Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News US Voters: Weird as they wanna be

  1. Nov 20, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Christopher Hayes at The New Republic on http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=hayes111704 [Broken].
    And there's this brave attempt to break the WTF-o-meter:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 20, 2004 #2
    I'm sorry to say, idiots are everywhere in each country but USA has too many of them.
    Some people should just be prohibited from voting whatsoever, unless they have completed some simple pollitical knowledge test.Otherwise poor going to vote what is not in their own interest and on the impulse.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2004
  4. Nov 20, 2004 #3
    The concept of voting is handicapped to this kind of thing. If you want something done right you go to the experts, not the uneducated masses.
  5. Nov 20, 2004 #4
    God, what a choice we have...

    Let dumbasses vote, or have an Aristocracy.
  6. Nov 20, 2004 #5
    That is one of the biggest and the most accepted lies in the whole frikkin world. There are more than 2 kinds of Government people have come up with, but your kept scared of trying them, or even learning about them because it's not 'free enough' or its too 'corrupt' or its 'communist'.

    This is what monarchs used to do with the peasants, the peasants didn't know it could be any other way.
    Except the kings used religion alot too.... havn't we grown.
  7. Nov 20, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    What form of government do you advocate?
  8. Nov 20, 2004 #7
    I'm an open supporter of Anarchosyndicalism.

    but something tells me you arn't.
  9. Nov 20, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Explain what the heck that means and I'll tell you. In fact, start a thread about what kind of government we should have and I'll tell you exactly what I advocate and you can do the same.
  10. Nov 20, 2004 #9
    Well, you said that we shouldn't leave it up to the ignorant masses to vote, and said we should leave the decisions up to people who know what they're doing. I wasn't saying that Aristocracy and Democracy are the only two ways of government, I was saying what you were talking about (having only a select group of people with knowledge deemed sufficient enough to make decisions) was an Aristocracy.

    I don't understand how you can simeltaneously say that people are too stupid to vote competently and also advocate a form of government where it's totally up to the people to do everything for themselves. Unless your plan is to have all the weak/stupid people weeded out of society.
  11. Nov 20, 2004 #10
    Ideally I would like a non hierarchial form of government, where no one is set above anyone else regardless of wealth, vote count, physical strength or any other factor. Its not the people I'm against/for, its the voting.
  12. Nov 20, 2004 #11
    How do you expect equality when you clearly accept the fact that some people are just plain stupid and don't know what they're doing? How should equality be made from inherint inequality?
  13. Nov 20, 2004 #12
    I'm not talking about equality in its conventional sense of civil rights and suffrage and whatnot, but rather in absense of a command chain in the Government.

    Anarchosyndicalism 101
  14. Nov 20, 2004 #13
    Anarchosyndicalism is basically communism (theoretical Marxism type communism, not the stalin "I like murder" type) mixed with trade unions, basically "government" would be a whole bunch of powerful trade unions that everyone would belong to and would control trade and thus the economy, social issues would go with the free anarcho-communist approach.

    So basically it's a combination of communism and unionism.

  15. Nov 20, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Boy is this 180o off! Anarchosyndicalism has nothing to do with marxism or communism in any of its forms.

    I suspect Lyoukdea doesn't really know what communism is or was, let alone anarchosyndicalism.
  16. Nov 20, 2004 #15

    I'm not exactly sure where I errored in my summary, however, there is an official dictionary definition. I'm sorry if I put any negative spin in my definition, it was purely unintentional.

  17. Nov 20, 2004 #16
    I think this is mainly a misunderstanding of marxist "Worker's Revolution" and that anything which puts strength in the working class has something to do with communism.
  18. Nov 21, 2004 #17
    I'd argue that the anarcho-sydicalists final aim is an economy controlled by the working classes, which, the working classes being about 95% of the population, is tantamount to an economy controlled by the whole of society. I understand that there is some difference between this and a "communally" controlled economy, as the labor groups are free to fight with each-other and barter over the exact means of production, which i pointed out in my original post.

    Probably the difference of opinions stems from the time period we were analyzing the anarcho-syndicalist movement from. I was thinking of the movement in the early 20th century when it was a force in Spain and most of the rest of Europe, I can understand the difference between the today's movement and pure anarcho-communism, as usually the force is more fragmented as an anti-WTO, anti-Globalization, anti-capitalism force.

  19. Nov 21, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That is a very interesting idea: the voting ballot could also be a small exam: only if you have most of the answers right, is your vote valid. But then, who will make up the questions... :rolleyes:
  20. Nov 21, 2004 #19
    An small independant organization where no one working there (and I mean no one, not even the chauffers and the secretaries) will have ties to either parties/candidates.
  21. Nov 22, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This was already tried. Literacy exams were used in the south to disenfranchise poor, black voters. The practice was found to be unconstitutional, and anyone advocating it now would do well to study a little history.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook