56 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I've tried a few times to get my head around what you're trying to say here. Best I can muster is the Star Trek dichotomy: Kirk's deontological 'The good of the one outweighs the good of the many' as opposed to Spock's utilitarian 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. Ie. whether or not one prioritises the individual over the collective. If so, then it doesn't cross the Atlantic too well.

That depends on what end of the food chain you happen to exist...

The needs of the many outweighs the need of the few; it doesn't make much sense, outside of science fiction...

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on what end of the food chain you happen to exist...

The needs of the many outweighs the need of the few; it doesn't make much sense, outside of science fiction...

Your doing an awful lot of posting for someone who is unfamiliar with Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill.

3 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Your doing an awful lot of posting for someone who is unfamiliar with Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill.

You have yet to present a reasonable argument...

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The needs of the many outweighs the need of the few; it doesn't make much sense, outside of science fiction...

It makes perfect sense for Fascists ...

1 minute ago, MigL said:

It makes perfect sense for Fascists ...

Doesn't it just...

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You have yet to present a reasonable argument...

Not really the OP's job. But here's one just for you

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

It makes perfect sense for Fascists ...

Only when misrepresented as 'The petty wants of the many outweigh all rights of the few'.

Edited Saturday at 03:06 PM3 days by sethoflagos

16 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

But protect them from what? The bogeyman that was embedded within their consciousness 50 years ago by a xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-trades-union media when they were young adults?

Not saying that applied to everyone by any means. My own politics stemmed more from a visit to Bergen-Belsen and learning about the IR absorption of CO₂ in a Combustion Engineering course module.

I believe my political views remain valid half a century later. But I am aware that save for some minor pragmatic trimming, they're pretty much unchanged.

But what about the mobs my age who I witnessed first hand lobbing bricks at the homes of immigrants in the late '70s. Have their beliefs changed since? Are they appropriate to the existential threats we face today? Or have they happily settled into the new home of recycled and carefully curated racial hatred offered by Reform?

But IMO the solution to some people being irrational is not to disenfranchise an entire group. Any age group has them.

(In fact, I just ran across an article related to this; posted it in science news https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140375-dunning-kruger-in-voters/ )

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

But IMO the solution to some people being irrational is not to disenfranchise an entire group. Any age group has them.

I would agree with you entirely. And also @CharonY 's comment on D-K ubiquity in all spheres.

My reservation remains that one should not really merit a vote on issues where one does not shoulder the consequences. I see this as a variation on the theme of 'No taxation without representation' which you are probably familiar with 🙂

7 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I've tried a few times to get my head around what you're trying to say here. Best I can muster is the Star Trek dichotomy: Kirk's deontological 'The good of the one outweighs the good of the many' as opposed to Spock's utilitarian 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. Ie. whether or not one prioritises the individual over the collective. If so, then it doesn't cross the Atlantic too well.

It's about balancing the collective good with the fact that the collective is composed of individuals who cannot be categorized with any certainty. Yes, there's a deontological aspect where one asks, "what sort of nation are we if we start imposing abstract requirements to vote?" And there's also a more consequentialist argument, in that nations which actually do start classifying some voters as problematic, don't have enough skin in the game, don't meet the criteria for good voters... have not done at all well. Real consequences, not just existential fretting.

Also, how can we really know an older voter would not bear some consequences solely on the basis of longevity? If I die knowing my grandchildren will live in tents due to a horrible policy on housing, it may not affect me directly, but I am still dying in despair. I very much want to vote against the scoundrels pushing "let them pitch tents."

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

My reservation remains that one should not really merit a vote on issues where one does not shoulder the consequences. I see this as a variation on the theme of 'No taxation without representation' which you are probably familiar

Your grabbing that wedge again. Where do we draw the line on say, voting on school bond issues? Can only people with children vote on this? Obviously unworkable and also begs the question: don't childless couples and singles also have an interest in younger people being educated? Statistics on crime and incarceration rates show where kids wind up if they don't have decent schools.

And 40-50% of American workers (it varies) don't pay taxes, because their earnings fall below the line where there's any tax liability. They fill out "the short form" and they're done. Should they not vote? Same thing as with the schools - cause and effect ripples through all of society, and everyone has an interest in responsible governance and spending.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

It's about balancing the collective good with the fact that the collective is composed of individuals who cannot be categorized with any certainty. Yes, there's a deontological aspect where one asks, "what sort of nation are we if we start imposing abstract requirements to vote?" And there's also a more consequentialist argument, in that nations which actually do start classifying some voters as problematic, don't have enough skin in the game, don't meet the criteria for good voters... have not done at all well. Real consequences, not just existential fretting.

Also, how can we really know an older voter would not bear some consequences solely on the basis of longevity? If I die knowing my grandchildren will live in tents due to a horrible policy on housing, it may not affect me directly, but I am still dying in despair. I very much want to vote against the scoundrels pushing "let them pitch tents."

Your grabbing that wedge again. Where do we draw the line on say, voting on school bond issues? Can only people with children vote on this? Obviously unworkable and also begs the question: don't childless couples and singles also have an interest in younger people being educated? Statistics on crime and incarceration rates show where kids wind up if they don't have decent schools.

And 40-50% of American workers (it varies) don't pay taxes, because their earnings fall below the line where there's any tax liability. They fill out "the short form" and they're done. Should they not vote? Same thing as with the schools - cause and effect ripples through all of society, and everyone has an interest in responsible governance and spending.

All good stuff. Okay we can keep the vote.

But my mind keeps turning to the accomplishments of the generation born in the last quarter of the nineteenth century:

Einstein, Schrodinger, Born, Bohr, de Broglie, Bose, JBS Haldane, Julian Huxley, Pablo Picasso, Max Ernst, Le Courbusier, Man Ray, Aldous Huxley, Thomas Mann, James Joyce, Franz Kafka, Bulgakov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Varèse, Ravel, Poulenc...

And the generation born 1950 to 1974?

Duran Duran. Some punishment must be due.

Edited Saturday at 11:12 PM2 days by sethoflagos

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Your grabbing that wedge again.
...
And 40-50% of American workers (it varies) don't pay taxes, because their earnings fall below the line where there's any tax liability.

Everybody pays taxes; If not income taxes, then consumption taxes.
The American people just paid Billions of tariff taxes to a Government that imposed them illegally, and are now being told they can't reclaim them.
The old adage is you can't escape death or taxes.

53 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

And the generation born 1950 to 1974?

Duran Duran. Some punishment must be due.

Hehe. I would respond with more thought to this, but it's suppertime here and I'm hungry like the wolf.

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

Everybody pays taxes; If not income taxes, then consumption taxes.
The American people just paid Billions of tariff taxes to a Government that imposed them illegally, and are now being told they can't reclaim them.
The old adage is you can't escape death or taxes.

True. Hidden tax is everywhere. Though one could, in theory, never pay tax to the federal government by keeping to a low income, never owning a car or consuming anything imported. But state and muni taxes would still be there. Along with the Reaper. Who reportedly is a good chess player, per this Swedish movie I saw.