Atheistforums.com

People of any age should be allowed to vote. There should only be one restriction...

1. you can't be accompanied in the voting both

The biggest argument against children voting is that they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision. When I was a little kid my mom made me go to church. I also had to frequently read the bible and pray. If kids had been allowed to vote back then...then she probably would have dragged me to the voting booth and tried to make me vote like her as well...fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Make some noise if you're fiscally liberal and socially conservative. I'm not...I'm the opposite...and I've been an atheist since the age of 11.

So if you want to argue that kids wouldn't have enough information...then you're arguing that parents don't have enough information. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

If you want to argue that kids don't understand the issues...then you're arguing that parents don't understand the issues. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't pay taxes? Therefore adults that don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't have enough life experience? Therefore, those of you who have never lived in a developing country should not be allowed to vote. Same thing with those of you who haven't experienced war first hand.

Therefore, either everybody votes or nobody votes. If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

Another argument is that people with kids would have more influence than people without kids. So what? Then you're arguing that the 1% shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have more money (influence) than the 99%.

Voting is a numbers game. Kids, being in the minority, even in the unlikely situation that they all agreed on the same issue...would never have the numbers to win against adults. Not only would kids not have the numbers...but they wouldn't even have the dollars. So they would get trounced in any kid vs adult issue.

Clearly though, just because people vote for the "wrong" thing isn't any evidence that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Otherwise women shouldn't be allowed to vote...given that they voted for prohibition.

The fact that so many of you believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote...is proof positive that kids should be allowed to vote.

I'm sorry, but saying, "Parent's should be given an extra vote" isn't a compelling argument to me.

QuoteThen you're arguing that the 1% shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have more money (influence) than the 99%.

That's a terrible comparison, but if we want to use it then it would be like saying, "Just because the 1% has more money/influence, they still shouldn't have their vote counted twice.".

Sorry, kid's shouldn't be able to vote. Maybe reduce the age to 16, but that's about it.

He! He! Is this some kind of new logic like new math was?   :popcorn:  Solitary

Quote from: "Xerographica"Therefore, either everybody votes or nobody votes. If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

I may be a little [s:2evqzjlg]tipsy[/s:2evqzjlg] drunk right now, but I'm pretty sure that's not great logic...

Quote from: "Xerographica"If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

Including non-citizens?

Quote from: "Xerographica"The fact that so many of you believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote...is proof positive that kids should be allowed to vote.

Interesting as it may be that you'd assume that so many of us believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote, I don't see how that is proof in the slightest that they should be allowed to. I've actually seen some decent reasons why they should, none of which you've given here. Simply addressing objections which you project onto your audience is more akin to straw-manning than a convincing argument.

This is pretty weak as far as logic goes, even from you.

But I guess by this logic, if you are allowed to decide where your money goes, everyone should be allowed to decide where your money goes, because that's maximizing value. I guess our current tax system is the better option, using your own logic  :roll:

Quote from: "Poison Tree"

Quote from: "Xerographica"If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

Including non-citizens?

Sure, and people should be able to sell their votes and choose where their taxes go.  They should even be able to give their taxes to foreign governments.  

Quote from: "Poison Tree"Interesting as it may be that you'd assume that so many of us believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote, I don't see how that is proof in the slightest that they should be allowed to. I've actually seen some decent reasons why they should, none of which you've given here. Simply addressing objections which you project onto your audience is more akin to straw-manning than a convincing argument.

Churchill said that the best argument against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.  Except, the average voter doesn't believe that Churchill was referring to them.  So it makes me laugh when the average voter says that the average child is too uninformed to vote.   The jokes on them but they're too uninformed to get it.  Therefore, the reason you don't see how it's proof is because you're the average voter.  If you made the effort, like I have, to actually learn about the topic, then you would see the logic of the argument.

...wow.

Little kids would vote the way their parents tell them to vote. They haven't developed the intellectual skills needed to vote. At 10 years old I was a smart kid, but thinking back to that time there's no way I would trust my naive 10-year-old self to make a good decision voting.

My peers and I were plenty mature and politically savvy enough to vote when we were 16. I do think the voting age could be lowered to 16, but no lower.

Instead of saying "people are dumb, so we might as well let everyone and their dog vote", we could also say "people are dumb, so lets make sure people have a minimum level of knowledge about what they're actually doing before we count their vote".

Quote from: "Plu"Instead of saying "people are dumb, so we might as well let everyone and their dog vote", we could also say "people are dumb, so lets make sure people have a minimum level of knowledge about what they're actually doing before we count their vote".

The more people that vote...the less each vote counts.  Right now your vote doesn't count for much at all...

QuoteWhen you vote, the chance that you tip the outcome is near 0%, so you might as well just scream about your identity.  When you move, in contrast, the chance that you tip the outcome is near 100%, so you'd better consider cost and convenience. - Bryan Caplan, Expressive Voting, Emigration, and Alsace-Lorraine (//http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/expressing_voti.html)

So might as well let everybody and their dog vote because there's not much difference between near 0% and nearer 0%.

But if you really want informed people's votes to count...then why aren't you a big fan of pragmatarianism?  It's a fact that there's a strong correlation between education and income.  So the more informed you are...the more money you'll make...and the more influence you'd have.  Hence there wouldn't be any problem with allowing kids to have nearer 0% influence.

QuoteSo might as well let everybody and their dog vote because there's not much difference between near 0% and nearer 0%.

I'll qualify this for "dumbest post of the week", at least until your next one.

QuoteIt's a fact that there's a strong correlation between education and income.

There's no correlation between having an education and being informed, though. The correlation between education and income is also not lineair.  Which means that by changing it from "being informed makes your vote count" to "being rich makes your vote count" is basically like changing "a light touch on the bum" to "full on anal rape with a barbed wire dildo".

Quote from: "Xerographica"People of any age should be allowed to vote. There should only be one restriction...

1. you can't be accompanied in the voting both

The biggest argument against children voting is that they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision. When I was a little kid my mom made me go to church. I also had to frequently read the bible and pray. If kids had been allowed to vote back then...then she probably would have dragged me to the voting booth and tried to make me vote like her as well...fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Make some noise if you're fiscally liberal and socially conservative. I'm not...I'm the opposite...and I've been an atheist since the age of 11.

So if you want to argue that kids wouldn't have enough information...then you're arguing that parents don't have enough information. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

If you want to argue that kids don't understand the issues...then you're arguing that parents don't understand the issues. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't pay taxes? Therefore adults that don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't have enough life experience? Therefore, those of you who have never lived in a developing country should not be allowed to vote. Same thing with those of you who haven't experienced war first hand.

Therefore, either everybody votes or nobody votes. If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

Another argument is that people with kids would have more influence than people without kids. So what? Then you're arguing that the 1% shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have more money (influence) than the 99%.

Voting is a numbers game. Kids, being in the minority, even in the unlikely situation that they all agreed on the same issue...would never have the numbers to win against adults. Not only would kids not have the numbers...but they wouldn't even have the dollars. So they would get trounced in any kid vs adult issue.

Clearly though, just because people vote for the "wrong" thing isn't any evidence that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Otherwise women shouldn't be allowed to vote...given that they voted for prohibition.

The fact that so many of you believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote...is proof positive that kids should be allowed to vote.

yeah i'll give my nine your old a vote...he'll vote for the first guy that dresses up like batman. not sure who my two year old will vote for seeing he can't read yet...probably Thomas the Tank Engine...and my four month old? Obviously Justin Trudeau.

what is your point? aren't there other forums out there for this [hrline]raving idiocy [/hrline]sort of thing? You've gone from interesting read to batshit crazy. As I've heard it put before, you are a member of a club, this club has dues. don't like where the dues go? either run yourself or leave the club.

People like you really annoy me and here's why. it's not your ideas, i have ideas, its that you come on this board and talk like you have a superior system but you do nothing about it. posting your ideas for reform on an internet messsage board and hoping for change is just like praying...it's something to do but in the end useless. What are you prepared to do about affecting change? What are you prepared to do to get kids the vote? Bring your ideas up to someone in office and see how long it takes for them to look at you like you need a helmet?

you think because at 11 you thought you knew something or had the capability to comprehend something...well i got news for you. at 11 i thought i knew everything too, now where I am in life i realized at 11 i knew shit. kids don't have a vote because they don't understand what it is, at 16 or 18 they have more understanding but not in all cases. at 11? don't delude yourself into thinking you knew more that you did...you probably knew less.

QuoteIf you want to argue that kids don't understand the issues...then you're arguing that parents don't understand the issues. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

uh no, two different things completely and your conclusion doesn't make sense. my child not knowing the issues doesn't mean i'm uninformed....even if it does, i'm over 18 and he isn't.

QuoteTherefore, either everybody votes or nobody votes. If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

in canada every citizen over the age of 18 can vote. can't get much more inclusionary than that. that's maximizing the value.

QuoteAnother argument is that people with kids would have more influence than people without kids. So what? Then you're arguing that the 1% shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have more money (influence) than the 99%.

in two sentences you changed the definition of influence. first you defined kids as influence then you defined it as money. which is it? do you drive to work or bring your lunch?

QuoteVoting is a numbers game. Kids, being in the minority, even in the unlikely situation that they all agreed on the same issue...would never have the numbers to win against adults. Not only would kids not have the numbers...but they wouldn't even have the dollars. So they would get trounced in any kid vs adult issue.

and what would the issues be? recess not long enough? You sound like one of the shows my son watches were 8 year olds are reporters for a magazine for kids and have children in other obviously unrealistic roles for kids.

QuoteThe fact that so many of you believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote...is proof positive that kids should be allowed to vote.

the fact you actually posted and tried to argue kids should be allowed to vote is proof positive you don't know what you are talking about and anything to this point shouldn't be taken seriously.

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "Xerographica"Therefore, either everybody votes or nobody votes. If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

I may be a little [s:29n12hrf]tipsy[/s:29n12hrf] drunk right now, but I'm pretty sure that's not great logic...

A little hungover, but let's see if this works:

"If there's value in allowing some people smoke tobacco, then we maximize value by allowing everybody to smoke tobacco."

"If there's value in allowing some people to drink alcohol, then we maximize value by allowing everybody to drink alcohol."

""If there's value in allowing some people smoke own guns, then we maximize value by allowing everybody to own guns."

Does that sound like good logic to you?   :-k

logic if fine but the is a difference in logic and common sense.

Quote from: "surly74"yeah i'll give my nine your old a vote...he'll vote for the first guy that dresses up like batman. not sure who my two year old will vote for seeing he can't read yet...probably Thomas the Tank Engine...and my four month old? Obviously Justin Trudeau.

Your job as a parent is to ensure your children's well-being.  You teach them to eat their veggies... you teach them to look both ways before they cross the street...you teach them how to drive...you teach them about the importance of safe sex.  You help them to learn how to act according to what's in their best interests.  And it's up to you when and how you teach them the things you think they'll need to know.  Teaching them how to vote would be no different.  I'm pretty sure that it would be up to you to decide when you felt they were ready to do so.  

And if you want to argue that parents aren't responsible enough to teach their children how to vote...then you're arguing that parents aren't responsible enough to have kids.  Which is certainly true in many cases...but whether or not a license should be required to have children is another debate.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Your job as a parent is to ensure your children's well-being.  You teach them to eat their veggies... you teach them to look both ways before they cross the street...you teach them how to drive...you teach them about the importance of safe sex.  You help them to learn how to act according to what's in their best interests.  And it's up to you when and how you teach them the things you think they'll need to know.  Teaching them how to vote would be no different.  I'm pretty sure that it would be up to you to decide when you felt they were ready to do so.  

And if you want to argue that parents aren't responsible enough to teach their children how to vote...then you're arguing that parents aren't responsible enough to have kids.  Which is certainly true in many cases...but whether or not a license should be required to have children is another debate.

and that job covers over 18 years with certain topics being brought up at certain times. there are topics that I feel aren't appropriate for a nine year old. Other people may feel differently and they are free to parent how they see fit.

QuoteAnd if you want to argue that parents aren't responsible enough to teach their children how to vote...then you're arguing that parents aren't responsible enough to have kids.

I'm NOT arguing for this...you seem to be and poorly I might add. I do educate my oldest on policity things that he will understand that doesn't mean he's prepared to cast a ballot. You seem to be now backtracking in that it's up to the parent to decide who is ready to vote when in your mess of a topic post you said people regardless of age...and no one can accompany them. Are you starting to see how that is an idea not even based in reality or do you still think people with infants will allow the infant to vote?

This is the difference between you and I. Real life is not a theory. I recognize that...you don't.

Quote from: "Xerographica"The biggest argument against children voting is that they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision.

If you want to argue that kids don't understand the issues.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't pay taxes?

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't have enough life experience?

Another argument is that people with kids would have more influence than people without kids.

All bogus arguments.  The only reason kids shouldn't be given the franchise is that they're not mature enough to make informed decisions.  That's also why statutory rape laws are constitutional, not discriminatory.

I think we should handle it with a Bar type exam.  If you pass the exam and are a citizen, you can vote (no age requirement).  If you can't pass the exam (regardless of your citizenship status) you don't vote.  However, this would require that all the material covered by the test is taught to students or available for study to all.

I think this would make people appreciate it and more people would not only vote, but vote based on educated opinions.  There would be those who are discouraged from voting because of the requirement but these probably shouldn't be voting anyhow.

The purpose of a minimum voting age is that of making rational choices and responsibility. Voting age in the US used to be 21. During the Vietnam era, somebody pointed out that we were sending young people off to die and not giving them the choice to vote over the politics involved. It was lowered to 18, the age most people are considered legally to be adults.

The idea is that the voter should be mature enough and capable to make rational choices between candidates and issues, such that the majority will hopefully always make the right choice and we get the best candidate for the job. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way, but that is the idea.

I'm firmly against democracy. Libertarian-socialist-parliamentary-aristocracy is the way of the future.

Rather than an exam, I would prefer that every time a vote happens you have to answer a few simple questions about the political view of the person you are voting for. Just a few of the major talking points, that should be easy as fuck to answer if you so much as read the newspaper twice in the last month.

Because I'm betting half the voters would still fail. And I wouldn't even be opposed to letting people retry the test a few times, until they actually take the time to read what they're voting for from a non-propaganda source.

Quote from: "Plu"...should be easy as fuck to answer if you so much as read the newspaper twice in the last month.

That's all well and good in the G8 nations where 99% and over of the population is literate, but most of the world isn't like that.  The people who grew up with no opportunities to learn to read deserve the vote too.

The newspaper isn't the only source of information. You can watch the news, ask someone else, hell you could call the political party and ask them for the answers if you felt like it. As long as you know the answers it's irrelevant how you got there; you just need to know what you're giving your vote for.

I think everyone should be required to pass the same stuff immigrants have to pass to get citizenship.  It's only fair.

That'd be fair indeed. I'd definately fail the test though because the questions are really stupid. (I actually made it once, most of the questions are completely irrelevant to being a proper citizen). (Mind that this is the Dutch citizenry test, other countries will have other tests that might be less stupid.)

Quote from: "Plu"The newspaper isn't the only source of information. You can watch the news, ask someone else, hell you could call the political party and ask them for the answers if you felt like it. As long as you know the answers it's irrelevant how you got there; you just need to know what you're giving your vote for.

Although it's a good idea for voters to keep themselves informed, history shows that mandating it as a condition of voting invites abuse.  For example, until the US federal government put a stop to it, in several Southern states they had literacy tests.  Realistically, very few recently emancipated slaves had a chance to learn to read so this was nothing more than a way to keep African Americans from voting.

Even today there would be serious concerns.  For example, who gets to decide the test criteria?  Even if a neutral body was supposed to be in charge of the questions, realistically the political party in power would have a better chance to bias the test in their favor.

I know, It would never work in the US. That place is just too fucked up beyond repair, I guess. I think I'd be willing to support it if it ran where I lived, I think we can get a few people together who are objective enough.

Quote from: "Plu"I know, I would never work in the US.

Thanks.

Quote from: "aileron"

Quote from: "Plu"I know, I would never work in the US.

Thanks.

A typo turning the sentence into something completely different that is most likely also true... fascinating :P I meant to say "it", though.

Quote from: "surly74"I do educate my oldest on policity things that he will understand that doesn't mean he's prepared to cast a ballot.

So why aren't you arguing that it should be illegal for anybody under 18 to shop for themselves?

I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands those under 16 are only allowed to shop for minor stuff and technically their parents can revert any sale of over a certain amount, because they are indeed not considered old enough to handle their own finances.

It slowly builds up to the point where they are considered financially capable enough to handle certain amounts and responsibilities, and voting is also somewhere on that list at 18, the same point where they are allowed to make most other financial judgements as well. (True financial independance doesn't come until 23)

I'm willing to bet that if a child puts his name under a contract to buy a house, that contract will be declared void by a court of law. Which means we don't let kids shop for themselves all that much. We just let them play around in a safe enviroment so they can learn how to be responsible.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "surly74"I do educate my oldest on policity things that he will understand that doesn't mean he's prepared to cast a ballot.

So why aren't you arguing that it should be illegal for anybody under 18 to shop for themselves?

is that what this conversation is about now? children under 18 shopping for themselves? is this where you want to take it when your voting idea (regardless of age) ended real quick?

Who says I think it should be illegal for anybody under 18 to shop for themselves and what does that mean? How do you get the from a comment that I don't think my nine year old is ready to cast a ballot? That's a big stretch.

What does shop for themselves even mean? My wife and I do teach our son about discretionary money. money management is a habit and a skill built up over time. There are certain age limits for what people can buy and they don't have to be legal limits. Sometimes those limits are placed on the retailer.

But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

Quote from: "surly74"But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

Of course you have no idea what the point is...because you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics...which means that you aren't informed enough to vote.  Don't worry...you're hardly alone.

Feel free to join Edwin in a class I'm giving on basic economics (//http://www.youthrights.org/community/forum/voting-age/still-promoting-childrens-suffrage/#p392566).

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "surly74"But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

Of course you have no idea what the point is...because you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics...which means that you aren't informed enough to vote.  Don't worry...you're hardly alone.

Feel free to join Edwin in a class I'm giving on basic economics (//http://www.youthrights.org/community/forum/voting-age/still-promoting-childrens-suffrage/#p392566).

seriously?

what you doing here?

have you actually ever had kids or you just reminiscing about what you though you were like at 11?

Quote from: "Xerographica"People of any age should be allowed to vote. There should only be one restriction...

1. you can't be accompanied in the voting both

The biggest argument against children voting is that they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision. When I was a little kid my mom made me go to church. I also had to frequently read the bible and pray. If kids had been allowed to vote back then...then she probably would have dragged me to the voting booth and tried to make me vote like her as well...fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Make some noise if you're fiscally liberal and socially conservative. I'm not...I'm the opposite...and I've been an atheist since the age of 11.

So if you want to argue that kids wouldn't have enough information...then you're arguing that parents don't have enough information. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

Parents may well have more information that they have not imparted to the child.  Expecting children to understand the complexities of international politics, for example, doesn't seem very wise, to me.

Quote from: "Xerographica"If you want to argue that kids don't understand the issues...then you're arguing that parents don't understand the issues. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

See above.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't pay taxes? Therefore adults that don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't have enough life experience? Therefore, those of you who have never lived in a developing country should not be allowed to vote. Same thing with those of you who haven't experienced war first hand.

There's no point to imputing impossibly high standards to a criterion.  That doesn't, however, justify eliminating all standards.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Therefore, either everybody votes or nobody votes. If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

Non sequitur. Voting is not just a quantitative act, it's also a qualitative act, the value of which changes in accordance with the thought given to the vote.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Another argument is that people with kids would have more influence than people without kids. So what? Then you're arguing that the 1% shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have more money (influence) than the 99%.

Voting is a numbers game. Kids, being in the minority, even in the unlikely situation that they all agreed on the same issue...would never have the numbers to win against adults. Not only would kids not have the numbers...but they wouldn't even have the dollars. So they would get trounced in any kid vs adult issue.

Clearly though, just because people vote for the "wrong" thing isn't any evidence that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Otherwise women shouldn't be allowed to vote...given that they voted for prohibition.

The fact that so many of you believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote...is proof positive that kids should be allowed to vote.

Again, non sequitur.

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "surly74"But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

Of course you have no idea what the point is...because you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics...which means that you aren't informed enough to vote.  Don't worry...you're hardly alone.

Feel free to join Edwin in a class I'm giving on basic economics (//http://www.youthrights.org/community/forum/voting-age/still-promoting-childrens-suffrage/#p392566).

seriously?

what you doing here?

have you actually ever had kids or you just reminiscing about what you though you were like at 11?

Yes seriously...if you don't have a basic understanding of how resources are efficiently allocated then you aren't informed enough to vote.  I'm not making this stuff up.  If you don't understand the information I shared in the class I linked you to...then please let me know which part you struggle to grasp.  As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

Wanna reply to the fact that we don't actually allow kids to shop for themselves? Or are you just ignoring that because it once again shows that you don't know what you're talking about?

Quote from: "Xerographica"As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Again, non sequitur.

A non sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow from the premise.  What is the premise?  Your preferences.  What is the conclusion?  How society's limited resources are used.  If the conclusion does not follow from the premise...then you did not have the freedom to shop for yourself.  

But I want you to have the freedom to shop for yourself just like I want kids to have the freedom to vote.  Therefore, I'm not a fan of non-sequiturs...you are.  You don't want the conclusion to follow from the premise.  You don't want the supply to follow from our preferences.  You don't want kids to vote and you don't want taxpayers to have the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Xerographica"As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

"As someone who doesn't even a rudimentary understanding of teaching"...

Quote from: "Xerographica"Yes seriously...if you don't have a basic understanding of how resources are efficiently allocated then you aren't informed enough to vote.  I'm not making this stuff up.  If you don't understand the information I shared in the class I linked you to...then please let me know which part you struggle to grasp.  As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

It's good you don't take yourself too seriously. and again you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

how do i know you aren't making this stuff up? I have no idea of who you are or why I should listen to you? What degrees do you hold? Why should I listen to you over someone else? You do remember you are on a forum called Atheist Forums right? I'm a skeptic which means I evaluate claims based on evidence. All you have done is tell me I should listen without telling me why.

Trying to tell me you have the all the answers and doing it on an internet forum does make you the douchebag grad student from Good Will Hunting. The fact you need to come here to try and prove your point when you probably can't do it anywhere else is sad. I'm on this board because I'm bored at work and it's a great time killer. I get into some good converstations and debates but this isn't one of them.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Xerographica"As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

Really?  My style puts you off from genuinely considering the value of my substance?  That's fine...because that simply means that you probably wouldn't have been able to grasp the concepts anyways.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Xerographica"As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

Really?  My style puts you off from genuinely considering the value of my substance?  That's fine...because that simply means that you probably wouldn't have been able to grasp the concepts anyways.

wow...nice deflection...

well you are in luck. i've ignored your style and asked for substance of why I should listen to you.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Xerographica"As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

Thump...may I call you Thump?

This guy reminds me when I go to football coaching clinics...there will be HS, college and NFL coaches speaking. Without fail the best communicators are the NFL coaches, the College with HS last. The people that can best take complex systems (could be anything) and break it down and get their point across simply so that anyone can understand it are the ones that usually get to the highest level of their professions.

Staying with the theme...this clown couldn't teach Pop Warner.

Quote from: "surly74"how do i know you aren't making this stuff up? I have no idea of who you are or why I should listen to you? What degrees do you hold? Why should I listen to you over someone else? You do remember you are on a forum called Atheist Forums right? I'm a skeptic which means I evaluate claims based on evidence. All you have done is tell me I should listen without telling me why.

What the heck man?  You were simply supposed to do the assigned reading and come back with specific questions/objections.  No specific questions/objections means that you haven't done the assigned reading.  Here it is again...a class on basic economics (//http://www.youthrights.org/community/forum/voting-age/still-promoting-childrens-suffrage/#p392566).

Carefully read through the discussion and come back with some thoughtful comments.  Or not.  But what I'm sharing with you is real and valuable.  I'm not making the opportunity cost concept up.  Google it if you doubt me.

The problem is that nobody will do the assigned reading, because there is no guaruantuee  that afterwards you'll give any useful answers to questions, because you can't even explain the simplest things properly. If (and they won't) anybody decides to go through your assigned reading list, the very first thing they'll learn is that it's a waste of valuable resources to ask you[/] questions about it. (Of course everyone here already knows that)

Quote from: "Xerographica"What the heck man?  You were simply supposed to do the assigned reading and come back with specific questions/objections.  No specific questions/objections means that you haven't done the assigned reading.  Here it is again...a class on basic economics (//http://www.youthrights.org/community/forum/voting-age/still-promoting-childrens-suffrage/#p392566).

Carefully read through the discussion and come back with some thoughtful comments.  Or not.  But what I'm sharing with you is real and valuable.  I'm not making the opportunity cost concept up.  Google it if you doubt me.

message board discussions aren't evidence. And what would I google that would take me to a reputable source and not to another forum?

You are making assertions you are right. part of my assesment is why I should accept what you have to say and that is qualifications. If you have reasons I should accept your assertions and have the qualifications to back them up then you will not have any issues letting me know what they are. You can always PM me. Failing that if you took courses on this at a university or college I will gladly accept the course names so I can find out for myself.

Until then there is no reason to accept anything you have to say and no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

Quote from: "surly74"Staying with the theme...this clown couldn't teach Pop Warner.

You know why I had to google Pop Warner?  Because I don't have to google Paul Samuelson, James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom to know who they were and why their contributions are important.  And yes, I must be a clown if I struggle to make their contributions easy for you to digest.  Good call.

QuoteAnd yes, I must be a clown if I struggle to make their contributions easy for you to digest. Good call.

You know the name "Albert Einstein"?

QuoteIf you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

I guess this explains your struggle quite well.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "surly74"Staying with the theme...this clown couldn't teach Pop Warner.

You know why I had to google Pop Warner?  Because I don't have to google Paul Samuelson, James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom to know who they were and why their contributions are important.  And yes, I must be a clown if I struggle to make their contributions easy for you to digest.  Good call.

yes you are a clown. I'm sure they can make their positions easy understand which is why their names come up in a google search and your's doesn't...fuck, you understood it.

thank you for proving my point.

Quote from: "surly74"yes you are a clown. I'm sure they can make their positions easy understand which is why their names come up in a google search and your's doesn't...fuck, you understood it.

thank you for proving my point.

So sacrifice the alternative uses of your time (opportunity cost = watching football) and share with the class what the respective positions of those three Nobel Prize winning economists were.  And please present their positions in such a way that even Plu can easily grasp and digest them.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "surly74"yes you are a clown. I'm sure they can make their positions easy understand which is why their names come up in a google search and your's doesn't...fuck, you understood it.

thank you for proving my point.

So sacrifice the alternative uses of your time (opportunity cost = watching football) and share with the class what the respective positions of those three Nobel Prize winning economists were.  And please present their positions in such a way that even Plu can easily grasp and digest them.

another deflection. I never said I could do that in economics...I may be able to do it in football but my football is different then Plu's. I'm also not the one calling myself teacher when it comes to economics then can't explain anything. You just tell people they have no understanding then direct them to something else. That's not teaching, that's parroting. you aren't conveying any material, just telling people where you think they should go to find it...like google.

I can teach football, my wife is a teacher...you aren't a teacher. the first thing a teacher does is understand their audience.

The fact you don't explain is two things, either you want page hits for something (or people to see a site of yours) or you are incapable of explaining it. Don't pretend to be an expert in something if you aren't and so far you haven't demonstrated you are...you've given names of people that are...but you aren't.

Wow.. I just knew if I waited long enough someone would come here with enough insight to agree to put the Tooth Fairy on the ballot for president.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our ringer. He is Xerographica.

One of the most retarded threads I've read on here.

I actually feel dumberer for having read it.

glad I could help.

Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"One of the most retarded threads I've read on here.

I actually feel dumberer for having read it.

Admit it. You'd vote for the Tooth Fairy. :lol:

Quote from: "surly74"The fact you don't explain is two things, either you want page hits for something (or people to see a site of yours) or you are incapable of explaining it. Don't pretend to be an expert in something if you aren't and so far you haven't demonstrated you are...you've given names of people that are...but you aren't.

I've spent more time than most studying economics.  The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.  The fact that I can't take their contributions and make them instantly and readily accessible to any random person is not proof that I haven't thoroughly researched and understood the material...it just means that I'm probably not a genius.  

Let's review.  You don't want children to vote because you believe that the consequences would be harmful.  It would be detrimental if we ended up with officials who were elected because they promised kids candy.  

But what's the difference between allowing kids to vote and allowing kids to shop for themselves?  In both situations the kids are immature/uninformed/inexperienced.  In both cases they have some degree of influence.  The difference is in the size of the impact.  But  even if allowing kids to shop happens to be a smaller impact than allowing them to vote...then you should still want it to be illegal...because clearly your goal is to minimize negative impacts.  

Allowing kids to shop for themselves means that their interests are directly inputted into the impossibly complex formula which determines how society's limited resources are used.  Therefore, their interests will be taken into account.  The output (the supply of goods/services) will reflect their direct input.  

If we prevent kids from shopping for themselves...then their influence would be eliminated and the allocation of resources would reflect this.  The supply of goods/services that match the demonstrated preferences of kids would be diminished.

Let's consider the concept using another group as an example.  Let's say that we prevented Koreans from shopping for themselves.  How would this impact the supply of goods/services?  Obviously there would still be Korean restaurants...because clearly Koreans aren't the only ones who demand Korean food.  But we could say that the supply would be diminished to the same extent that the demand was diminished.  Taking the influence completely away from Koreans has to mean that everybody else's influence is increased.  

It should be obvious to most that it would be wrong to prevent Koreans to shop/vote for themselves...but it's just as obvious to me that it's equally wrong to prevent children from shopping/voting for themselves.  I'm increasing my chances of winning the race by literally taking the competition out of the race.  I'm not increasing my chances of winning the race by training harder/smarter...I'm simply limiting who can participate.  It's utter crap.

Uhmm..kids are limited to what they're allowed to shop for such as cigarettes, alcohol, cars and so on. By your crackpot bullshit kids should be allowed to drive, drink hard liquor, smoke cigarettes and carry guns to school..

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Uhmm..kids are limited to what they're allowed to shop for such as cigarettes, alcohol, cars and so on. By your crackpot bullshit kids should be allowed to drive, drink hard liquor, smoke cigarettes and carry guns to school..

In order to lower the drinking/driving age...the majority of voters would have to support it.  It's beyond nonsensical to argue that allowing kids to vote would mean that suddenly adults want to have younger kids drinking/driving.  

Kids are around 25% of the population.  If we made the ridiculous assumption that 100% of them would be in support of lowering the drinking/driving age...then we'd still have to make the ridiculous assumption that at least 25% of adults would be in favor of younger kids drinking/driving.  So by requiring two ridiculous assumptions...you're basically arguing that the impossible would occur if kids were allowed to vote.

Quote from: "Plu"I'm willing to bet that if a child puts his name under a contract to buy a house, that contract will be declared void by a court of law. Which means we don't let kids shop for themselves all that much. We just let them play around in a safe enviroment so they can learn how to be responsible.

You'd win your bet.

Contracts signed by incompetent persons (and minors aren't legally competent) are automatically voidable.  Which is why no one will enter into any serious contract with a minor.

In fact, there have been many cases over the decades in which a parent marched a child back to the store and demanded that the store take back the purchase the child made, and refund the price.  (And the law backs the parent's right to do this - the inherent contract of sale made when the child made the purchase is voidable.)

Quote from: "Xerographica"Feel free to join Edwin in a class I'm giving on basic economics (//http://www.youthrights.org/community/forum/voting-age/still-promoting-childrens-suffrage/#p392566).

Zottistan blew your entire course out of the water with one response.  I know you don't understand why, but that's exactly why you're not competent to teach.  Anything.  Lack of ability to understand simple things.

Quote from: "Xerographica"if you don't have a basic understanding of how resources are efficiently allocated then you aren't informed enough to vote.

If you don't have a basic understanding of why efficient allocation of resources is not a deciding factor, you aren't informed enough to vote.

QuoteI'm not making this stuff up.  If you don't understand the information I shared in the class I linked you to...then please let me know which part you struggle to grasp.

The part where it deviates from reality - IOW, all of it.  It's pure fantasy.

QuoteAs your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

And there we have just one reason that most kids graduate without knowing anything - teachers who don't know anything.  Don't feel bad though, you're just one of millions.  Understanding the subject you teach is no longer a requisite for teaching, which is why we have art majors teaching economics.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Xerographica"As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

I don't think he's being supercilious, I think he really thinks that he knows applied economics better than anyone else on the forum.

Quote from: "Xerographica"that simply means that you probably wouldn't have been able to grasp the concepts anyways.

"If you think my statements are idiotic it's probably because you aren't intelligent enough to understand me".

The mark of ... well, let's just say that it's NOT the mark of a well-educated person.

Quote from: "Xerographica"What the heck man?  You were simply supposed to do the assigned reading and come back with specific questions/objections.  No specific questions/objections means that you haven't done the assigned reading.

Oh, you want "students" who can't actually think, who can't see the obvious fallacies in your statements before reading anything more.

That clears that up.  It also tells us that you're not qualified to be a student, let alone a teacher.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "surly74"Staying with the theme...this clown couldn't teach Pop Warner.

You know why I had to google Pop Warner?  Because I don't have to google Paul Samuelson, James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom

Too bad you don't understand WHY they're well-known.  You give new importance to "reading comprehension", and a fine example of what a lack of it causes.

Quote from: "Xerographica"I've [s:33tlbf1f]spent[/s:33tlbf1f] wasted more time than most studying economics.

FIFY

Wasted, because you didn't understand anything you studied.  An introductory college economics class would have taught you the difference between theoretical economics and applied economics.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Uhmm..kids are limited to what they're allowed to shop for such as cigarettes, alcohol, cars and so on. By your crackpot bullshit kids should be allowed to drive, drink hard liquor, smoke cigarettes and carry guns to school..

In order to lower the drinking/driving age...the majority of voters would have to support it.  It's beyond nonsensical to argue that allowing kids to vote would mean that suddenly adults want to have younger kids drinking/driving.

You still don't understand the basics.

Only competent persons can do things like vote and enter into contracts (for painfully obvious reasons).  (Most) minors aren't legally competent.  It's that trivial.  That you don't understand it speaks volumes.

Quote from: "Xerographica"I've spent more time than most studying economics.  The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.  

This is not proof, 2 minutes with google would give me all the names of Nobel prize winning economists, their entire life stories and collection of works. Would this make me an expert on economics? No, and the fact that you think it does should scare the shit out of you (as it does me).

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Xerographica"I've [s:2rwmu00h]spent[/s:2rwmu00h] wasted more time than most studying economics.

FIFY

Wasted, because you didn't understand anything you studied.  An introductory college economics class would have taught you the difference between theoretical economics and applied economics.

Ha.

Nice.

Heuristic devices.

Quote from: "Icarus"

Quote from: "Xerographica"I've spent more time than most studying economics.  The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.  

This is not proof, 2 minutes with google would give me all the names of Nobel prize winning economists, their entire life stories and collection of works. Would this make me an expert on economics? No, and the fact that you think it does should scare the shit out of you (as it does me).

I clearly didn't say that knowing the names of Nobel Prize winning economists makes me an expert on economics.  I said that knowing the names of Nobel Prize winning economists means that I've spent more time than most studying economics.  Just like the fact that I can't name famous foot ball coaches is proof that I have not spent more time than most watching football.  

Here's some evidence regarding my understanding of economics.

The definitive theoretical justification for the public sector...

QuoteHowever no decentralized pricing system can serve to determine optimally these levels of collective consumption.  Other kinds of "voting" or "signalling" would have to be tried.  But, and this is the point sensed by Wicksell but perhaps not fully appreciated by Lindahl, now it is in the selfish interest of each person to give false signals, to pretend to have less interest in a given collective consumption activity than he really has, etc.  I must emphasize this: taxing according to a benefit theory of taxation can not at all solve the computational problem in the decentralized manner possible for the first category of "private" goods to which the ordinary market pricing applies and which do not have the "external effects" basic to the very notion of collective consumption goods. - Paul A. Samuelson, The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure (//http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/UCSBpf/readings/sampub.pdf)

This paper by the Nobel Prize winning liberal economist has been cited over 5000 times.  Feel free to share a more widely cited paper that also provides an economic justification for the public sector.

Do you grasp the point of the passage I shared?  I do.  It's basically the free-rider problem.  The premise is that individuals are utility maximizers...we all want the most bang for our buck.  We all want goods/services to be as cheap as possible.  Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that if taxation was voluntary that people would have an incentive to give "false signals" (lies) in order to avoid personally paying for "collective consumption goods" (public goods) that they benefited from.  

In order to solve the free-rider problem...we simply force people to pay taxes.  Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us what the true signals are.  

QuoteWhereas the income received for providing a private good conveys information about the demand for that good, taxes collected under the threat of coercion say little about the demand for a public good or service.  Payment of taxes indicates only that taxpayers prefer paying taxes to going to jail.  Little or no information is revealed about user preferences for goods procured with tax-supported expenditures.  As a consequence, the organization of collective consumption units will need to create alternative mechanisms to prices for articulating and aggregating demands into collective choices reflecting individuals' preferences for a quantity and/or quality of public goods or services. - Vincent Ostrom and Elinor Ostrom, Public Goods and Public Choices (//http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/Ostrom-PG&PC.PDF)

Without the true signals there's no way that the government can supply the optimal amounts of public goods.  Without knowing how much you value the EPA...the government cannot supply the optimal quantity of environmental protection.  Don't believe the Ostroms?  Would you believe Richard Musgrave?

QuoteEssential though the efficiency model [Samuelson] of public goods is as a theoretical construct, standing by itself it has little practical use.  The omniscient referee does not exist and the problem of preference revelation must be addressed. - Richard A. Musgrave   The Nature of the Fiscal State (//http://books.google.com/books?id=jEnjN7dKrzcC&pg=PA39&dq=Public+finance+preference+revelation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yciUYvqCYfV2QWZuoHIBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Public%20finance%20preference%20revelation&f=false)   

How should we address the preference revelation problem?  How can we determine what the true signals are?  How can we figure out how much you value the EPA?  Easily.  We simply give you the freedom to choose where your taxes go.  If you had to pay taxes anyways, then you would have absolutely nothing to gain by giving false signals...

QuoteUnder most real-world taxing institutions, the tax price per unit at which collective goods are made available to the individual will depend, at least to some degree, on his own behavior. This element is not, however, important under the major tax institutions such as the personal income tax, the general sales tax, or the real property tax. With such structures, the individual may, by changing his private behavior, modify the tax base (and thus the tax price per unit of collective goods he utilizes), but he need not have any incentive to conceal his "true" preferences for public goods. - James M. Buchanan, The Economics of Earmarked Taxes (//http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829016)   

So both a Nobel Prize winning liberal economist...Samuelson...and a Nobel Prize winning market economist...Buchanan...were concerned with people's true preferences (signals).  The difference was that Samuelson was overly optimistic regarding the ability of government planners to 'divine' the preferences of consumers...

Quotethe Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive

Therefore, the economist who provided the definitive theoretical justification for the public sector failed to understand why command/planned economies fail.  Why do planned economies fail?  Because economies can't function without true signals.  Scarce resources cannot be put to their most valued uses when we don't know which uses consumers value most.

Ok, there you go...the contributions of a few Nobel Prize winning economists and my analysis.  So is my analysis correct?  How's my grasp of economics?

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Icarus"

Quote from: "Xerographica"I've spent more time than most studying economics.  The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.  

This is not proof, 2 minutes with google would give me all the names of Nobel prize winning economists, their entire life stories and collection of works. Would this make me an expert on economics? No, and the fact that you think it does should scare the shit out of you (as it does me).

I clearly didn't say that knowing the names of Nobel Prize winning economists makes me an expert on economics.  I said that knowing the names of Nobel Prize winning economists means that I've spent more time than most studying economics.  Just like the fact that I can't name famous foot ball coaches is proof that I have not spent more time than most watching football.  

Here's some evidence regarding my understanding of economics.

The definitive theoretical justification for the public sector...

You missed the point of my post, but whatever. 2 minutes on google would give you all the famous football coaches, their life story and their collection of works, this is why the criteria you gave for an expert in the field was so ridiculous. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that criteria doesn't qualify you as an expert in a setting where using search engines is is common practice. I never doubted your qualifications, just your standards.

Quote from: "Icarus"You missed the point of my post, but whatever. 2 minutes on google would give you all the famous football coaches, their life story and their collection of works, this is why the criteria you gave for an expert in the field was so ridiculous. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that criteria doesn't qualify you as an expert in a setting where using search engines is is common practice. I never doubted your qualifications, just your standards.

But that wasn't my standard for "expertise".  

What I did say: I've spent more time than most studying economics. The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.

What I didn't say: I'm an expert in economics.  The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.

If you ask a random person on the street to name some Nobel Prize winning economists then chances are really good that they would not be able to do so off the top of their heads.  However, I would be able to do so.  Therefore, this is proof that I have studied economics more than most people have.  It's not proof that I'm an expert in economics...which is exactly why I didn't offer it as such.  

However, in my last post I did offer some evidence of my expertise.  Is the evidence any good?  How can you possibly know that given that the chances are extremely good that you wouldn't be able to even name any Nobel Prize winning economists off the top of your head?  

How did you arrive at atheism?  Were you born an atheist?  How did you arrive at your current belief in the omniscience of government planners?

Quote from: "Xerographica"But that wasn't my standard for "expertise".  

What I did say: I've spent more time than most studying economics. The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.

What I didn't say: I'm an expert in economics.  The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.

If you ask a random person on the street to name some Nobel Prize winning economists then chances are really good that they would not be able to do so off the top of their heads.  However, I would be able to do so.  Therefore, this is proof that I have studied economics more than most people have.  It's not proof that I'm an expert in economics...which is exactly why I didn't offer it as such.  

However, in my last post I did offer some evidence of my expertise.  Is the evidence any good?  How can you possibly know that given that the chances are extremely good that you wouldn't be able to even name any Nobel Prize winning economists off the top of your head?  

How did you arrive at atheism?  Were you born an atheist?  How did you arrive at your current belief in the omniscience of government planners?

Again, you misunderstand my point. I questioned your standards not qualifications. Why did you spend half your post defending your qualification if I said I wasn't questioning them? Insecure much.

The first part of your post boils down to semantics. I agree that you said "I've spent more time than most studying economics", and that it can be proven by saying you can do something anyone in an online forum can do in 5 seconds. Numbers speak louder than words.

Quote from: "Xerographica"What I did say: I've spent more time than most studying economics.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with how much you know about economics.  You can study a subject for 50 years and not learn a thing about it.  Someone else can study it for 6 months and know more about it than you do.

Back in 1938, Heinlein wrote a series of lectures on economics.  He was an engineer, not an economist.  But he knew a lot more about how economies work (and don't work) than you do.

Quote from: "Icarus"Again, you misunderstand my point. I questioned your standards not qualifications. Why did you spend half your post defending your qualification if I said I wasn't questioning them? Insecure much.

Yeah, either I was defending my qualifications or I was sharing important information regarding the economic justification for the existence of government.  

Clearly you just blindly follow the government.  Maybe you're an atheist...but you sure aren't a skeptic.  You have faith in the government (your new god) for days.  You believe in the government without ever having conducted any real serious research into the validity of the serious arguments that have been put forth in its defense.  

I wasn't raised an atheist...I was raised as a Christian.  I became an atheist for the same reason that I became a pragmatarian.  Unlike most of you...I actually make the effort to challenge my beliefs.  

Quote from: "Icarus"The first part of your post boils down to semantics. I agree that you said "I've spent more time than most studying economics", and that it can be proven by saying you can do something anyone in an online forum can do in 5 seconds. Numbers speak louder than words.

And if you had actually made the effort to read through the entire thread then you wouldn't have taken what I wrote out of context.  Here's what I posted before I posted what you quoted...

QuoteYou know why I had to google Pop Warner? Because I don't have to google Paul Samuelson, James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom to know who they were and why their contributions are important.

I know that, unlike most/all of you, I do not have to google to learn the names of Nobel Prize winning economists.  Unlike most of you, I've done my homework...which is why I'm a pragmatarian...and not a blind believer in government.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Plu"I'm willing to bet that if a child puts his name under a contract to buy a house, that contract will be declared void by a court of law. Which means we don't let kids shop for themselves all that much. We just let them play around in a safe enviroment so they can learn how to be responsible.

You'd win your bet.

Contracts signed by incompetent persons (and minors aren't legally competent) are automatically voidable.  Which is why no one will enter into any serious contract with a minor.

In fact, there have been many cases over the decades in which a parent marched a child back to the store and demanded that the store take back the purchase the child made, and refund the price.  (And the law backs the parent's right to do this - the inherent contract of sale made when the child made the purchase is voidable.)

I'd win the bet... but I don't think any court would consider Xerographica legally competent, so I won't get the money :(

Quote from: "Plu"I'd win the bet... but I don't think any court would consider Xerographica legally competent, so I won't get the money :(

Good thing nobody listens to lunatics like Xero in the first place, then.

Besides, the courts are apart of government structures. Can't trust them.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Icarus"Again, you misunderstand my point. I questioned your standards not qualifications. Why did you spend half your post defending your qualification if I said I wasn't questioning them? Insecure much.

Yeah, either I was defending my qualifications or I was sharing important information regarding the economic justification for the existence of government.  

I questioned your qualifications. If you are going to talk as if you are speaking about fact and not opinion then I need more of a reason to believe you other than... Google.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Yeah, either I was defending my qualifications or I was sharing important information regarding the economic justification for the existence of government.  

You were defending your qualifications, you definitely did not share any important information with me. Why would you think you shared anything useful with me?

Quote from: "Xerographica"Clearly you just blindly follow the government.  Maybe you're an atheist...but you sure aren't a skeptic.  You have faith in the government (your new god) for days.  You believe in the government without ever having conducted any real serious research into the validity of the serious arguments that have been put forth in its defense.  

Long list of random accusations born from a desperate attempt to deflect. You're clearly a purple turkey who lives on Pluto, why else would you consume sulfur (see how silly this looks).

Quote from: "Xerographica"I wasn't raised an atheist...I was raised as a Christian.  I became an atheist for the same reason that I became a pragmatarian.  Unlike most of you...I actually make the effort to challenge my beliefs.  

Wrong again, most of the people on this website were raised religious, I was raised christian and became an Atheist when I was 11 after I read the bible. This also has nothing to do with my post and is a terrible deflection.

Quote from: "Xerographica"And if you had actually made the effort to read through the entire thread then you wouldn't have taken what I wrote out of context.  Here's what I posted before I posted what you quoted...

You haven't responded to a single point in any of my posts; you've been too focused on deflecting. I didn't take what you said out of context, if I did explain the context of:

Quote from: "Xerographica"I've spent more time than most studying economics. The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.

I'm not sure what other context you could be referring to.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Let's consider the concept using another group as an example.  Let's say that we prevented Koreans from shopping for themselves.  How would this impact the supply of goods/services?  Obviously there would still be Korean restaurants...because clearly Koreans aren't the only ones who demand Korean food.  But we could say that the supply would be diminished to the same extent that the demand was diminished.  Taking the influence completely away from Koreans has to mean that everybody else's influence is increased.  

It should be obvious to most that it would be wrong to prevent Koreans to shop/vote for themselves...but it's just as obvious to me that it's equally wrong to prevent children from shopping/voting for themselves.  I'm increasing my chances of winning the race by literally taking the competition out of the race.  I'm not increasing my chances of winning the race by training harder/smarter...I'm simply limiting who can participate.  It's utter crap.

This argument makes Xero sense.

are you saying that koreans are the same as five year old children? The Korean in question should be prevent from shopping/voting if they don't meet certain age requirements, not because of their nationality.

do you actually live in the real world?

Xero's paradigm is simple:

Efficiency is getting people what they want, so let people choose what they want. No matter what is considered 'fair' or even for the greater good.

This is where it turns into Xero's paradox...
If you let people choose to allocate their money to what they 'want', they will have less of what they want.

As has been pointed out: I don't have the time and knowledge to think up what budget is needed to have - lets say - a steady supply of clean drinking water. I just want to tell some guys: Get it to me as cheap and reliable as possible. And that is what I do in my current society. I vote for the guy who seems to be competent enough to take this work out of my hands. I'm not crazy enough to want to try to micromanage healthcare, watersupply, electricity, pensions, policing, taxation, foreign policy etc etc etc etc. - This may have something to do with the fact that I actually know what it takes to manage any one of those in a way that can be even remotely considered the real kind of efficient: That is getting it to a many people who need it, at the lowest possible price.

But in Xero's world this does not matter. Efficiency is just what people want. Right now and our children be damned.

Xero could make a topic about 'Victim suffrage', arguing that it would be most 'efficient' if we replace judges with a group of victims. Because that is what he is really saying. Efficiency = 'what people want'.

One wonders why democratically run companies are so rare if that works so fucking good.

Lordy, this guy's full of shit and himself.

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"As has been pointed out: I don't have the time and knowledge to think up what budget is needed to have - lets say - a steady supply of clean drinking water. I just want to tell some guys: Get it to me as cheap and reliable as possible.

Just because a lawyer doesn't have the time and knowledge to learn how to do brain surgery...doesn't mean that he shouldn't have the freedom to shop for himself.  Just because a doctor doesn't have the time and knowledge to defend himself against a malpractice suit...doesn't mean that he shouldn't have the freedom to shop for himself.  The division of labor concept is not an argument against consumer sovereignty.  

You prioritize spending your limited time/energy learning about things that you perceive to be important to you and the people you care about.  If there's nothing that the government does that strikes you as more important than what your favorite football team does...then power to you.  I wouldn't force you to shop for yourself in the public sector anymore than I'd force you to shop for yourself in the red light district.  

Your personal shoppers (congress) would still be there so you would still have the freedom to give them all your tax dollars so you can focus on what does matter to you.  But is it so fucking difficult for you to step outside of your own narrow reality and imagine that perhaps some people might have made it their priority to learn enough about the activities of government to have some strong educated opinions as to where their money should and shouldn't go?

And if you're concerned enough with their lack of knowledge...then you'll do what I'm doing and make the effort to share what you know with them.  

QuoteIf anyone insisted on deliberating with maximum scrupulousness every one of the economic acts he undertakes every day, if he insisted on rendering a judgment of value throughout to the last detail concerning the most trifling good that he has to deal with by way of receipt or expenditure , by utilization or consumption, such a person would be too much occupied with reckoning and deliberating to call his life his own. The correct maxim and the one which would be observed in economic life is "Be no more accurate than it pays to be." In really important things, be really exact; in moderately important things be moderately exact; in the myriad trifles of everyday economic life, just make the roughest sort of valuation. - Eugen Böhm-Bawerk

For some people the government does really important things.  And it should be up to those people to use their money to indicate what the government does that's most important to them.  Resources can't be efficiently allocated if we don't know what people's true priorities are.  We can't derive the maximum value from our resources if we don't know how much value unique people in unique circumstances assign to the various uses of society's limited resources.

Quote from: "surly74"This argument makes Xero sense.

Heh, I like it.  You're using it to mean "zero sense" but in the future it might mean a ton of sense.  Wouldn't that be funny?  It's also pretty fun because you're the first person in the world (//https://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+argument+makes+Xero+sense%22&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&filter=0&biw=930&bih=590) to say that.  Fucking original.  

QuoteI insist thus emphatically on the importance of genius, and the necessity of allowing it to unfold itself freely both in thought and in practice, being well aware that no one will deny the position in theory, but knowing also that almost every one, in reality, is totally indifferent to it. People think genius a fine thing if it enables a man to write an exciting poem, or paint a picture. But in its true sense, that of originality in thought and action, though no one says that it is not a thing to be admired, nearly all, at heart, think that they can do very well without it. Unhappily this is too natural to be wondered at. Originality is the one thing which unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of. They cannot see what it is to do for them: how should they? If they could see what it would do for them, it would not be originality. The first service which originality has to render them, is that of opening their eyes: which being once fully done, they would have a chance of being themselves original. Meanwhile, recollecting that nothing was ever yet done which some one was not the first to do, and that all good things which exist are the fruits of originality, let them be modest enough to believe that there is something still left for it to accomplish, and assure themselves that they are more in need of originality, the less they are conscious of the want. - J.S. Mill, On Liberty (//http://www.bartleby.com/130/3.html)

Do you know who J.S. Mill was?  Have you read On Liberty?  

Quote from: "surly74"are you saying that koreans are the same as five year old children? The Korean in question should be prevent from shopping/voting if they don't meet certain age requirements, not because of their nationality.

Yeah man, I read J.S. Mill and Paul Samuelson like you watch football.  So you're spot on that I said that Koreans are the same thing as 5 year olds.  Actually, you're not even close.  Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and try again.

Let's pretend that theists were not allowed to shop/vote.  Would it be in our interests as atheists to give them the freedom to shop/vote?  Do we really need society's scarce resources to be wasted on building a million mosques, churches, temples and cathedrals?  Do we really want to have to drag ourselves out of bed to go to the polling booths in order to fight against the millions and millions of theists who want to piss their religious beliefs all over the government?

Quote from: "Xerographica"You're using it to mean "zero sense" but in the future it might mean a ton of sense.  

yeah.........no it won't be.

QuoteYeah man, I read J.S. Mill and Paul Samuelson like you watch football.  So you're spot on that I said that Koreans are the same thing as 5 year olds.  Actually, you're not even close.  Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and try again.

no I'm pretty sure you compared Koreans to little kids. since you aren't specific in the age of "kids" I thought I'd throw a number out there. If that's not what you mean then you chose a comparison that has nothing to do with your point about children...hell, you could have chosen people from Iceland, or really anywhere.

QuoteLet's pretend that theists were not allowed to shop/vote.  Would it be in our interests as atheists to give them the freedom to shop/vote?  Do we really need society's scarce resources to be wasted on building a million mosques, churches, temples and cathedrals?  Do we really want to have to drag ourselves out of bed to go to the polling booths in order to fight against the millions and millions of theists who want to piss their religious beliefs all over the government?

but atheists are allowed to shop/vote...at least the ones that have reached the proper age. you are really bad at this. you are trying to get away from the "kids" thing and try another angle but your comparisons are wrong. Either you are old enough or you aren't. in this case the old enough is generally 18. It doesn't matter if the person is atheist, Korean, or even Icelandic, except they are 18 or they aren't. so trying to use Korean, or atheist to make an argument for something that doesn't have to do with Korean or atheist is useless.

That's why I asked if you were comparing Koreans to five year olds. If you don't understand this then you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of arguments and aren't informed enough to be posting.

Quote from: "Xerographica"People of any age should be allowed to vote. There should only be one restriction...

1. you can't be accompanied in the voting both

The biggest argument against children voting is that they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision. When I was a little kid my mom made me go to church. I also had to frequently read the bible and pray. If kids had been allowed to vote back then...then she probably would have dragged me to the voting booth and tried to make me vote like her as well...fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Make some noise if you're fiscally liberal and socially conservative. I'm not...I'm the opposite...and I've been an atheist since the age of 11.

I'm gonna stop you right there.

No, kids do not have enough information to vote. Some kids might, but they are wards under their parents supervision and many do not have access to the same information that adults do. Parents can restrict TV, internet, phone calls, and they can homeschool their kids. No....kids do not have the same amount of access to information as grown adults do. I live in a rural area and I went to school with kids that wore skirts all the time, weren't allowed to watch PG-13 movies, not allowed to date AT ALL, no computers, etc. The real world was a fucking slap in the face for them. Having children vote is like giving most of their parents a second vote. Hell, even I parroted many of my mother's views until I went to college, and I left Christianity behind at age 15.

Quote from: "surly74"but atheists are allowed to shop/vote...at least the ones that have reached the proper age. you are really bad at this. you are trying to get away from the "kids" thing and try another angle but your comparisons are wrong.

If theists were currently not allowed to vote/shop...then you wouldn't want them to vote/shop because the outcome would be negative.  Is this true or false?

Lest we forget, there are age restrictions on many things because biologically speaking, children are not the same as adults, and this includes their cognitive functions. This is why we don't allow minors to make decisions for themselves. Many times we find that they just aren't capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Sure, there will always be exceptions, but the fact is that in general children are not equipped to make adult decisions. That's why we make their parents take care of them....so they don't fuck themselves up.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"That's why we make their parents take care of them....so they don't fuck themselves up.

That's why we make congress take care of adults...taxpayers would fuck everything up if they could choose where their taxes go.  

QuoteApart from their other characteristics, the outstanding thing about China's 600 million people is that they are "poor and blank". This may seem a bad thing, but in reality it is a good thing. Poverty gives rise to the desire for changes the desire for action and the desire for revolution. On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written; the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted. - Mao Zedong

QuoteTrust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. - Proverbs 3:5-6

You guys don't put yourself in God's hands...you put yourself in congress's hands.  God doesn't direct your paths...congress does.  You falsely believe that congresspeople are superior...divinely inspired...omniscient.  How can you call yourselves atheists when you've simply replaced one superior entity for another?

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"That's why we make their parents take care of them....so they don't fuck themselves up.

That's why we make congress take care of adults...taxpayers would fuck everything up if they could choose where their taxes go.  

Whew, you're really stretching, aren't ya?

We do, actually, chose where are taxes go based on who we vote into office. We chose our own leaders, for good or bad, based on their platforms. Hell, I just voted on some levies and tax bills in my own town recently. Fancy that, I chose where my taxes went.

Congress does not take care of us like adults take care of their children. That is such a tortured comparison, so just stop.

Quote from: "Xerographica"You guys don't put yourself in God's hands...you put yourself in congress's hands.  God doesn't direct your paths...congress does.  You falsely believe that congresspeople are superior...divinely inspired...omniscient.  How can you call yourselves atheists when you've simply replaced one superior entity for another?

Are you just trying to get our hackles up by comparing us to religious people, or do you actually believe we worship our governmental leaders? Because if you've ever spent any time perusing our forum, you'll see we don't care much for some of them....

STOP WITH THE HYPERBOLE.

It's annoying me.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Fancy that, I chose where my taxes went.

So are you going to like tax choice (//https://www.facebook.com/ourtaxes) on facebook?

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Fancy that, I chose where my taxes went.

So are you going to like tax choice (//https://www.facebook.com/ourtaxes) on facebook?

Did you just ask me if I was going to "like" a page on Facebook?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with this discussion anymore.

You say children should vote. I say "nay".

I've given my arguments. You're welcome to go over them again.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Are you just trying to get our hackles up by comparing us to religious people, or do you actually believe we worship our governmental leaders? Because if you've ever spent any time perusing our forum, you'll see we don't care much for some of them....

And if you've read the bible then you'll know that some theists don't care much for some Gods.  

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"STOP WITH THE HYPERBOLE.

It's annoying me.

And your ignorance is annoying me.  That's why I'm here to try and do something about it.  So read this post...Economics and Human Sacrifice (//http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/12/can-economics-explain-human-sacrifice.html)...and see if that doesn't help with your condition.  And yes, it's entirely relevant to your argument that giving your money to congress is nothing like theists giving their money to god.  I'll give you a hint...in both cases people want a sizable safety net to protect them from the vicissitudes of life.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"That's why we make their parents take care of them....so they don't fuck themselves up.

That's why we make congress take care of adults...taxpayers would fuck everything up if they could choose where their taxes go.  

Most taxpayers fuck everything up even without chosing where there taxes go, giving them more margin to fuck up in isn't actually going to improve anything.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Did you just ask me if I was going to "like" a page on Facebook?

Don't you support allowing adults to directly choose where their taxes go?  Or are you convinced that we are little ignorant children that shouldn't be allowed to shop for ourselves in the the public sector?

Quote from: "Plu"

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"That's why we make their parents take care of them....so they don't fuck themselves up.

That's why we make congress take care of adults...taxpayers would fuck everything up if they could choose where their taxes go.  

Most taxpayers fuck everything up even without chosing where there taxes go, giving them more margin to fuck up in isn't actually going to improve anything.

And the people who don't fuck everything up aren't taxpayers?  In your fucktard reality...who the fuck doesn't fuck everything the fuck up?

Quote from: "Xerographica"And the people who don't fuck everything up aren't taxpayers?  In your fucktard reality...who the fuck doesn't fuck everything the fuck up?

That's a lot of fucks for a teacher. I'd almost think I'm hitting a nerve there. Now I'm finally deriving value from your posts. Keep it up, you might actually sell something someday.

Quote from: "Plu"

Quote from: "Xerographica"And the people who don't fuck everything up aren't taxpayers?  In your fucktard reality...who the fuck doesn't fuck everything the fuck up?

That's a lot of fucks for a teacher. I'd almost think I'm hitting a nerve there. Now I'm finally deriving value from your posts. Keep it up, you might actually sell something someday.

Having served in the infantry swearing is second nature to me.  You're not hitting a nerve just because I decide to cut loose a little.  

Now answer the question.  Who are the people who don't fuck everything up?  You argued that taxpayers fuck things up...therefore the logical conclusion is that people who don't pay taxes are the people who don't fuck things up.  Is this correct?

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Are you just trying to get our hackles up by comparing us to religious people, or do you actually believe we worship our governmental leaders? Because if you've ever spent any time perusing our forum, you'll see we don't care much for some of them....

And if you've read the bible then you'll know that some theists don't care much for some Gods.  

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"STOP WITH THE HYPERBOLE.

It's annoying me.

And your ignorance is annoying me.  That's why I'm here to try and do something about it.  So read this post...Economics and Human Sacrifice (//http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/12/can-economics-explain-human-sacrifice.html)...and see if that doesn't help with your condition.  And yes, it's entirely relevant to your argument that giving your money to congress is nothing like theists giving their money to god.  I'll give you a hint...in both cases people want a sizable safety net to protect them from the vicissitudes of life.

You must have missed it. Allow me to repeat myself.

Are we not talking about children voting? You gave your arguments for why they should, I gave mine against. If you'd like to address them, that's cool. But I feel like you're running off on some weird tangent and throwing red herrings around with this congress and taxes metaphor. And it's still annoying.

So, let's get back to the subject, yes?

I said children should not be allowed to vote for certain reasons.

Your turn.

Why is this person still here?

Quote from: "the_antithesis"Why is this person still here?

I guess someone thinks he's a fun chew-toy.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Plu"

Quote from: "Xerographica"And the people who don't fuck everything up aren't taxpayers?  In your fucktard reality...who the fuck doesn't fuck everything the fuck up?

That's a lot of fucks for a teacher. I'd almost think I'm hitting a nerve there. Now I'm finally deriving value from your posts. Keep it up, you might actually sell something someday.

Having served in the infantry swearing is second nature to me.  You're not hitting a nerve just because I decide to cut loose a little.  

Now answer the question.  Who are the people who don't fuck everything up?  You argued that taxpayers fuck things up...therefore the logical conclusion is that people who don't pay taxes are the people who don't fuck things up.  Is this correct?

That's an improper extrapolation. I could explain it to you with some pictures, but then as I'm not intending to a good teacher I'll just copy your method and tell you to go read up on it and come back when you understand.

Maybe it'll help you realise how incredibly silly that makes you sound when you do it.

Quote from: "Plu"That's an improper extrapolation. I could explain it to you with some pictures, but then as I'm not intending to a good teacher I'll just copy your method and tell you to go read up on it and come back when you understand.

Maybe it'll help you realise how incredibly silly that makes you sound when you do it.

If I tell somebody to read something then I'll link them to whatever it is that I want them to read.  For example, if I wanted you to learn something about democracies then I'd have you read this...If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive While Expanding Enfranchisement? (//http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/if-democracies-need-informed-voters-how-can-they-thrive-while-expanding-en)

You, on the other hand, can't link me to anything of value because you're ignorant.  Which isn't so bad...if somebody is actually interested in learning something.  But you're not interested in learning anything.  Therefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

QuoteTherefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

And yet, instead of spending your limited resources elsewhere... you keep responding to me. And you wonder why we think you are full of shit :D

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteTherefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

And yet, instead of spending your limited resources elsewhere... you keep responding to me. And you wonder why we think you are full of shit :D

Are you sure that people don't think you're full of shit?  Because, that's all you contribute.  Anybody who actually follows the discussion knows that I don't just pull shit out of my ass...I share passages written by people who definitely are not full of shit...

QuoteAs a later chapter discusses in more detail, democracy (the voting mechanism) is a very poor means for determining people's preferences.  Votes can be cast either for or against a limited number of proposals offered in referenda, but votes remain extraordinarily poor devices for registering the intensity of different people's wants and desires.  Furthermore, why would we want to rely on the cumbersome procedures of democracy to determine how many toothpicks or bow ties to produce? - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free (//http://books.google.com/books?id=dHI2I5m0sZ0C)

In case you missed it, this is me replying to your useless shit with valuable information.  Well...I guess your shit isn't entirely useless...as it gives me an opportunity to share value with anybody actually interested in learning something.

By your logic, people give the most value to the people that give the most valuable contributions... people have decided to thank me for my contributions 32 times, they thanks you once. So by your own logic, my contributions to this forum are clearly more valuable.

Quote from: "Plu"By your logic, people give the most value to the people that give the most valuable contributions... people have decided to thank me for my contributions 32 times, they thanks you once. So by your own logic, my contributions to this forum are clearly more valuable.

The majority watches Nascar instead of reading Nobel Prize winning economists.  One person's trash is another person's treasure.  To each their own.  That's my logic which is why I support children's suffrage and pragmatarianism.  

QuoteWith respect, I respect any preference that reflects a genuine willingness of those with the preference to bear personally all necessary costs to indulge the preference.  But I do not respect 'cheap' preferences — preferences that are merely expressions backed-up with no personal stake in indulging the preferences. - Don Boudreaux

So you accept that by your own logic I'm simply more valuable to this community than you are. :)

Quote from: "Xerographica"Are you sure that people don't think you're full of shit?  Because, that's all you contribute.  Anybody who actually follows the discussion knows that I don't just pull shit out of my ass...I share passages written by people who definitely are not full of shit...

I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that you're just pulling shit out of your ass. Context is everything.

Quote from: "Xerographica"If theists were currently not allowed to vote/shop...then you wouldn't want them to vote/shop because the outcome would be negative.  Is this true or false?

what is the theist buying? are they entering into a legal contract for purchase? The phrase "allowed to shop" is too ambigious and is meaningless. shop for what? a house? a dvd? those are two very different purchases. In the end it doesn't matter.

how would you prevent a theist from shopping? what would tell you they are theists? its generally very easy to tell who is not of a certain age by their government issued ID. that's the difference and quite a significant one. There is no law that says a theist cannot drive but there is a law that says you must be a certain age to drive, regardless if you are a theist or not.

as for children to vote/shop...unless you are going to put parameters around what ages you are talking about you will continue to sound like an idiot. in your first post you said "regardless of age" which is silly. I'm actually in favor of lowering the drinking age from (19 to 16) and raising the driving age (from 16 to 19). But those have parameters. I'm not thowing terms out "Regardless of age" without understanding the consequences.

But I don't think you can do that (understand what you are asking). Perhaps you've read or heard someone use this argument before and are regurgitating it and missing a key piece. I'm sure if you went to one of your own ecomomics heros and came to them with this argument and used the phrase "regardless of age" they would slowly back away from you, or just dismiss you. Or they would counter it by putting in their parameters becaues surely a Noble prize winner in Economics wouldn't be arguing for a nine year old to vote. If that's the case then it really diminishes the prize AND economics.

so, your question is a really really dumb one. I award you no points and everyone on this board is a little dumber for you having asked it.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Therefore, you don't contribute anything of value to these discussions.

There's anything of value here?

Quote from: "surly74"how would you prevent a theist from shopping?

You simply give all their money to congress.  In case you missed it, congresspeople are our personal shoppers.  Right now they are only our personal shoppers in the public sector.  But if they are good personal shoppers in the public sector then they must be good personal shoppers in the private sector.  So theists would have a 100% tax rate, atheists would vote for congresspeople and congresspeople would ensure that theists had adequate quantities of the things they needed to survive.  Of course the congresspeople we vote for wouldn't waste any money on things like churches...so that money would be used for more valuable things and we'd all be better off.  

Quote from: "surly74"as for children to vote/shop...unless you are going to put parameters around what ages you are talking about you will continue to sound like an idiot. in your first post you said "regardless of age" which is silly. I'm actually in favor of lowering the drinking age from (19 to 16) and raising the driving age (from 16 to 19). But those have parameters. I'm not thowing terms out "Regardless of age" without understanding the consequences.

I'm talking about only eliminating the age requirement when it comes to voting.  Then kids can try to lower the age limit on everything else but adults would outvote them.  You can't come up with any reasonable scenario where kids aren't victims of tyranny of the majority (adults).  Democracy will always have tyranny of the majority and adults will always be the majority which is why there's absolutely no harm in allowing children of any age to vote.  

Quote from: "surly74"But I don't think you can do that (understand what you are asking). Perhaps you've read or heard someone use this argument before and are regurgitating it and missing a key piece. I'm sure if you went to one of your own ecomomics heros and came to them with this argument and used the phrase "regardless of age" they would slowly back away from you, or just dismiss you. Or they would counter it by putting in their parameters becaues surely a Noble prize winner in Economics wouldn't be arguing for a nine year old to vote. If that's the case then it really diminishes the prize AND economics.

The problem is that you struggle to think things through.  And maybe you're incapable of thinking things through.  But how can I know which one it is unless I try and help you think?

How much money did Mother's Against Drunk Driving spend last year?  And how much money did kids spend on trying to lower the drinking/driving age?  

Quote from: "surly74"so, your question is a really really dumb one. I award you no points and everyone on this board is a little dumber for you having asked it.

The fact that you think it's dumb is proof that everybody should be allowed to vote.  You really fail to understand that Churchill was talking about you when he said that the best argument against democracy was a 5 minute conservation with the average voter.

But maybe you're smarter than the average voter?  If so, then you should have no problem reading and understanding this paper written by a Harvard professor...If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive While Expanding Enfranchisement? (//http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/if-democracies-need-informed-voters-how-can-they-thrive-while-expanding-en)

QuoteBut if they are good personal shoppers in the public sector then they must be good personal shoppers in the private sector.

They should hire you at ski-resorts, you seem to be the master of slippery slopes.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteBut if they are good personal shoppers in the public sector then they must be good personal shoppers in the private sector.

They should hire you at ski-resorts, you seem to be the master of slippery slopes.

So a congressperson can 'divine' how much you value defense but they can't 'divine' how much you value donuts?  Their crystal ball only works for public goods?  Congresspeople are only partially omniscient?  

QuoteBut where Wicksell proceeded to examine the process of preference revelation, Samuelson provided a more general definition of the efficient solution. Preference revelation is disregarded as the model visualizes an omniscient referee to whom preferences are known. - Richard A. Musgrave, Public Finance (//http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000244&edition=current&q=%22Preference%20revelation%22&topicid=&result_number=1)

You are too dense to realize that our system is based on voodoo.  The evidence is right in front of you but you have no idea whether or not to believe it because you're incapable of researching the topic and gathering enough information to make an informed decision.  

Was Richard Musgrave full of shit?  Did he know what he was talking about?  Was he an expert on the subject of public finance?  Was he just a right wing nut?  You can't answer these questions...you're not smart enough to know the value of the answers.  But I pose them because maybe somebody will stumble on this who is smart enough and curious enough to track down the answers just like I have done.

Quote from: "Xerographica"But maybe you're smarter than the average voter?  If so, then you should have no problem reading and understanding this paper written by a Harvard professor...If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive While Expanding Enfranchisement? (//http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/if-democracies-need-informed-voters-how-can-they-thrive-while-expanding-en)

Democracies don't need informed voters, if they did we wouldn't have any democracies. If you're suggesting we'd be better off if everyone was informed I would contest that informing the public of scientific principles is a far more useful topic of choice to educate the public.

You citing this paper is also contradictory to your first point, that children should be allowed to vote. How can you agree that children should be allowed to vote and that we need informed voters to run a thriving democracy. Are you suggesting we change the entire curriculum to focus on politics over any other, much more important, topics? You would also be assuming that we could provide a huge number of unbiased educators to teach the children to make their own choices; without having any educators use their power to start brainwashing their student to think as they do.

You seem way too trusting and optimistic concerning peoples behavior.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Was Richard Musgrave full of shit? Did he know what he was talking about? Was he an expert on the subject of public finance? Was he just a right wing nut? You can't answer these questions...you're not smart enough to know the value of the answers. But I pose them because maybe somebody will stumble on this who is smart enough and curious enough to track down the answers just like I have done.

Or you think you have. The problem with getting an 'education' off the internet is that you have no idea how to separate fact from bullshit. Now you're probably thinking, 'I'm a genius, therefore I can detect truth from lies in biased sources just by looking at it', but in the real world you can never be so confident that you have the true facts while others only hold fiction (unless you're talking about science! and even then sometimes it's not clear).

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Did you just ask me if I was going to "like" a page on Facebook?

Don't you support allowing adults to directly choose where their taxes go?  Or are you convinced that we are little ignorant children that shouldn't be allowed to shop for ourselves in the the public sector?

I think that most people reading this thread are convinced that you're a little ignorant child when it comes to thinking logically.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Plu"

Quote from: "Xerographica"And the people who don't fuck everything up aren't taxpayers?  In your fucktard reality...who the fuck doesn't fuck everything the fuck up?

That's a lot of fucks for a teacher. I'd almost think I'm hitting a nerve there. Now I'm finally deriving value from your posts. Keep it up, you might actually sell something someday.

Having served in the infantry swearing is second nature to me.

Having served in the Navy (and by what you hear you'd thing that the only thing that keeps ships afloat is all the cursing), I seem to be able to automatically keep the profanity at bay where it's not appropriate.  You must have a real problem with reality.

Quote from: "Icarus"Democracies don't need informed voters, if they did we wouldn't have any democracies.

How can you agree that children should be allowed to vote and that we need informed voters to run a thriving democracy.

You seem way too trusting and optimistic concerning peoples behavior.

First you said that democracies don't need informed voters.  Then you said that children should not be allowed to vote because they aren't informed.  Which is it?

The fact of the matter is that democracies don't have to worry about informed voters because, given that each side of the debate wants to win the contest, they will always have the incentive/motive to share their information with others.  

Unfortunately, just like the Harvard professor, you're incapable of stepping outside your information bias.  If democracies need informed voters to thrive...then there should be some very negative consequences that we have experienced as a direct result of expanding suffrage to uninformed voters.  What example did the Harvard professor give?

If you read the entire paper then you'll know that her example merely revealed her liberal bias.  Therefore, from her perspective, democracies need liberal information if we are to truly thrive.  And from the perspective of a conservative, democracies need conservative information if we are to thrive.  

If both sides agree on what information we need to thrive...then obviously there's nothing to vote over!  

So we allow children to vote...both sides of the debate spend their time/money/energy on sharing their information with others...and the side that is willing to sacrifice more will win.   Why do we want the side that sacrifices more to win?  Because how much they sacrifice for something is an indication of how important it is to them.  

And this is equally applicable to understanding the logic of allowing people to choose where their taxes go.  Step outside your personal information bias, try and understand the process, and give people the freedom to demonstrate their preferences.

If you disagree with their preferences...then sacrifice your time/money/energy to share your information with them.  How much you're willing to sacrifice will reveal exactly how valuable you think your information truly is.

Quote from: "Xerographica"Was Richard Musgrave full of shit? Did he know what he was talking about? Was he an expert on the subject of public finance? Was he just a right wing nut? You can't answer these questions...you're not smart enough to know the value of the answers. But I pose them because maybe somebody will stumble on this who is smart enough and curious enough to track down the answers just like I have done.

Quote from: "Icarus"Or you think you have. The problem with getting an 'education' off the internet is that you have no idea how to separate fact from bullshit. Now you're probably thinking, 'I'm a genius, therefore I can detect truth from lies in biased sources just by looking at it', but in the real world you can never be so confident that you have the true facts while others only hold fiction (unless you're talking about science! and even then sometimes it's not clear).

What you're telling me is bullshit.  Stop the bullshit.  Go on the internet, go to your local libraries, go to your local universities...and research whether Richard Musgrave was full of shit.  The more research you conduct...the more confident you'll be in your answer.  

Are you going to do the research?  Are you willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of your time?  No, you're not.  Because the answer isn't that important to you.  You're comfortable living in your blissful ignorance just like a Christian is comfortable living in theirs.

Quote from: "Xerographica"First you said that democracies don't need informed voters.  Then you said that children should not be allowed to vote because they aren't informed.  Which is it?

Those two statements don't contradict eachother............................... Please explain how they do. Are you saying that we might as well let children vote because adults are uninformed? I personally think children shouldn't be bothered with the political process until they're around 14-15.


I'm going to skip the rest of your post because you insist on editing down what I said, and chose to respond to a point (usually out of context when you edit), that you feel you can explain away. I also can't have a serious discussion with someone who can't understand what their reading or what constitutes a contradiction.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Xerographica"Was Richard Musgrave full of shit? Did he know what he was talking about? Was he an expert on the subject of public finance? Was he just a right wing nut? You can't answer these questions...you're not smart enough to know the value of the answers. But I pose them because maybe somebody will stumble on this who is smart enough and curious enough to track down the answers just like I have done.

Quote from: "Icarus"Or you think you have. The problem with getting an 'education' off the internet is that you have no idea how to separate fact from bullshit. Now you're probably thinking, 'I'm a genius, therefore I can detect truth from lies in biased sources just by looking at it', but in the real world you can never be so confident that you have the true facts while others only hold fiction (unless you're talking about science! and even then sometimes it's not clear).

What you're telling me is bullshit.  Stop the bullshit.  Go on the internet, go to your local libraries, go to your local universities...and research whether Richard Musgrave was full of shit.  The more research you conduct...the more confident you'll be in your answer.  

Are you going to do the research?  Are you willing to sacrifice the alternative uses of your time?  No, you're not.  Because the answer isn't that important to you.  You're comfortable living in your blissful ignorance just like a Christian is comfortable living in theirs.

Ooooooo someones angry. This is what I read: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/16/6148.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/16/6148.abstract) get back to me in 10 years when you're done.

This is another reason why most people in this thread think you're an intellectual child, you clearly have a lot of time to read about random things, then attempt to chastise adults for not reading them because we have jobs and tons of other (far more important) documents to read.

Quote from: "Icarus"This is another reason why most people in this thread think you're an intellectual child, you clearly have a lot of time to read about random things, then attempt to chastise adults for not reading them because we have jobs and tons of other (far more important) documents to read.

First I'm criticized for being full of shit...and now you admit that you have not studied public finance.  First you study public finance and then you can accuse me of being full of shit.  

And what's more important than understanding public finance?  How the fuck can you truly know how much of your hard-earned money the government should really take when you are completely clueless about public finance?    

Given that you are here...there's no question that you don't spend all your time trying to earn a living.  You, and everybody else, allocates a certain amount of your time to leisure activities.  If you're vaguely intelligent...then you will sacrifice watching football in order to research whether or not Richard Musgrave was full of shit.

Quote from: "Xerographica"[spoil:u657x3b7]First I'm criticized for being full of shit...and now you admit that you have not studied public finance.  First you study public finance and then you can accuse me of being full of shit.  

And what's more important than understanding public finance?  How the fuck can you truly know how much of your hard-earned money the government should really take when you are completely clueless about public finance?    

Given that you are here...there's no question that you don't spend all your time trying to earn a living.  You, and everybody else, allocates a certain amount of your time to leisure activities.  If you're vaguely intelligent...then you will sacrifice watching football in order to research whether or not Richard Musgrave was full of shit.[/spoil:u657x3b7]

Done reading that research paper already? What are your thoughts and comments on their particular approach?

Quote from: "Icarus"Done reading that research paper already? What are your thoughts and comments on their particular approach?

If you want me to read that research paper then you'll have to persuade me to do so.  Just like if I want you to read the definitive economic justification for government then I'll have to persuade you to do so.  

Personally I think my topic is fundamentally more important than your topic.  That's because my topic includes your topic.  My topic includes everything the government does do, can do, should do, and shouldn't do.  It's the big picture...and your topic is just one of millions and millions of pieces of the puzzle.

Isn't it fundamentally important to understand the pieces of the puzzle if you want to get the big picture? Especially when you promote a view that requires everyone to understand all the pieces of the puzzle to work.

Quote from: "Xerographica"You simply give all their money to congress.

you should read what you say outloud and then maybe you'll hear how silly you sound...tape yourself Tobias.

QuoteI'm talking about only eliminating the age requirement when it comes to voting.  Then kids can try to lower the age limit on everything else but adults would outvote them.  You can't come up with any reasonable scenario where kids aren't victims of tyranny of the majority (adults).  Democracy will always have tyranny of the majority and adults will always be the majority which is why there's absolutely no harm in allowing children of any age to vote.  

parenting is not tyranny. it is not tyranny when we know children aren't capable of certain things. If you want to think it's tyranny fine. go ahead. you are wrong asshat. are you 16? I know you said earlier you were older but I can't remember exactly but it doesn't matter anymore. I wouldn't believe you based on what you write. You are trying to hard to sound mature and intelligent. two things most 16 year olds aren't.

QuoteThe problem is that you struggle to think things through.  And maybe you're incapable of thinking things through.  But how can I know which one it is unless I try and help you think?

no i think things through quite well and better than you. I'm not the one trying to show how smart I am by proving I know how to use google to convince people. You pick and choose what you want to respond to. You assert you have the answers to this but won't tell me why I should take you seriously. All you have after my requests are deflections and passive aggressive insults. who cares. You know nothing.

QuoteHow much money did Mother's Against Drunk Driving spend last year?  And how much money did kids spend on trying to lower the drinking/driving age?  

MADD is a lobby group. i don't care about them. in Canada MADD supports recommends the minimum driving age at 16 which defeats the purpose of what they are trying to do nevermind who are they to recommend anything? If they said to raise it they would risk losing donations. Auto safety groups who have stats behind them (should you believe those stats over no stats from MADD) have said to raise the age. It makes sense that older drivers are going to be safer drivers. Teenagers already drink and probably would do less damage to other people only drinking rather that getting into a car with friends even sober. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. that's reasoning bitch.

I can reason. you don't seem to be able to. you take information or something someone else has written and spew it without fully understanding it. If you could reason you could explain in your own terms why something makes sense without being a useless parrot.

QuoteThe fact that you think it's dumb is proof that everybody should be allowed to vote.  You really fail to understand that Churchill was talking about you when he said that the best argument against democracy was a 5 minute conservation with the average voter.

nice comeback. what fact? there isn't even an argument here why it's not a dumb question. Because you say so??? oh, ok...fucktard. Are you capable of saying anything without referencing someone else to try and make your argument for you or did we see it in:

Quote from: "Xerographica"You simply give all their money to congress.

LOL.

QuoteBut maybe you're smarter than the average voter?  If so, then you should have no problem reading and understanding this paper written by a Harvard professor...If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive While Expanding Enfranchisement? (//http://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/if-democracies-need-informed-voters-how-can-they-thrive-while-expanding-en)

and we are back to having other people make your arguments.

Quote from: "Xerographica"

Quote from: "Icarus"Done reading that research paper already? What are your thoughts and comments on their particular approach?

If you want me to read that research paper then you'll have to persuade me to do so.  Just like if I want you to read the definitive economic justification for government then I'll have to persuade you to do so.  

Personally I think my topic is fundamentally more important than your topic.  That's because my topic includes your topic.  My topic includes everything the government does do, can do, should do, and shouldn't do.  It's the big picture...and your topic is just one of millions and millions of pieces of the puzzle.

I have to persuade you into wanting to be smarter? Sometimes my generation makes me facepalm too hard. Unfortunately the government doesn't understand my topic, not in the slightest. My topic is also mine because I studied it ruthlessly for many years. 'Your' topic as you call it isn't yours because a quick internet search doesn't make you an expert (and I know you said you weren't an expert in a previous post, but this whole 'my topic' thing seems to have changed your mind).

Your view of the world is way too narrow if you think that studying politics is the end all and be all of topics. Politics is an ever changing human construct that has never been stable or had a concrete set of known parameters. Every century we have entirely new systems in many countries and huge changes in the rest. This is why the system can't be studied with the certainty that you are showing to anyone who actually understands the topic.

Here, watch these: http://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse (http://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse)

My topic allows for things to be discovered using rules that very rarely change. This means I can actually discover and experiment, collecting results to prove discoveries to people.

This is what you have failed to do. You've failed to provide any numbers showing your way is better. This is because you don't understand the importance of quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) evidence. Your argument thus far has been 'read this biased article and agree with me'. Which is why everyone thinks you're a child (and unfortunately most probably part of my generation).  ](*,)

(//http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f2/961909d1360082984-oversized-watch-trend-over-right-stupid-post-bear.jpg)

Quote from: "surly74"parenting is not tyranny.

A friend of mine (a cop) had to explain once, to a teen-ager who wanted her parents arrested for not allowing her the freedom she thought the Constitution gave her, that a family isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship, and the parents are the dictators.  Some "adults" here apparently haven't yet gotten the message. :)