It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The right to vote

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Currently, one is reading the work of Nietzsche and evaluating his theories. One observation made me relate his views to Plato, mainly on democracy - is everyone entitled to the vote?

Plato and, in some ways, Nietzsche both suggested that the significant flaw in democracy allows the popular candidate to succeed, rather than the intelligent one. As Plato said, not everyone has the capacity or intelligence to be a leader. An aristocratic or oligarch system of government are the solutions Plato concluded in Republic.

Nietzsche discussed democracy as an institution that has not come to existence, our pseudo-democracy was somewhat an insult to him. In a true democracy, Nietzsche claimed those that questioned the very existence of democracy should not be allowed to vote - the extremely rich and the poor. The middle class, in essence, would be the main political body.

The question is then, in order for democracy to work, should the right to vote be restricted?




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
For the record, Nietzsche defined the middle class as independence- those who were not aligned to opposition to democracy.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Limiting peoples vote to make sure democracy works is a major contradiction. If some peoples votes are restricted then there is no democracy. The flaw in Plato's and Nietzsche thinking is that they believe everyone who doesn't think the same way as them is wrong. It is a fact of life that there is nothing that everyone will agree on, but that doesn't mean those who disagree should not be allowed to vote. The best way for democracy to work is to educate the public and then the majority will hopefully come to the best choice. Most of the problems we have in our government today is because that people are uneducated about the issues which makes them not care, if they knew what was really going on you could be sure there would be mile long lines to vote.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The Athenian democracy, which we constitute as the cradle of democracy, was not the enlightened institute believed by many. Participation was restricted, women and slaves were prohibited from the democracy.

Even though the Athenian democracy was more democratic than the modern parliamentary system, the very definition of its democracy was limited.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Do you mean the right to vote for a leader of the country/state etc or do you mean the right to vote on politcial issues either way I think we are already restricted in that sense nowadays.

Look at the lisbon treaty for example, Ireland was the only country in the whole of Europe to be allowed to vote for it, which is why I'm against it, if the whole of Europe voted yes to it except Ireland I would have no trouble with them asking us to vote on it again, but when it is a decision made by a few ruling people then I have a major problem with it.

However I really don't think that restricting the vote would help a democracy because then the people who don't have a vote could be abused by those with a vote, as for the most popular leader instead of the most intelligent I thought democracy meant popular government anyway?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


I honestly believe the right to vote should be restricted to the people who could pass a political quizz on their canidate. For a few reasons, I am gonna use Obama because he won the last election. I would bet if every person that voted for him only a third of them would be able to tell you his actual political stance. When asked some people actually said Change was one of his policies. The other third voted soley on color and the last third voted on him because the actually agree with the man. As sad as it is, before i get bashed I HAVE FELT THIS WAY BEFORE OBAMA.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irishwolf
..then the people who don't have a vote could be abused by those with a vote


This is a fantastic point.

As history shows, you cannot predict or guarantee a benevolent political class to observe the well-being of their citizens.

In modern times, the UK is considering giving the vote to 16+. Is that right? Could a teenager have the maturity to grasp political positions and take the responsibility? I'm not suggesting they cannot, just opening up the debate.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Some 16 year olds have and amazing grasp of political agendas and the effect it has on the people as a whole.

However there are not many 16 yearolds who have the maturity to make a choice that affects their entire country and in some cases the people of the world. our elected officals higer up on the food chain in this day and time are WORLD LEADERS as well as leaders of their nation. The times we live in now are greatly influinced by the choices of the people and should not be taken lightly as so many do.

[edit on 15amu102007 by DaleGribble]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaleGribble
reply to post by infinite
 


Some 16 year olds have and amazing grasp of political agendas and the effect it has on the people as a whole.

However there are not many 16 yearolds who have the maturity to make a choice that affects their entire country and in some cases the people of the world. our elected officals higer up on the food chain in this day and time are WORLD LEADERS as well as leaders of their nation. The times we live in now are greatly influinced by the choices of the people and should not be taken lightly as so many do.

[edit on 15amu102007 by DaleGribble]



i think you'll find the same can be said of all age groups - maturity isn't necessarily found in age.

I refused to vote when i was younger, despite told i was disrespecting people who earnt the right for me to vote, i chose not to as i KNEW i didn't know enough about what i was potentially voting for. 10 years on from my legal age to vote, i feel i do have enough knowledge and views on polital matters to warrant the vote - i beleive voting earlier would have been more harmful than useful.

Whats is worrying is if people just vote for any party, maybe only due to their family or friends voting for them, and/or they do not know enough about what they are voting for then they might as well just put all the party's in a hat and pull one out.





[edit on 19-4-2009 by MCoG1980]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


i agree with you 100% That is why i said what i said in my first responce to this thread. It would weed out those who are not capable of making choices of that magnitude or should not be making such choices. I know that sounds bad and that i might be violateing the rights of such people. but it keeps them from making mistakes that effect billions of people. just my simple thoughts though..



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Controversial point:

Those who are long term seekers of government welfare, and are able to work but choose not to, should lose the right to vote in my opinion. If you refuse point blank to contribute to the collective then restricting your influence should occur.

Extreme? No, not quite. I'm sorry, but people who refuse to work should not be entitled to vote.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaleGribble
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


i agree with you 100% That is why i said what i said in my first responce to this thread. It would weed out those who are not capable of making choices of that magnitude or should not be making such choices. I know that sounds bad and that i might be violateing the rights of such people. but it keeps them from making mistakes that effect billions of people. just my simple thoughts though..


Maybe.. ahem... they should teach children in the last 2 or 3 years of senior shool, both political issues that will affect them in life (just the basics even) and maybe....money management.... to avoid future economic errors on the publics side - value of money. This way, when they reach voting age they are clued up a little at least.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by MCoG1980]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


That is a great idea. I remember studing government in school, however i dont remember learning the impact and the severity of making those choices. Too many people take it light heartedly. Many times you hear vote because its your right. in my oppinion that is not a good reason to vote. I say vote to change the world for the better vote to remove corrupt persons. vote for the world as a whole and not just for your right to do so. dont get me wrong i dont believe we should have a one world government but our choices effect everyone. i dont know if this post conveys exactly what i am trying to say. but it will have to do.

I think the last 2-3 years of school, students should take classes that teach them the impact a single vote has on their country and our world. teach them how to vote based on the policies they think will make the world a better place and not vote on skin color, populiarty or simply voteing for a person becaus that is the only canidate in their party.

i agree with your above post 100%. i wish i had said it. lol

[edit on 15amu112007 by DaleGribble]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Education should primarily teach students to think for themselves not install the norms and values that society expects from them. The contemporary individual is dumbed down to the point they are apathetic towards serious issues - political, economics, finance, etc.

I hardly watch television myself, only documentaries and the news. As a 23 year old, I am probably a minority in the United Kingdom who engages in this sort of lifestyle. Reading and gaining knowledge is more significant to my growth as an individual, not the fatuous reality programs that give false hope and celebrate the victims of fame.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
I hardly watch television myself, only documentaries and the news. As a 23 year old, I am probably a minority in the United Kingdom who engages in this sort of lifestyle. Reading and gaining knowledge is more significant to my growth as an individual, not the fatuous reality programs that give false hope and celebrate the victims of fame.


I would dare to say if you read and gain knowledge at any age in any country rather than watch tv you are a minority. even a great deal of self proclaimed scholars who say they are wize and sit around drinking fine wine and making smug "eduicated" remarks are dumbed down..



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Come on now, we already know that american election is as bad as russias, as being fixed. Just ask ron paul if you do not understnad that last sentence.

Democracy is such a con, and whats the point in voting in areas where you know the outcome, because normally based on race, or something. Just look at northern ireland where the english made sure that the catholics could not get a majority vote to get rid of the brits.

It is just mob rule, and why do people like the idea of it. This is why i doubt in america the votes are even counted, i think they just make the number up. If you look at some of the youtube vids, and see why people voted for obama, you will see do those people really have right to vote, as they clearly have no clue what obama even says, and his contradictions.

William cooper was right in saying democracy always leads to socialism, than to communism. We are most definately in a socialist state today,a nd when do we get to the communist?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Controversial point:

Those who are long term seekers of government welfare, and are able to work but choose not to, should lose the right to vote in my opinion. If you refuse point blank to contribute to the collective then restricting your influence should occur.

Extreme? No, not quite. I'm sorry, but people who refuse to work should not be entitled to vote.


I have no problem with that, as i think no ones vote counts anyway. Do you guys believe that the votes are really the numbers that voted. What about the countless times we have found vote rigging in ron paul things.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I don't agree with universal enfranchisement.

I don't think it's correct that a person with a PhD and a high school dropout have the same say.

I don't think it's right that a genius and a moron both have one vote.

I don't think its correct that the majority can make a decision over the minority.

One solution to these problems is constitutional republicanism. Another solution is what I call "intellecracy"... the restriction of the franchise to those who can pass a simple test- say perhaps an IQ test, and score above the 100 mean.

The bell curve graph of intelligence shows that the majority of people are unintelligent, or at best mediocre (IQ



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Sorry, but the smug superiority of some on here disgusts me!

You think you know what's best for the uneducated, unitelligent masses?
Well history is littered with the self same arrogant, conceited elitism as are the cemeteries of millions who suffered because they dared to disagree!

Universal sufferage should be one of man's inalienable rights.

It is the political and electoral structures which are at fault.

Party politics has failed us misearably.

What are the answers?

I don't know, I am no political, social or philosophical expert.

I just know that the current political system doesn't work, but that doesn't alter the fact that each person has an equal right for an equal say.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


In theory, you have the more morally correct opinion. But your rainbow, kumbaya vision of democracy is a sham. It will never work.

Can you tell me why a professor of political science at Cambridge university and a convicted criminal should have the same say in the running of the country? It's a simple question, but entirely unanswerable by proponents of universal enfranchisement.

Your pontificating about every man's inherent equality is noble but misguided. The truth is that every man is not equal, and the sooner we recognise that the faster we can correct our systems of governance.

Don't equate constitutional republicanism or some other limited franchise with the dictators of past. Dictators siezed power through force. Leaders would be elected under a limited franchise system, and experts would have the control of their remit.
E.g. why should ordinary men have a say about things which they scarcely understand? Should our nation's policy on stem cell research be directed by experts in the field or by career politicians, elected by uneducated voters?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join