North Korea War Situation
WELCOME TO CRISISFORUMS.ORG!
(1) Please swing by our "HELP CENTER" to view our forum rules prior to commenting.
(2) Acknowledge that by commenting or posting, you take full responsibility for the content and message of the information you put forth, which do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website.
(3) If you would like to post your own discussion threads, just contact one of the staff so we can verify you as a human.

George Soros Desperately Trying to Lower Voting Age to 16 (DAHB007)

RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads

"We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

Comments

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    He shares an important message, worth listening to
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • GrumpyGuy_MOD_GrumpyGuy_MOD_ Moderator
    edited March 15
    Why not bump it down to 14?  Children 14 years of age, in spite of not having fully matured brains yet, are probably as knowledgeable about current affairs if not more-so than many elderly people who vote. 

    How about this - schools introduce a mandatory politics course every year beginning with 9th grade (1st year high school in North America).  The course looks at the existing parties (including the small ones) as impartially as possible, while also showing examples of how various parties/ideologies have affected important historical events.  Any other information needed to turn someone into an informed voter is also included.  Probably impossible to get such a course developed without someone's hand up the puppet, but who knows.

    Students pass by receiving marks using the same guidelines as any other class, but if they pass with a B or higher, they receive a voting package through the school for the next relevant election.  If they can't earn Bs or As, they can't vote that year.  No arguments.  If they fail to achieve a B or A in their final year of school, they are not permitted to vote as adults until they can pass an administered voting license test (similar, perhaps, to a driving test).

    An up-to-date test should be required for renewal of the voting license upon reaching the ages of 30, 40, 50, 60 and again at 65, repeating every 5 years afterwards.

    How many people 65+ are fully aware of current issues?  How many of them vote for one of the following reasons:

    1)  Traditionally votes for the same party regardless of the issues or situation

    2)  Supports the person offering the least deviation from the Good Old Days

    Are such votes any better informed than votes that might come from a first-year high school student, assuming they've been learning about politics?

    Do people who are on their way out of life have more right to dictate the future of their country than people who are facing the majority of their lives to come?  I understand that retirement is supposed to be a time of earned comfort, but it seems unfair to stack the decks in favour of only those who are older.




    People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment.
    - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    Personally, I don't think anyone should be voting unless they are specialists in selecting managers, and proven so. By who ends up at the levers, it demonstrates to me that most might not have those qualifications. There is no other field of expertise in which we would tolerate such a whimsical, emotion-fueled selection of workers - let alone something as important as managing a community.

    Also, I'm personally against a managerial system that gets to have its way simply by the size of its mob. Parliaments, republics and democracies are all different flavours of the same clique battle royale. Less than 50% of any community ends up represented.

    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads
    In Australia the voting age was lowered to 18 due to the conscription of young men for the Vietnam war.  They could hardly send teenagers who didn't have the right to vote to fight for the country (actually they were fighting for USA!!)
    Is this argument for the right for 16 year olds to vote a way of enabling conscription for the defence forces - (as well as suggested right of young immigrants to vote for the Democrats)? 
    Once the voting age was lowered to 18 they had make the legal age to drink alcohol 18 from 21 here, as 18 year olds were now adults.
    Would a reduced voting age also make a difference to schooling allowances/subsidies from the government as for all intents and purposes 16 year olds would then be adults.
    Would this also affect trials of what were formerly children and sentencing in courts.
    Would "under age" for carnal knowledge still apply.
    Would 16 year olds be eligible for bank loans at a younger age?
    Would 16 year olds be able to marry without getting special permission?
    Seems there's a whole raft of things that would be affected.

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads

    Democracies may not be perfect, in fact, people tend to screw them up a lot.  Regardless of how utopian we would like the world to operate, there will always be some form of government and no form will ever be perfect.  Off hand, I can think of three other forms we could choose from.  We could live in a dictatorship, or perhaps a monarchy (essentially the same thing) or we can have a theocracy.

    In none of the other three would anyone have any say in our own lives.  At least in a democracy or republic we have a small say, even if it is illusory.  Even if we don't always apply common sense to our choices.

    As for lowering the legal voting age.  It doesn't necessarily have to follow that other privileges have to be granted.  I first joined the army as soon as I turned 17.  I was old enough to serve my country but not old enough to vote.  For that matter, I still had 4 years to wait until I was legally old enough to drink alcohol.  The public didn't find any great conflict with the different ages attached to legal privileges.  That's because they were exactly that, privileges, not rights.  To be fair, the legal drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18 shortly after I enlisted.  Still, in much of Canada, the legal drinking age is 19 years, while voting age is 18 years.

    I think, Farmer Sean has come up with the most common sense method of determining  the privilege of voting.  The only flaw is the bias of those setting up the curriculum and those implementing it.  Their personal political leanings will almost certainly influence the emphasis placed on individual subjects.

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads
    If 16 year olds are given the responsibility of voting - in any country, are they sufficiently knowledgeable about policies and law of their country to make an informed decision.  I'm sure some 16 year olds are, however many aren't interested.  I don't believe I wouldn't have been either interested or able to make the necessary decision.  When I eventually did vote I was indoctrinated by my mothers Liberal leaning to the point where I didn't even consider any other party as my father hadn't been home since I was 7.  Now  my views are subject to change every time I vote depending on who's standing for election and what their priorities are.
    If dropping the voting age to 16 in USA is to round up immigrants from south of the Mexican border, so they can vote democrat, it's hardly a valid reason. In fact if they don't have legality as a citizen their right to vote would be questionable.

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads
    If 16 year olds are given the responsibility of voting - in any country, are they sufficiently knowledgeable about policies and law of their country to make an informed decision.  I'm sure some 16 year olds are, however many aren't interested.  I don't believe I wouldn't have been either interested or able to make the necessary decision.  When I eventually did vote I was indoctrinated by my mothers Liberal leaning to the point where I didn't even consider any other party as my father hadn't been home since I was 7.  Now  my views are subject to change every time I vote depending on who's standing for election and what their priorities are.
    If dropping the voting age to 16 in USA is to round up immigrants from south of the Mexican border, so they can vote democrat, it's hardly a valid reason. In fact if they don't have legality as a citizen their right to vote would be questionable.

    Refer to Farmer Sean's suggestion.  I think it's better than the current way of doing things.  If they could implement it, I think the political scene would be in for a vast improvement.  Well thought out FS.

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads
    I agree with Farmer_Sean and yourself tazweiss local, state and federal government structures should be taught.  In year 7 and 8 however neither I or any of my friends had any  interest at the time -  in spite of the fact my father had strong views and took me to listen to politicians from age 6. Maybe teenagers are more conscientious of the reason for studying how governments and voting operate now. I only voted in my younger days because there was a fine if you didn't comply.
    Regards ages, yes well that applies to drivers licences here once you're over 75 there's medical and eyesight checks.
    The interesting thing about voting - every age group has its own priorities, those of a young adult would probably be quite different to those of a retiree. 
    It's the effect of the carrot and stick approach that politicians use that often makes a difference.  Teenagers want welfare benefits if they can't find a job, Young families look for family allowances if they have children, or first home buyers grants, retirees want the best pension rates they can get and transport allowances.  Farmers want to know they can get drought relief.  In between there's all the superannuation and taxation changes and levies on cigarettes, motor fuel and alcohol which pay for other services. If 14, 16 or 18 year olds want to vote they need to be aware that only too often today's promise sometimes gets forgotten once the vote's been cast.   

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    The idea of attempting to teach children politics is admirable, but in my opinion at least this may actually be worse than what we already have for the following reasons:

    (1) As has been mentioned, who writes and teaches the material? This in itself makes such a task near-impossible. No political party will ever agree to this unless their party is elevated above the others, and attempting to achieve a consensus will become so arduous and expensive that it will essentially become an endless battle that might even encourage disincentive to vote, rather than participation. In a climate of such confusion, what happens then? What always happens: the students will do whatever they think they need to do in order to get a good mark, and then they'll just vote according to how they're swayed by outside pressures. Basically, a whole bunch of money and time has been wasted for the same outcome.

    (2) The intellectual imprint left by schools on children is practically non-existent. Children don't respond to society according to what schools teach them. They respond to society according to what their friends think, what their families think, and most importantly, what the massive, monolithic forces of the mass media tell them to think. School is nothing more than a babysitting service for youth. Again, it will be like trying to float in a boat in the middle of the ocean and attempting to bail out the seabed with a bucket.

    (3) The problem really isn't learning about politics. The problem is the structure of civilization itself. People can read about political parties all day long, but if people are taught to be perpetual children until age 40, to live empty-materialist lives, then that's how they're going to vote no matter the size of the mound of political literature they've imbibed: they'll vote as childish materialists would. Hence, our world.

    (4) Licenses are just a horrible idea, to be frank. It's paradoxical to both crave freedom and to have freedom subject to the permission of another person. Freedom is like fishing. Both require a bit of effort, but are God-bestowed rights. Is it not absurd that people require a license to catch a fish for dinner? How much more so in guiding their lives?

    (5) This all assumes that democracy is the best system to begin with. Who said it is? We've been told it is. We've been programmed that it is. But is it? It was said above that individuals want a say in their lives, but they don't get that through democracy. They get mob rule. Some gang of people tell me what's what. I don't count an "illusion" of freedom as being worthy. I want the real deal. When people say they want a "say" in their lives, what they're really saying is that, "I want to be the dictator". And that's completely fine. Everyone wants to be the dictator of their own life. There are two ways to achieve this: anarchy (which is not chaos, but we've been programmed to think so), or satisfying ourselves that our say in the system comes not in the form of our opinions, but in the maximization of what we can contribute to that system for however long we are alive, with the knowledge that righteous systems last, and unrighteous systems implode automatically.

    Sometimes I truly feel that democracy is allowed and encourage because it prevents people from otherwise acting in a way that would disrupt the status quo. It's a sort of exhaust valve for built up pressures. Angry with the current guy? Just vote for the other party next year. Disappointed with his results? That's alright, you can just go back to the first party. And between all this useless shifting, no one stages any revolutions, usurpations, and we achieve Coca Cola contentment.


    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    As far as I'm concerned, this is all children need to learn about democracy:


    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads
    As far as I'm concerned, this is all children need to learn about democracy:


    Perfect!  What goes around comes around!

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

  • RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads
    The idea of attempting to teach children politics is admirable, but in my opinion at least this may actually be worse than what we already have for the following reasons:

    (1) As has been mentioned, who writes and teaches the material? This in itself makes such a task near-impossible. No political party will ever agree to this unless their party is elevated above the others, and attempting to achieve a consensus will become so arduous and expensive that it will essentially become an endless battle that might even encourage disincentive to vote, rather than participation. In a climate of such confusion, what happens then? What always happens: the students will do whatever they think they need to do in order to get a good mark, and then they'll just vote according to how they're swayed by outside pressures. Basically, a whole bunch of money and time has been wasted for the same outcome.

    (2) The intellectual imprint left by schools on children is practically non-existent. Children don't respond to society according to what schools teach them. They respond to society according to what their friends think, what their families think, and most importantly, what the massive, monolithic forces of the mass media tell them to think. School is nothing more than a babysitting service for youth. Again, it will be like trying to float in a boat in the middle of the ocean and attempting to bail out the seabed with a bucket.

    (3) The problem really isn't learning about politics. The problem is the structure of civilization itself. People can read about political parties all day long, but if people are taught to be perpetual children until age 40, to live empty-materialist lives, then that's how they're going to vote no matter the size of the mound of political literature they've imbibed: they'll vote as childish materialists would. Hence, our world.

    (4) Licenses are just a horrible idea, to be frank. It's paradoxical to both crave freedom and to have freedom subject to the permission of another person. Freedom is like fishing. Both require a bit of effort, but are God-bestowed rights. Is it not absurd that people require a license to catch a fish for dinner? How much more so in guiding their lives?

    (5) This all assumes that democracy is the best system to begin with. Who said it is? We've been told it is. We've been programmed that it is. But is it? It was said above that individuals want a say in their lives, but they don't get that through democracy. They get mob rule. Some gang of people tell me what's what. I don't count an "illusion" of freedom as being worthy. I want the real deal. When people say they want a "say" in their lives, what they're really saying is that, "I want to be the dictator". And that's completely fine. Everyone wants to be the dictator of their own life. There are two ways to achieve this: anarchy (which is not chaos, but we've been programmed to think so), or satisfying ourselves that our say in the system comes not in the form of our opinions, but in the maximization of what we can contribute to that system for however long we are alive, with the knowledge that righteous systems last, and unrighteous systems implode automatically.

    Sometimes I truly feel that democracy is allowed and encourage because it prevents people from otherwise acting in a way that would disrupt the status quo. It's a sort of exhaust valve for built up pressures. Angry with the current guy? Just vote for the other party next year. Disappointed with his results? That's alright, you can just go back to the first party. And between all this useless shifting, no one stages any revolutions, usurpations, and we achieve Coca Cola contentment.


    1) Teachers are rarely if ever impartial in passing on political information and guides.

    2) Especially once they become teenagers it's all about their friends and what they absorb from media. In believing they're being independing of family ties and rules they become subject to peer group pressure.

    3) Materialistic distractions and "what's in it for me" become their guide
    4) Licences are more about revenue, fines and control than the enforcement of absorbing rules.

    5)  I can't imagine China being governed by Obama, Hillary or Trump.  We may disagree with communism in the west but it seems to work in the huge country of China with massive population.  At least they're not seen to be acting like a bunch of 4 year olds.

    Last Para:
     In Australia we go to all the time and trouble of voting for one person and shortly thereafter the elected party have a miff with him fired up by undercover tactics of an aspirant to the top rung and replace him with their new favourite who doesn't seem to make much difference to the status quo once he's in.   Clearly there's a similar push in the US.  In cases like this where the underminers succeed, our votes are worthless pieces of paper. 

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads

    If voting really mattered, we wouldn't be allowed to do it.

    Mark Twain

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    True enough
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads
    In Australia we are fined if we don't vote unless there's a valid reason.  They even come around the hospitals and send out postal votes if people will be away from their electorate.  There's no dodging!

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    Does, "my frying pan would do a better job governing" count as a good reason?
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
Sign In or Register to comment.