Children's Suffrage

[Xerographica]

That's an improper extrapolation. I could explain it to you with some pictures, but then as I'm not intending to a good teacher I'll just copy your method and tell you to go read up on it and come back when you understand.

Maybe it'll help you realise how incredibly silly that makes you sound when you do it.

If I tell somebody to read something then I'll link them to whatever it is that I want them to read.  For example, if I wanted you to learn something about democracies then I'd have you read this...If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive While Expanding Enfranchisement?

You, on the other hand, can't link me to anything of value because you're ignorant.  Which isn't so bad...if somebody is actually interested in learning something.  But you're not interested in learning anything.  Therefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

[Plu]

Therefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

And yet, instead of spending your limited resources elsewhere... you keep responding to me. And you wonder why we think you are full of shit :D

[Xerographica]

Therefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

And yet, instead of spending your limited resources elsewhere... you keep responding to me. And you wonder why we think you are full of shit :D

Are you sure that people don't think you're full of shit?  Because, that's all you contribute.  Anybody who actually follows the discussion knows that I don't just pull shit out of my ass...I share passages written by people who definitely are not full of shit...

As a later chapter discusses in more detail, democracy (the voting mechanism) is a very poor means for determining people's preferences.  Votes can be cast either for or against a limited number of proposals offered in referenda, but votes remain extraordinarily poor devices for registering the intensity of different people's wants and desires.  Furthermore, why would we want to rely on the cumbersome procedures of democracy to determine how many toothpicks or bow ties to produce? - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free

In case you missed it, this is me replying to your useless shit with valuable information.  Well...I guess your shit isn't entirely useless...as it gives me an opportunity to share value with anybody actually interested in learning something.

[Plu]

By your logic, people give the most value to the people that give the most valuable contributions... people have decided to thank me for my contributions 32 times, they thanks you once. So by your own logic, my contributions to this forum are clearly more valuable.

[Xerographica]

By your logic, people give the most value to the people that give the most valuable contributions... people have decided to thank me for my contributions 32 times, they thanks you once. So by your own logic, my contributions to this forum are clearly more valuable.

The majority watches Nascar instead of reading Nobel Prize winning economists.  One person's trash is another person's treasure.  To each their own.  That's my logic which is why I support children's suffrage and pragmatarianism.  

With respect, I respect any preference that reflects a genuine willingness of those with the preference to bear personally all necessary costs to indulge the preference.  But I do not respect 'cheap' preferences — preferences that are merely expressions backed-up with no personal stake in indulging the preferences. - Don Boudreaux

[Plu]

So you accept that by your own logic I'm simply more valuable to this community than you are. :)

[Icarus]

Are you sure that people don't think you're full of shit?  Because, that's all you contribute.  Anybody who actually follows the discussion knows that I don't just pull shit out of my ass...I share passages written by people who definitely are not full of shit...

I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that you're just pulling shit out of your ass. Context is everything.

[surly74]

If theists were currently not allowed to vote/shop...then you wouldn't want them to vote/shop because the outcome would be negative.  Is this true or false?

what is the theist buying? are they entering into a legal contract for purchase? The phrase "allowed to shop" is too ambigious and is meaningless. shop for what? a house? a dvd? those are two very different purchases. In the end it doesn't matter.

how would you prevent a theist from shopping? what would tell you they are theists? its generally very easy to tell who is not of a certain age by their government issued ID. that's the difference and quite a significant one. There is no law that says a theist cannot drive but there is a law that says you must be a certain age to drive, regardless if you are a theist or not.

as for children to vote/shop...unless you are going to put parameters around what ages you are talking about you will continue to sound like an idiot. in your first post you said "regardless of age" which is silly. I'm actually in favor of lowering the drinking age from (19 to 16) and raising the driving age (from 16 to 19). But those have parameters. I'm not thowing terms out "Regardless of age" without understanding the consequences.

But I don't think you can do that (understand what you are asking). Perhaps you've read or heard someone use this argument before and are regurgitating it and missing a key piece. I'm sure if you went to one of your own ecomomics heros and came to them with this argument and used the phrase "regardless of age" they would slowly back away from you, or just dismiss you. Or they would counter it by putting in their parameters becaues surely a Noble prize winner in Economics wouldn't be arguing for a nine year old to vote. If that's the case then it really diminishes the prize AND economics.

so, your question is a really really dumb one. I award you no points and everyone on this board is a little dumber for you having asked it.

[the_antithesis]

Therefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

There's anything of value here?

[Xerographica]

how would you prevent a theist from shopping?

You simply give all their money to congress.  In case you missed it, congresspeople are our personal shoppers.  Right now they are only our personal shoppers in the public sector.  But if they are good personal shoppers in the public sector then they must be good personal shoppers in the private sector.  So theists would have a 100% tax rate, atheists would vote for congresspeople and congresspeople would ensure that theists had adequate quantities of the things they needed to survive.  Of course the congresspeople we vote for wouldn't waste any money on things like churches...so that money would be used for more valuable things and we'd all be better off.  

as for children to vote/shop...unless you are going to put parameters around what ages you are talking about you will continue to sound like an idiot. in your first post you said "regardless of age" which is silly. I'm actually in favor of lowering the drinking age from (19 to 16) and raising the driving age (from 16 to 19). But those have parameters. I'm not thowing terms out "Regardless of age" without understanding the consequences.

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.  

But I don't think you can do that (understand what you are asking). Perhaps you've read or heard someone use this argument before and are regurgitating it and missing a key piece. I'm sure if you went to one of your own ecomomics heros and came to them with this argument and used the phrase "regardless of age" they would slowly back away from you, or just dismiss you. Or they would counter it by putting in their parameters becaues surely a Noble prize winner in Economics wouldn't be arguing for a nine year old to vote. If that's the case then it really diminishes the prize AND economics.

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?

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?  

so, your question is a really really dumb one. I award you no points and everyone on this board is a little dumber for you having asked it.

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.

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?

[Plu]

But if they are good personal shoppers in the public sector then they must be good personal shoppers in the private sector.

They should hire you at ski-resorts, you seem to be the master of slippery slopes.

[Xerographica]

But if they are good personal shoppers in the public sector then they must be good personal shoppers in the private sector.

They should hire you at ski-resorts, you seem to be the master of slippery slopes.

So a congressperson can 'divine' how much you value defense but they can't 'divine' how much you value donuts?  Their crystal ball only works for public goods?  Congresspeople are only partially omniscient?  

But where Wicksell proceeded to examine the process of preference revelation, Samuelson provided a more general definition of the efficient solution. Preference revelation is disregarded as the model visualizes an omniscient referee to whom preferences are known. - Richard A. Musgrave, Public Finance

You are too dense to realize that our system is based on voodoo.  The evidence is right in front of you but you have no idea whether or not to believe it because you're incapable of researching the topic and gathering enough information to make an informed decision.  

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.

[Icarus]

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?

Democracies don't need informed voters, if they did we wouldn't have any democracies. If you're suggesting we'd be better off if everyone was informed I would contest that informing the public of scientific principles is a far more useful topic of choice to educate the public.

You citing this paper is also contradictory to your first point, that children should be allowed to vote. How can you agree that children should be allowed to vote and that we need informed voters to run a thriving democracy. Are you suggesting we change the entire curriculum to focus on politics over any other, much more important, topics? You would also be assuming that we could provide a huge number of unbiased educators to teach the children to make their own choices; without having any educators use their power to start brainwashing their student to think as they do.

You seem way too trusting and optimistic concerning peoples behavior.

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).

[Colanth]

Did you just ask me if I was going to "like" a page on Facebook?

Don't you support allowing adults to directly choose where their taxes go?  Or are you convinced that we are little ignorant children that shouldn't be allowed to shop for ourselves in the the public sector?

I think that most people reading this thread are convinced that you're a little ignorant child when it comes to thinking logically.

[Colanth]

And the people who don't fuck everything up aren't taxpayers?  In your fucktard reality...who the fuck doesn't fuck everything the fuck up?

That's a lot of fucks for a teacher. I'd almost think I'm hitting a nerve there. Now I'm finally deriving value from your posts. Keep it up, you might actually sell something someday.

Having served in the infantry swearing is second nature to me.

Having served in the Navy (and by what you hear you'd thing that the only thing that keeps ships afloat is all the cursing), I seem to be able to automatically keep the profanity at bay where it's not appropriate.  You must have a real problem with reality.