Originally posted by AmorRoark:
You raise up good points, however, if we as a "whole" don't want to pay for roads ect. we get exactly what we deserve. I'd like to believe that people aren't so stupid to not see that if you don't pay for the roads we can't drive;if we don't pay for the firemen, we aren't protected. Even if people did decide not to pay for these things, they would probably see the problems faced without these things and change their minds.
Sadly, I think that this isn't true. People ARE stupid enough to believe that things like this will be taken care of if they don't help. I know a lot of teenagers who hate taxes and think they shouldn't be in existence. This is only my poor belief in human nature, but I think that if you stopped forcing people to pay taxes for roads, policemen and firemen, a lot of people just plain wouldn't pay for them even if they used a road every day, called the firemen for their kitchen fire, and called the cops on a burglar. People just believe they have the "right" to have these things provided for them and have no idea of the expense to keep all these things going. When these things stop working, they are going to point the fingers at everyone but themselves and still not pay for them, in my opinion.
Yes, when the money gives out those who don't pay for the roads will get exactly what they deserve, but so will those who have been choosing to pay for the roads and police all along before the money ran out.
We live in an age were there shouldn't be any "indirect" government.
I realize you were speaking of theoretical philosophy, but I think philosophy is useless unless we can discuss its real-life applications. I think we live in an age when we can have nothing BUT indirect government. Not a single person I know who holds down a job, school, has kids, whatever, has the time nor the inclination to sit down and read through a HUGE stack of bills and then hear speeches for days in favor of or against each one. In the days of small villages, this was okay, but when you live in a city of several million, if even 1% of the population wants to have a chance to speak their mind on the floor before an issue is voted on, no one will ever get out of the hearings and society would grind to a halt. We elect through our votes those who we think can represent how we would have voted and reacted to these issues, and then we go on with our productive lives. I don't see any way to have a direct government in place today, but I would love to hear your ideas
I don't know what to say about the people who pay taxes and can't vote... I personally don't think most teenagers know enough about daily politics, nor do they have the maturity to make responsible decisions about our government. (Yes, I know that there are idiots on the street who have been voting all their lives we could say the same things about.) Their parents vote for them in the way they believe is in their best interests, and they will be able to vote when they get older.
Originally posted by Alf:
I realize you were speaking of theoretical philosophy, but I think philosophy is useless unless we can discuss its real-life applications. I think we live in an age when we can have nothing BUT indirect government. Not a single person I know who holds down a job, school, has kids, whatever, has the time nor the inclination to sit down and read through a HUGE stack of bills and then hear speeches for days in favor of or against each one. In the days of small villages, this was okay, but when you live in a city of several million, if even 1% of the population wants to have a chance to speak their mind on the floor before an issue is voted on, no one will ever get out of the hearings and society would grind to a halt. We elect through our votes those who we think can represent how we would have voted and reacted to these issues, and then we go on with our productive lives. I don't see any way to have a direct government in place today, but I would love to hear your ideas
I don't know if people would actually take the time to become involved, because yes it would take a long time to sort through everything. But, I think that it should be available to us if we want to see it. Why don't they teach kids in school what exactly our taxes pay for? There are quite a few things that they teach now that I believe should take the backseat to learning about the government and society that we live in. In regards to elected officals, I have no problem with voting for people to represent me. But the problem is, nobody represents me for I am only 16 years old which leads me to this....
Originally posted by Alf:
Someone whose parents can afford cable, a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, etc, would have a MUCH MUCH higher chance of passing the test than someone who lives in a Chicago ghetto with no money at all (I'm sorry that I have to stereotype here), who maybe can't read well enough to understand the newspapers OR the test questions. I realize we are talking about giving an oppportunity to those teenagers who want it, and maybe those in the former group would have more free time to get out and vote and be active, so they SHOULD be voting. But I also feel this is a form of discrimination against those classes who may not have the oppotunity to stay up on current events even though they may be those who have the most to say and are hit the hardest by certain governmental mandates, such as the war on drugs or welfare battles.
I question if you are ready for change of any sort? To make great changes in this country, many "dangerous roads" were taken....
Starting off with the very first traveling here to make a true "democracy",
the the Decloration of Independence,
then The Civil Rights Movement.
At the time, these were all dangerous too.. half-assing change doesn't work.
Why generation after generation do people accept the way our lower class lives? Especially when we have money and time to change it. Kids in the ghetto probably wouldn't pass the test because their schooling system sucks, therefore they don't become interested in such things. And why does that system suck? Because we the people allow it to be. No, not by capitalism. But because our tax money is going to welfare.. a system that keeps the poor man poor, while it should be going to raising the bar of education in inner city public schools.
I hardly believe that allowing EVERYONE to take a test on our country and the government is "discrimination". Once again, if people don't know the basics of our country and how it works, I turn to the schools again. Why aren't they learning this? If what you're saying is true; that children with less money know less about the government or government issues than everyone else.. thats a sad statement of our democracy.
I understand that as of right now, it is more difficult for poor kids to know what's going on in the world.. but you act like it is impossible for them. They have libraries.. with tons of newspapers. Also, just because someone doesn't have cable doesn't mean they can't watch the news. There is constantly news shows on NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS. If someone was interested in current events, they could easily access them. It isn't like taking a test to be allowed to do things in this country is a new concept. For example, you must take a test to become a citizen, to get a driver's license, and to pass high school. Voting is a pretty big issue, and a priviledge. A priviledge that I think should be extended to certain people under 18.
Originally posted by Alf:
[QB]
I think as far as the short answers go, that might not work so well. You will have the biases of the "graders" come into play here. Why not keep a bunch of people who think that socialism is really the best way to go from voting, by grading them harshly on a short answer that shows these tendencies?[QB]
Ever heard of standardized testing? Every high schooler is MADE to do this. Of course there are short anwser/essay questions that inclue the test-taker's opinion. And yes, some of these questions are on controversial subjects, like drugs and justice. However, they find graders that aren't bias. I'm pretty sure the government would take a voting test more seriously then standardized testings by high schoolers... therefore they'd probably make sure the graders were not being biased.
Ehh... all for now!! btw I'm glad you did keep this topic alive
