The ivory tower intellectual vs the man on the street

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake - why don't we have literacy checks before being allowed to vote? Or a poll tax?

I clearly stated earlier that I don't support requiring national service for people to vote. That was Ned's idea. I just said that I think that a mandatory service program has a lot of good aspects to it. I never said or implied that I wanted to limit voting privileges in any way.

Thank goodness we don't have literacy checks or you wouldn't be able to vote at all...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then I assume you propose a tax exemption for everyone else?

I vaguely remember someone once said something about taxation without representation?

Now there's an idea! I wonder just how many people would give up the right to vote if it would mean that they didn't have to pay taxes....?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sikander

I have seen a number of people bag their advanced degrees once they saw how things worked in their chosen field after some real life experience. Too bad they didn't take a year and work in the field ahead of time, rather than wasting several years getting educated for a career that they have no interest in. Additionally, even if one still is as excited by their career choice after a bit of experience, having the experience allows them to better tailor their education to their career.

I was surprised to hear though (from a reasonably reliable source) that for many of the Ivy League or major universities in the US it is a big negative for entrance to have taken time off from academics. In contrast, in both Canada and Sweden it is the exact opposite.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by monkspider
Great avatar btw Groucho.

I agree, that is a great avatar.

[SpencerH]

As an "ivory tower resident" I can categorically state that I would not want my fellow residents running the country. I wouldnt trust some of them to run a toaster without mishap.

[Wraith]

Okay, I don't want to get dragged into this one, but there's something so blindingly illogical I just have to comment.

--"Obviously we would have the right to speak freely, however property rights, however, would be nonexistant."

I fail to see where you make any argument to support this assertion. If there's nothing in the state of nature to prevent us from saying what we want, what is there to prevent you from, say, picking up a stick and calling it your club? Or knapping a piece of flint, tying it to your stick, and calling it an axe?
Oops, you've just discovered property. Might find it a good idea to keep useful items around.

Property rights seem to pass your state of nature test without a problem.

Wraith
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Roland]

That's not property, that's mere possession.

[Lincoln]

This is a very good thread topic. I haven't read the whole thread yet so this may have already been said:

The "masses" cannot simply run a country or any society for that matter. That is, uness those people have some idea type of decent morality as a foundation for their rule. A corrupt mass of people can do no better than a corrupt elite. If either group gains power the end result is still corruption.

I am all for the common man on the street. Wisdom is often found there while it escapes those who sit in their ivory towers and read book and teach ridiculous concepts about abstract nonsense. But on the other hand sometimes the man on the street who actually has wisdom finds himself in a leadership position. This is supposed to be how a republican form of government works.

The local people have intimate knowledge of individuals among them who are wise and honest and they elect them to become their leaders. Now days however people are elected (except for local ofices) by the media, with each side spewing out their own propganda.

Because of the present corruption among the leaders and the "masses" I don't know the solution. Mob rule however is generally the lowest form of society. If the mob gets tired of the anarchy then they may find a leader among them to restore order of some kind. In any case, wisdom comes from the people on the street and a good leader will seek out that input before he makes his decisions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Then I assume you propose a tax exemption for everyone else?

I vaguely remember someone once said something about taxation without representation?

The Romans had an answer for that one too - Roman citizens don't pay taxes. Everyone else does.

Actually, come to think of it, one could "reduce" taxes by a percentage for each year of service. After 30 years, taxes could be zero.

Also, after reading these threads, I would also assure that no one had a "right" to enter service. One would still have to pass mental and physical tests, and of course, be able to read and write - English.

[Roland]

"and of course, be able to read and write - English."

[Rogan Josh]

I find this discussion a little bit bizarre. Why would more education ever lead to someone being less fit to govern? Clearly the better educated someone is the more knowledge they can draw from and the more logic they can apply to the problems they face. This can only be a good thing.

What (I think) some of you are really trying to say is that the people who have gone to the lengths to achieve their place in their 'ivory towers' are not necessarily well suited to govern because of the other effects that education has had.

First of all, it is a filtering mechanism. People who do well academically are often people who have put all their time into their studies and therefore may lack social skills or social awareness. That is, they may be the steriotypical nerds, out of touch with the 'common man'.

Also, by being firmly ensconced in academia, they may move in circles which are somewhat different from those of the 'common man'. For example, they may never have experienced the hardships that poverty causes or seen the effects of drug abuse first hand etc. This may leave them in a poor position for governance.

However, while I admit that this may be true for some academics it is not universal. There are plenty of academics who have plenty of experience of life, who have great social skills and who would make excellent leaders. To say that all academics are so socially handicapped is steriotyping in its crudest form, and (speaking as an academic) is frankly insulting. It is just as bad as saying that the man on the street is universally ignorant, greedy and selfish.

I don't think that the people who we elect to govern should necessarily have knowledge of 'abstract nonsense' since it does not necessarily help them govern, but they should certainly not be excluded for knowing about such things. They should instead be chosen by how much relevant experience and knowledge they have - however that is measured - and the most capable chosen irrespective of social class.

I think the present system (representative democracy) is the best in principle. However, I would like to see more regulation. For example, perhaps all candidates which pass a certain hurdle should be given a fixed amount of money for advertising, and should then be allowed to only use that amount. At the moment candidates seem to buy their way into power by throwing their money around at campaign time.

[Wraith]

--"That's not property, that's mere possession. "

Well, a quick exorcism will solve that problem.

Wraith
"Careful, Klinger. Dressing as a nun can be habit-forming."
-- BJ ("M*A*S*H")

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
"and of course, be able to read and write - English."

Roland, should be the same test in Austria.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
The Romans had an answer for that one too - Roman citizens don't pay taxes. Everyone else does.

Yeah, and this proved to be a major disaster in the long run and contributed greatly to the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire. Draining the provinces of wealth to feed the central bureacracy was not a good idea.

[Ned]

If we are taking things from scratch, I would have a Senate composed of ex-presidents and ex-governors who would serve for life - very similar to the Roman Senate. The House would remain unchanged.

The new Senate, composed of elder statesmen who served for life would be less susceptible to "pork barrel" politics.

I would also give the Senate the power to remove a president or any presidential appointee by two thirds majority vote. There would not have to be a High Crime and Misdemeanor, as with Impeachment.