. I'll call them f**king stupid for doing so, but that's their choice.
But ignoring all of the publicity around Indiana's ID requirement isn't stupid? Showing up at the polls unable to satisfy a requirement that I am sure either political party would have been delighted to help them fulfill isn't stupid? Charging (say) $15.95 for a photo ID is usorious and a direct interference with the right to vote, but costing someone else thousands of dollars because he wishes to exercise that same right is just the way the cookie crumbles?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
Hey, if they want to give up their right to vote willingly, I'm not going to complain. I'll call them f**king stupid for doing so, but that's their choice.
But ignoring all of the publicity around Indiana's ID requirement isn't stupid? Showing up at the polls unable to satisfy a requirement that I am sure either political party would have been delighted to help them fulfill isn't stupid? Charging (say) $15.95 for a photo ID is usorious and a direct interference with the right to vote, but costing someone else thousands of dollars because he wishes to exercise that same right is just the way the cookie crumbles?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But ignoring all of the publicity around Indiana's ID requirement isn't stupid? Showing up at the polls unable to satisfy a requirement that I am sure either political party would have been delighted to help them fulfill isn't stupid?
Of course it is. Are you expecting people to be perfect? Call them stupid when they are. But set up a system that deals with people's stupidity, not expects them to be perfect.
Oakman wrote:
but costing someone else thousands of dollars because he wishes to exercise that same right is just the way the cookie crumbles?
Actually - yes. That's the chance you take when you go into business for yourself - opening yourself to the uncertainty of your income. Losing a day to do jury duty is going to be only one among hundreds of uncertainties you subject yourself to. (And, thousands of dollars? I'd think someone who pulls in that much every day would have someone who could take care of things while they were gone).
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
There you go with a "should" again.
Suggest an alternative. I realize the impulse to rule over "those idiots" is very strong, but if one presumes that the whole purpose of national discourse is to allow the people to make, and participating in making, their own rules, then disagreement is something leaders will always deal with, and you'll have to coerce their willing agreement somehow, even if grudgingly. Being informed is always an obligation of a free nation. We may not actually do so, to our detriment; but that is what the founders intended when they gave us the power to screw up so royally.
Oakman wrote:
accept some bad along with the good and not try for perfection
We have a saying in engineering... the perfect is the enemy of the good. You can try so hard to achieve perfection at the cost of getting nowhere at all.
Oakman wrote:
Who gets to decide how much is too much?
Ultimately... the people, in the ballot box. If the people make a terrible choice, let them. It's their mistake to make. That's the great gamble, and the great danger, in a free society, and it always has been.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Suggest an alternative. I realize the impulse to rule over "those idiots" is very strong, but if one presumes that the whole purpose of national discourse is to allow the people to make, and participating in making, their own rules, then disagreement is something leaders will always deal with, and you'll have to coerce their willing agreement somehow, even if grudgingly. Being informed is always an obligation of a free nation. We may not actually do so, to our detriment; but that is what the founders intended when they gave us the power to screw up so royally.
But we are a republic, not a democracy - no matter what cable news tells us.
Patrick S wrote:
We have a saying in engineering... the perfect is the enemy of the good
The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.", from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) Literally translated as "The best is the enemy of good.", but is more commonly cited as "The perfect is the enemy of the good." :cool:
Patrick S wrote:
Ultimately... the people, in the ballot box. If the people make a terrible choice, let them. It's their mistake to make. That's the great gamble, and the great danger, in a free society, and it always has been.
So since the majority of people of the United States in 1860 were not anti-slavery. . .since the majority of the people in 2003 were in favor of invading Iraq. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
Suggest an alternative. I realize the impulse to rule over "those idiots" is very strong, but if one presumes that the whole purpose of national discourse is to allow the people to make, and participating in making, their own rules, then disagreement is something leaders will always deal with, and you'll have to coerce their willing agreement somehow, even if grudgingly. Being informed is always an obligation of a free nation. We may not actually do so, to our detriment; but that is what the founders intended when they gave us the power to screw up so royally.
But we are a republic, not a democracy - no matter what cable news tells us.
Patrick S wrote:
We have a saying in engineering... the perfect is the enemy of the good
The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.", from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) Literally translated as "The best is the enemy of good.", but is more commonly cited as "The perfect is the enemy of the good." :cool:
Patrick S wrote:
Ultimately... the people, in the ballot box. If the people make a terrible choice, let them. It's their mistake to make. That's the great gamble, and the great danger, in a free society, and it always has been.
So since the majority of people of the United States in 1860 were not anti-slavery. . .since the majority of the people in 2003 were in favor of invading Iraq. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But we are a republic, not a democracy - no matter what cable news tells us.
Lol.. I haven't watched cable news in years. I'm not sure what your point is though. Even in a republic, people elect representatives they believe will represent their interests, and the national discourse allows the people to make those interests known to the people voting on those issues. I realize most politicians pretty much give their constituents the finger once they're elected, but that's the theory anyway...
Oakman wrote:
The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.", from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) Literally translated as "The best is the enemy of good.", but is more commonly cited as "The perfect is the enemy of the good." :cool:
Thanks :) I didn't know it came from a French saying. All I know is that a perfectionist like me hears it about once a week from my coworkers :)
Oakman wrote:
So since the majority of people of the United States in 1860 were not anti-slavery. . .since the majority of the people in 2003 were in favor of invading Iraq. . .
Sigh... it took me a very long time to accept that the answer to that is yes. Ultimately to live in a free nation of any kind you have to believe, rationally or irrationally, that at the end of the day the people will make the right choice, be led by the right people, in the right time, and that the best you can do is create around you the world you want to give to your children and your country. That often means making terrible mistakes. The advantage of making terrible mistakes is that generally, I think America has learned very well from them, contrary to pretty much the entire history of the world.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
But ignoring all of the publicity around Indiana's ID requirement isn't stupid? Showing up at the polls unable to satisfy a requirement that I am sure either political party would have been delighted to help them fulfill isn't stupid?
Of course it is. Are you expecting people to be perfect? Call them stupid when they are. But set up a system that deals with people's stupidity, not expects them to be perfect.
Oakman wrote:
but costing someone else thousands of dollars because he wishes to exercise that same right is just the way the cookie crumbles?
Actually - yes. That's the chance you take when you go into business for yourself - opening yourself to the uncertainty of your income. Losing a day to do jury duty is going to be only one among hundreds of uncertainties you subject yourself to. (And, thousands of dollars? I'd think someone who pulls in that much every day would have someone who could take care of things while they were gone).
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
But set up a system that deals with people's stupidity, not expects them to be perfect.
When I raised two kids, I didn't expect them to be perfect - however, I set up a system that provided consequences for stupidity, and in spite of their Mother's worries, it helped them understand why not being stupid was better.
Patrick S wrote:
And, thousands of dollars? I'd think someone who pulls in that much every day would have someone who could take care of things while they were gone)
Jury duty can easily last for a month. And I know people who have spent two weeks first in a jury pool and then on a jury. If your employer does not make up the difference between jury pay and your normal salary, can you handle being in a jury box for all of next month? Would you be quite as casual about the loss of income if it affected you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
But set up a system that deals with people's stupidity, not expects them to be perfect.
When I raised two kids, I didn't expect them to be perfect - however, I set up a system that provided consequences for stupidity, and in spite of their Mother's worries, it helped them understand why not being stupid was better.
Patrick S wrote:
And, thousands of dollars? I'd think someone who pulls in that much every day would have someone who could take care of things while they were gone)
Jury duty can easily last for a month. And I know people who have spent two weeks first in a jury pool and then on a jury. If your employer does not make up the difference between jury pay and your normal salary, can you handle being in a jury box for all of next month? Would you be quite as casual about the loss of income if it affected you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
When I raised two kids, I didn't expect them to be perfect - however, I set up a system that provided consequences for stupidity, and in spite of their Mother's worries, it helped them understand why not being stupid was better.
Definitely. Frankly I couldn't care less that this time, these nuns couldn't vote. Whoever takes care of them will know better for next time. I'd just hope it doesn't become an endemic problem.
Oakman wrote:
If your employer does not make up the difference between jury pay and your normal salary, can you handle being in a jury box for all of next month? Would you be quite as casual about the loss of income if it affected you?
No, I couldn't; I'd probably find a way, but off the top of my head, no, I couldn't. And I'd probably rant and rave about how unfair it is, and ultimately I'd go, but it would never occur to me not to register to vote... I value that vote too highly. This speaks to a bigger issue, though; I suspect very few people would be able to easily lose a month of income for jury duty, self-employed or not. That's always an issue for any working stiff or family. Many states require employers to pay full wages while the person is gone, but not all do. There's no way around the problem though, at least until we invent magic so we can be in two places at once.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
But we are a republic, not a democracy - no matter what cable news tells us.
Lol.. I haven't watched cable news in years. I'm not sure what your point is though. Even in a republic, people elect representatives they believe will represent their interests, and the national discourse allows the people to make those interests known to the people voting on those issues. I realize most politicians pretty much give their constituents the finger once they're elected, but that's the theory anyway...
Oakman wrote:
The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.", from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) Literally translated as "The best is the enemy of good.", but is more commonly cited as "The perfect is the enemy of the good." :cool:
Thanks :) I didn't know it came from a French saying. All I know is that a perfectionist like me hears it about once a week from my coworkers :)
Oakman wrote:
So since the majority of people of the United States in 1860 were not anti-slavery. . .since the majority of the people in 2003 were in favor of invading Iraq. . .
Sigh... it took me a very long time to accept that the answer to that is yes. Ultimately to live in a free nation of any kind you have to believe, rationally or irrationally, that at the end of the day the people will make the right choice, be led by the right people, in the right time, and that the best you can do is create around you the world you want to give to your children and your country. That often means making terrible mistakes. The advantage of making terrible mistakes is that generally, I think America has learned very well from them, contrary to pretty much the entire history of the world.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
I realize most politicians pretty much give their constituents the finger once they're elected, but that's the theory anyway...
Most? You have found an exception?
Patrick S wrote:
I didn't know it came from a French saying.
That's the trouble with Engineering programs they don't get enough philosphy classes. :laugh:
Patrick S wrote:
Sigh... it took me a very long time to accept that the answer to that is yes
Tough on the people who have to spend their life enslaved or who get to die at an early age. Maybe this would be a better thing to worry about than whether or not a few less-than-intelligent people get to vote. There's obvuiously something wrong with a system that places great power in the hands of the "people" without insuring that they take great responsibility. But that is a discussion for another time. I think I've typed about enough tonight.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface