From: William Clark on
In article <alangbaker-AAC593.14031507022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:

> In article
> <clark-B507BB.08034807022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <alangbaker-35AE26.20434306022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.c
> > > > > > om
> > > > > > ..
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > > > > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
> > > > > >> om
> > > > > >> ..
> > > > > >> .
> > > > > >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.
> > > > > >> >co
> > > > > >> >m.
> > > > > >> >..
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama
> > > > > >> > > was
> > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people who
> > > > > >> > > can't
> > > > > >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> > > > > >> > > prerequisite
> > > > > >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here think
> > > > > >> > > about
> > > > > >> > > this. Do you defend him?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to enact
> > > > > >> > socialist
> > > > > >> > policies.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
> > > > > >> > write".
> > > > > >> > That
> > > > > >> > is stupid.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > never
> > > > > >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact that
> > > > > >> > elections
> > > > > >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
> > > > > >> > based
> > > > > >> > on
> > > > > >> > how
> > > > > >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous
> > > > > >> > year's
> > > > > >> > tax
> > > > > >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> > > > > >> > happen.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you are
> > > > > >> > looking
> > > > > >> > for.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >> than those cast by people who don't?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - - -
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in taxes
> > > > > >> since
> > > > > >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> it.
> > > > > >> What is wrong with that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by "weight"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - - -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one
> > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in
> > > > > income
> > > > > taxes you get two votes.
> > > >
> > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
> > >
> > > Are you seriously suggesting that there is no chance that it could
> > > produce a better society?
> >
> > Yes, I am. I saw how this system operated in Northern Ireland, and the
> > consequences for the society of effectively disenfranchising large
> > sections of the population. We all know where it ended up.
>
> I'm unfamiliar with the situation. Could you point me to some info?

In Northern Ireland up until the 1970s, property and business owners had
multiple votes, renters had none, thus effectively maintaining a
Protestant minority in control of a predominantly Catholic city in
perpetuo. It was this that was the stimulus for the civil rights marches
of the late 1960s, that eventually degenerated into the "Troubles" that
are only now just behind us. I think this idea is a recipe for the same
civil unrest.
>
> > >
> > > Right now we have a tyranny of the majority situation in one particular
> > > area: if the majority want something, they can force the minority to pay
> > > for it.
> >
> > You are assuming that the majority is a) coherently organized, and b)
> > all of the same mind. Our electoral system (as long as the districts are
> > not gerrymandered) shows that the moveable center shifts sides and leads
> > to change.
>
> You're assuming that coherent organization is necessary for politicians
> to see which way the wind blows...

I don't think so.
>
> > >
> > > If 5 guys on a street corner "vote" to "redistribute" the wealth of a
> > > sixth, we usually call that a mugging...
> >
> > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
>
> You're assuming that he'll have that power. I'm not talking about making
> money the only vote and I don't pretend to know where the balance point
> should be, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't necessarily be some
> counterbalancing.

I don't follow. Giving any one individual the right to disenfranchise
another, and that is what this will do, is asking for anarchy.
>
From: assimilate on

On 7-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> > And we had a system in America where you had to be a land owner to even
> > vote
> > at all and that worked fine. �I don't recall that leading to anything
> > remarkable.
>
> --Really? When was that?

prior to the election of 1824

--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 7-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> call that "democracy"? I don't think so.

eviction is a result of not meeting one's contractual obligations and not of
some vote taken.

--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 7-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama was
> > > > >a
> > > > > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people who
> > > > >can't
> > > > > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> > > > > > prerequisite
> > > > > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here think
> > > > >about
> > > > > > this. Do you defend him?
> >
> > > > > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to enact
> > > > > socialist
> > > > > policies.
> >
> > > > > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
> > > > >write".
> > > > > That
> > > > > is stupid.
> >
> > > > > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It will
> > > > > never
> > > > > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact that
> > > > > elections
> > > > > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
> > > > >based
> > > > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous year's
> > > > >tax
> > > > > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> > > > >happen.
> >
> > > > > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you are
> > > > > looking
> > > > > for.
> >
> > > > So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for
> > > > more
> > > > than those cast by people who don't?
> >
> > > > - - -
> >
> > > > No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in taxes
> > > > since
> > > > they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how to
> > > > use
> > > > it.
> > > > What is wrong with that?
> >
> > > What do you mean by "weight"?
> >
> > > - - -
> >
> > > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one
> > > vote.
> > > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays in
> > > income
> > > taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this would weight
> > > votes
> > > on what government should do based on who is paying for it. If you pay
> > > $12k
> > > dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
> >
> > So, if a I win a $100,000 Pick-6 at the racetrack, I can cast two or
> > three votes instead of one? Or, conversely, if I take a spill while
> > skiing in the Swiss Alps and break my arm, and am thus unable to
> > return to my high-paying job as a neurosurgeon, the number of votes I
> > can cast is reduced?
> >
> > But we're getting off the track. I wanted to know what Republicans
> > thought of what the Republican Tom Tancredo said. And what I've gotten
> > so far is three conservatives telling me they're not Republicans. So,
> > I expanded my cohort to include conservatives and libertarians. Still
> > nothing. So, I'll expand it even further to include anybody who voted
> > for John McCain in 2008.
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > Sure. �If you win money in some way the government will take a large
> > chunk
> > of it so why not have more say in what is done with it than someone who
> > doesn't pay any taxes? �If you were a neurosurgeon and then couldn't be
> > one
> > anymore you no longer contribute at the same taxation level. �More taxes
> > =
> > more votes. �What is the problem here?
> >
> > I am a libertarian and I did tell you what I thought. �What exactly are
> > you
> > looking for other than trying to set a trap?
>
> I'm simply trying to determine whether Tancredo's comments represent
> mainstream conservative thought. How is that a trap?

well asking libertarians for their take on mainstream conservative thought
seems rather fruitless. We are not conservatives.



--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 7-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> >
> >>I came across a study recently that argued liberals tend to be more
> >>educated and higher functioning than social conservatives. It's possible
> >>that a civics literacy test would hurt the Republicans more than the
> >>Democrats.
> >
> > It all depends on who writes the tests.
>
> Whoever wrote them, they wouldn't be able to get away with injecting
> obvious bias into them.

you haven't been to a campus lately have you? One of the last classes I ever
took was innocuously titled "Literary Theory." It was a graduate seminar
organized around variations on Marxist thought (though not explicitly
labeled as such).

--
bill-o