Libertarianism and natural disasters

[Phrost]

It sounds like you're proposing a test for people before they can vote, and then attempting to tailor that test to only allow a certain type of voter.

This is dangerous, for many reasons. My greatest objection is that people don't just vote for the utilitarian option, they often vote in their own favour. If you restrict certain groups of people from voting, then the rest could easily still vote in their own favour, even if it isn't the utilitarian choice. You're confusing "intelligence" and "morality".

I agree completely that there are significant risks involved in requiring a test. That's why should the idea ever get any actual traction (yeah, right), it needs to be clearly *cough* regulated, in an absolutely simple manner so as to avoid any wrangling, jockeying, lobbying, massaging, or manipulating that would eliminate anyone from voting save the purely ignorant.

A ten question test of eighth grade Civics and Math should be fine. I don't expect anyone to be able to quote whole sections of the Constitution, but they should at least know that the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. If the electorate understood this, for example, I'd wager that the TSA wouldn't be fondling our children.

As far as morality goes, nobody agrees on anything other than an absolutely basic version of it (killing is bad, stealing is a little less bad, rape is pretty damn bad, etc).

On another note, this is why it's absolutely essential for "us" (the Skeptical, critical thinking, secular, etc 'community') to strive for if not actually come to a consensus on an objective, quantifiable morality devoid of the irrational and pseudo-supernatural influences.

 

[stevea]

I agree completely that there are significant risks involved in requiring a test. That's why should the idea ever get any actual traction (yeah, right), it needs to be clearly *cough* regulated, in an absolutely simple manner so as to avoid any wrangling, jockeying, lobbying, massaging, or manipulating that would eliminate anyone from voting save the purely ignorant.

A ten question test of eighth grade Civics and Math should be fine. I don't expect anyone to be able to quote whole sections of the Constitution, but they should at least know that the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. If the electorate understood this, for example, I'd wager that the TSA wouldn't be fondling our children.

As far as morality goes, nobody agrees on anything other than an absolutely basic version of it (killing is bad, stealing is a little less bad, rape is pretty damn bad, etc).

On another note, this is why it's absolutely essential for "us" (the Skeptical, critical thinking, secular, etc 'community') to strive for if not actually come to a consensus on an objective, quantifiable morality devoid of the irrational and pseudo-supernatural influences.

How about major risk ?

The problem with requiring a test to vote is that the test will certainly be politicized. Asking biased questions and demanding partisan answers. Look at our public school systems. No one in his/her right mind believes the some basic sex education isn't reasonable, nor that intelligent design belongs except as a negative example for a critical thinking class - but these topics are part of a political agenda.

Our democracy in some ways hasn't kept up with technology. We have few regional issues anymore, but all of our federal representatives are elected based on geography. We have no at-large system for federal candidates, so there can be no representation for some very important issues that concern less than 50% of the population. Our Constitution says nothing about parties, but the two major parties have created impediments for any third party formation, and the senate scheme for party dominance can virtually silence the 49% seat-holder party. Electoral college and the winner-take-all by state is grossly unfair. One thing I find increasingly troubling is that a large fraction (reportedly 47% of households) pay no federal tax - and the "make someone else pay" attitude this creates and the political pandering that results is clear.

The system needs a redesign, but it requires more than a voter test. To get there of course you need a constitutional convention - highly unlikely.

Of course the republic aspect of of our government is failing too. Congress seems to blatantly ignore constitutional specified limitations of powers. You can see the impact all around us. There are virtually no state's rights. We are all subject to unlawful searches at airports. Freedom of speech is restricted. The patriot act is little more than an enumeration of unconstitutional searches and restrictions of rights. The 10th amendment is particularly well violated. Oddly the Supreme court seems to believe that the commerce clause can be distorted beyond recognition.

What a world !

 

[Rogue1stclass]

I originally read the title as "Libertarianism and other natural disasters".

Despite having somewhat libertarian leaning myself, that made me laugh.

 

[drkitten]

How about major risk ?

The problem with requiring a test to vote is that the test will certainly be politicized.

Do you consider the INS citizenship test to be politicized?

If so, how?

If not, why would a voting test necessarily be more politicized than that one?

 

[stokes234]

Do you consider the INS citizenship test to be politicized?

If so, how?

If not, why would a voting test necessarily be more politicized than that one?

It would have to be, because what qualifies for intelligence is inherently subjective. You might argue that a basic grasp of economics is neccessary to have a rational say in the running of the country, another person could challenge you and say economics is irrelevant if you don't understand climate science, another could pipe in and say moral philosophy is the most important aspect, or that an understanding of evolutionary psychology is the most important trait. You couldn't prove otherwise either way, and each different focus would result in a different leadership and direction of the country.

Even if you focused on basic skills like maths and literacy, you cannot prove that people who understand maths are more intelligent than people who understand art, culture, people who are better at reading the disposition of others, etc.