Children's Suffrage

[Xerographica]

Democracies don't need informed voters, if they did we wouldn't have any democracies.

How can you agree that children should be allowed to vote and that we need informed voters to run a thriving democracy.

You seem way too trusting and optimistic concerning peoples behavior.

First you said that democracies don't need informed voters.  Then you said that children should not be allowed to vote because they aren't informed.  Which is it?

The fact of the matter is that democracies don't have to worry about informed voters because, given that each side of the debate wants to win the contest, they will always have the incentive/motive to share their information with others.  

Unfortunately, just like the Harvard professor, you're incapable of stepping outside your information bias.  If democracies need informed voters to thrive...then there should be some very negative consequences that we have experienced as a direct result of expanding suffrage to uninformed voters.  What example did the Harvard professor give?

If you read the entire paper then you'll know that her example merely revealed her liberal bias.  Therefore, from her perspective, democracies need liberal information if we are to truly thrive.  And from the perspective of a conservative, democracies need conservative information if we are to thrive.  

If both sides agree on what information we need to thrive...then obviously there's nothing to vote over!  

So we allow children to vote...both sides of the debate spend their time/money/energy on sharing their information with others...and the side that is willing to sacrifice more will win.   Why do we want the side that sacrifices more to win?  Because how much they sacrifice for something is an indication of how important it is to them.  

And this is equally applicable to understanding the logic of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.  Step outside your personal information bias, try and understand the process, and give people the freedom to demonstrate their preferences.

If you disagree with their preferences...then sacrifice your time/money/energy to share your information with them.  How much you're willing to sacrifice will reveal exactly how valuable you think your information truly is.

[Xerographica]

Was Richard Musgrave full of shit? Did he know what he was talking about? Was he an expert on the subject of public finance? Was he just a right wing nut? You can't answer these questions...you're not smart enough to know the value of the answers. But I pose them because maybe somebody will stumble on this who is smart enough and curious enough to track down the answers just like I have done.

Or you think you have. The problem with getting an 'education' off the internet is that you have no idea how to separate fact from bullshit. Now you're probably thinking, 'I'm a genius, therefore I can detect truth from lies in biased sources just by looking at it', but in the real world you can never be so confident that you have the true facts while others only hold fiction (unless you're talking about science! and even then sometimes it's not clear).

What you're telling me is bullshit.  Stop the bullshit.  Go on the internet, go to your local libraries, go to your local universities...and research whether Richard Musgrave was full of shit.  The more research you conduct...the more confident you'll be in your answer.  

Are you going to do the research?  Are you willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of your time?  No, you're not.  Because the answer isn't that important to you.  You're comfortable living in your blissful ignorance just like a Christian is comfortable living in theirs.

[Icarus]

First you said that democracies don't need informed voters.  Then you said that children should not be allowed to vote because they aren't informed.  Which is it?

Those two statements don't contradict eachother............................... Please explain how they do. Are you saying that we might as well let children vote because adults are uninformed? I personally think children shouldn't be bothered with the political process until they're around 14-15.


I'm going to skip the rest of your post because you insist on editing down what I said, and chose to respond to a point (usually out of context when you edit), that you feel you can explain away. I also can't have a serious discussion with someone who can't understand what their reading or what constitutes a contradiction.

[Icarus]

Was Richard Musgrave full of shit? Did he know what he was talking about? Was he an expert on the subject of public finance? Was he just a right wing nut? You can't answer these questions...you're not smart enough to know the value of the answers. But I pose them because maybe somebody will stumble on this who is smart enough and curious enough to track down the answers just like I have done.

Or you think you have. The problem with getting an 'education' off the internet is that you have no idea how to separate fact from bullshit. Now you're probably thinking, 'I'm a genius, therefore I can detect truth from lies in biased sources just by looking at it', but in the real world you can never be so confident that you have the true facts while others only hold fiction (unless you're talking about science! and even then sometimes it's not clear).

What you're telling me is bullshit.  Stop the bullshit.  Go on the internet, go to your local libraries, go to your local universities...and research whether Richard Musgrave was full of shit.  The more research you conduct...the more confident you'll be in your answer.  

Are you going to do the research?  Are you willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of your time?  No, you're not.  Because the answer isn't that important to you.  You're comfortable living in your blissful ignorance just like a Christian is comfortable living in theirs.

Ooooooo someones angry. This is what I read: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/16/6148.abstract get back to me in 10 years when you're done.

This is another reason why most people in this thread think you're an intellectual child, you clearly have a lot of time to read about random things, then attempt to chastise adults for not reading them because we have jobs and tons of other (far more important) documents to read.

[Xerographica]

This is another reason why most people in this thread think you're an intellectual child, you clearly have a lot of time to read about random things, then attempt to chastise adults for not reading them because we have jobs and tons of other (far more important) documents to read.

First I'm criticized for being full of shit...and now you admit that you have not studied public finance.  First you study public finance and then you can accuse me of being full of shit.  

And what's more important than understanding public finance?  How the fuck can you truly know how much of your hard-earned money the government should really take when you are completely clueless about public finance?    

Given that you are here...there's no question that you don't spend all your time trying to earn a living.  You, and everybody else, allocates a certain amount of your time to leisure activities.  If you're vaguely intelligent...then you will sacrifice watching football in order to research whether or not Richard Musgrave was full of shit.

[Icarus]

[spoil:u657x3b7]First I'm criticized for being full of shit...and now you admit that you have not studied public finance.  First you study public finance and then you can accuse me of being full of shit.  

And what's more important than understanding public finance?  How the fuck can you truly know how much of your hard-earned money the government should really take when you are completely clueless about public finance?    

Given that you are here...there's no question that you don't spend all your time trying to earn a living.  You, and everybody else, allocates a certain amount of your time to leisure activities.  If you're vaguely intelligent...then you will sacrifice watching football in order to research whether or not Richard Musgrave was full of shit.[/spoil:u657x3b7]

Done reading that research paper already? What are your thoughts and comments on their particular approach?

[Xerographica]

Done reading that research paper already? What are your thoughts and comments on their particular approach?

If you want me to read that research paper then you'll have to persuade me to do so.  Just like if I want you to read the definitive economic justification for government then I'll have to persuade you to do so.  

Personally I think my topic is fundamentally more important than your topic.  That's because my topic includes your topic.  My topic includes everything the government does do, can do, should do, and shouldn't do.  It's the big picture...and your topic is just one of millions and millions of pieces of the puzzle.

[Plu]

Isn't it fundamentally important to understand the pieces of the puzzle if you want to get the big picture? Especially when you promote a view that requires everyone to understand all the pieces of the puzzle to work.

[surly74]

You simply give all their money to congress.

you should read what you say outloud and then maybe you'll hear how silly you sound...tape yourself Tobias.

I'm talking about only eliminating the age requirement when it comes to voting.  Then kids can try to lower the age limit on everything else but adults would outvote them.  You can't come up with any reasonable scenario where kids aren't victims of tyranny of the majority (adults).  Democracy will always have tyranny of the majority and adults will always be the majority which is why there's absolutely no harm in allowing children of any age to vote.  

parenting is not tyranny. it is not tyranny when we know children aren't capable of certain things. If you want to think it's tyranny fine. go ahead. you are wrong asshat. are you 16? I know you said earlier you were older but I can't remember exactly but it doesn't matter anymore. I wouldn't believe you based on what you write. You are trying to hard to sound mature and intelligent. two things most 16 year olds aren't.

The problem is that you struggle to think things through.  And maybe you're incapable of thinking things through.  But how can I know which one it is unless I try and help you think?

no i think things through quite well and better than you. I'm not the one trying to show how smart I am by proving I know how to use google to convince people. You pick and choose what you want to respond to. You assert you have the answers to this but won't tell me why I should take you seriously. All you have after my requests are deflections and passive aggressive insults. who cares. You know nothing.

How much money did Mother's Against Drunk Driving spend last year?  And how much money did kids spend on trying to lower the drinking/driving age?  

MADD is a lobby group. i don't care about them. in Canada MADD supports recommends the minimum driving age at 16 which defeats the purpose of what they are trying to do nevermind who are they to recommend anything? If they said to raise it they would risk losing donations. Auto safety groups who have stats behind them (should you believe those stats over no stats from MADD) have said to raise the age. It makes sense that older drivers are going to be safer drivers. Teenagers already drink and probably would do less damage to other people only drinking rather that getting into a car with friends even sober. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. that's reasoning bitch.

I can reason. you don't seem to be able to. you take information or something someone else has written and spew it without fully understanding it. If you could reason you could explain in your own terms why something makes sense without being a useless parrot.

The fact that you think it's dumb is proof that everybody should be allowed to vote.  You really fail to understand that Churchill was talking about you when he said that the best argument against democracy was a 5 minute conservation with the average voter.

nice comeback. what fact? there isn't even an argument here why it's not a dumb question. Because you say so??? oh, ok...fucktard. Are you capable of saying anything without referencing someone else to try and make your argument for you or did we see it in:

You simply give all their money to congress.

LOL.

But maybe you're smarter than the average voter?  If so, then you should have no problem reading and understanding this paper written by a Harvard professor...If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive While Expanding Enfranchisement?

and we are back to having other people make your arguments.

[Icarus]

Done reading that research paper already? What are your thoughts and comments on their particular approach?

If you want me to read that research paper then you'll have to persuade me to do so.  Just like if I want you to read the definitive economic justification for government then I'll have to persuade you to do so.  

Personally I think my topic is fundamentally more important than your topic.  That's because my topic includes your topic.  My topic includes everything the government does do, can do, should do, and shouldn't do.  It's the big picture...and your topic is just one of millions and millions of pieces of the puzzle.

I have to persuade you into wanting to be smarter? Sometimes my generation makes me facepalm too hard. Unfortunately the government doesn't understand my topic, not in the slightest. My topic is also mine because I studied it ruthlessly for many years. 'Your' topic as you call it isn't yours because a quick internet search doesn't make you an expert (and I know you said you weren't an expert in a previous post, but this whole 'my topic' thing seems to have changed your mind).

Your view of the world is way too narrow if you think that studying politics is the end all and be all of topics. Politics is an ever changing human construct that has never been stable or had a concrete set of known parameters. Every century we have entirely new systems in many countries and huge changes in the rest. This is why the system can't be studied with the certainty that you are showing to anyone who actually understands the topic.

Here, watch these: http://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse

My topic allows for things to be discovered using rules that very rarely change. This means I can actually discover and experiment, collecting results to prove discoveries to people.

This is what you have failed to do. You've failed to provide any numbers showing your way is better. This is because you don't understand the importance of quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) evidence. Your argument thus far has been 'read this biased article and agree with me'. Which is why everyone thinks you're a child (and unfortunately most probably part of my generation).  ](*,)

[the_antithesis]

[Colanth]

parenting is not tyranny.

A friend of mine (a cop) had to explain once, to a teen-ager who wanted her parents arrested for not allowing her the freedom she thought the Constitution gave her, that a family isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship, and the parents are the dictators.  Some "adults" here apparently haven't yet gotten the message. :)