^ I can't see auspm saying that (but could be misreading). I don't think he is suggesting you think "deserve more" vote. The contention around a good sustainable government model (assuming we have a govt) is whether they "deserve any" vote. Edit: Sorry dog. I found it on page 2 (you bolded it and everything).
I am forced to vote for monkeys. So I choose to return an empty ballot paper. I don't care any more. I look after myself and my family now, I have very little care for anyone else.
Grr. Twice. Very sloppy of him unless there is some nuance he is thinking of. Equal versus none IMHO. Prisoners = none. Children = none. (Significantly) mentally disabled = none. Dead = none (unless you're a NSW labor candidate going for preselection :lol: ). Long-term coma = none. etc etc to something workable to what we said before.
^ I agree with the prisoners not being allowed to vote, and children and mentally incapable (and dead). But we need to be careful when removing someones rights like that - rules can be tweaked, and before you know it we're all classed as mentally incapable. Democracy works well, when the participants play in the spirit of it. But so do most Govt. systems in that regard. If we look at the natural evolution of democracies over time, and how corrupt they become, would it not stand to reason that Auspm's system would also become corrupt? It is just a bastardised system of democracy after all. It's natural progression is probably an Oligarchy. That said, I don't know an answer to our current problem. My preference is what you suggested bordsilver - something similar to what the US had in it's foundation. I think you call it a Liberal Democracy. But it is definitely worth questioning whether democracy usa the best solution at all, that's why Hawkeye's discussion is good.
Essentially yes, to all this. I thought what we were trying to do was think of ways to prevent the workable good systems going bad (even if it does take many generations). A set-and-forget constitution that is more impervious to having bad amendments made to it. If we had the chance to go back to the drafting of constitutions, the biggest changes I would make to all the current ones would be around Government involvement in money (would need to work on the precise wordings - so I won't try right now - but I think we all know enough about the concepts that we would want enshrined). By itself this may be enough to still allow equal vote for everyone for the elected representatives responsible for key powers of the Protectorate, but maybe not.
Regarding Race against the Machine - this is an old sophism. I suggest you read things like: Bastiat and http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/24/race-against-the-machine/ For short counters to this line of thought. Edit: And the punch line:
Thanks for the tip. I'm going to read that, although it already runs along with my beliefs. EDIT: deeper read suggests it might be alarmist, which I don't agree with. Had a brief scan and I think he's missing the point. No-one could imagine what life would be like post-industrial revolution. There are thousands of jobs that never existed before that people couldn't imagine previously, not to mention a way of life that is unbelievable to pre-industrial societies. I mean, how many mechanics were there prior to 1900? There will be new jobs. Most of which we haven't heard of yet. There are some hints at some but largely it remains a big unknown at this point. I think people though will mostly work less and the work they do will be mentally less stressful, just as most work today is physically less stressful than it was 100 years ago. The current order built up around the old system which is now in the process of giving way to the new and I believe this is what underlies the major financial crises in the world today.
First, haven't read the book and am only going on the short blurbs I read after you mentioned the book's name. Consequently, I could be misinterpreting but I thought the basic theme was that there will be continual upheaval in the types of jobs available with the worry that the numbers of jobs (particularly in services) will disappear and we'll all be ruined. If it is simply about future possible changes in the nature of employment as the productivity benefits from further mechanisation are realised then I don't have any problem and it is probably a decent thought experiment to see what sorts of changes we may expect to see. If it then goes further, to paint a doom and gloom picture of large swathes of unemployed people created by the rise of the machines then that is the sophism.
What about someone who is in prison for cultivating a large quantity of marijuana. You don't think they should be allowed to vote for the Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party? Bear in mind that many people believe the banning of marijuana is a perfect example of the government impinging on the freedom of the individual. Shouldn't people directly affected by those laws have a right to vote against them?
It's a good point - yet another reason that being selective (discriminating) causes all sorts of problems.
Actually Big A.D.'s finally coming round to our side. 1. This already happens when every one has the vote. 2. Fundamentally most laws act to reduce the civil liberties and freedoms of at least some people (this is why we are in favour of no or highly restricted Govt activity). 3. The question is will there be less injustices when those that fund the level of Govt have a greater say (i.e. there'll be a natural inclination to smaller govt with less freedom-sapping examples as Big's one.
Is this really about "sides"? I found at least a dozen "radical ideas" on the list that I think would be very positive for the country. I also found quite a lot that I disagree with (strongly disagree in several cases). I think that if we're prepared to consider ideas based on their merits rather than whether or not they conform to a particular ideological doctrine we'll go a long way towards being the educated, informed electorate that creates a healthy democracy. I don't think making voting optional or disenfranchising particular groups of people would help foster that kind of engaged, active participation in society at all.
^ Yes but there's already the private marketplace where people can express great ideas that fundamentally help people without arbitrarily restricting other people's freedoms or stealing their incomes. "Great" ideas in the context of govt usually restrict freedoms arbitrarily or steal from one group for the benefit of another.
