Damn illegal alien... Catholic.. nuns... no vote for you!
-
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
-
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
Oakman wrote:
Most? You have found an exception?
Hey, just leaving the door open just in case... :~
Oakman wrote:
That's the trouble with Engineering programs they don't get enough philosphy classes.
Funny you should mention that - I nearly completed a minor in Philosophy, I just didn't have enough time in the last couple of semesters to get the last few classes in. Really wish I'd finished it..
Oakman wrote:
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.
Ultimately, you're probably right. It's the human lot, though, to suffer; we just try as best we can to minimize it.
Oakman wrote:
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.
Ack. I had hoped I got that point across - that people in a free nation have an obligation to try to make the best choices they can. Now that, we're pretty bad at. Shortcoming of the human brain, not adapted to long-term planning..
Oakman wrote:
But that is a discussion for another time. I think I've typed about enough tonight.
Enjoy your evening :) Nice sparring with you.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein