Ok, new plan.

[Craig FTW]

Just as a question, did you or did you not like Obama or Mccain? or both?

 

[obliterate]

Discrimination is bad. If you don't like it, go to Canada.

Yeah...what the hell ?

 

[LockHeart]

And there's the thing with me. Here quoted is a confusion between fascism and authoritarianism. To me, fascism is simply placing the needs of the group above the rights of the individual. There is no need for the government to pass litigation which directly controls and limits the population as a means to this end. That implies an inherent lack of faith in humans which I simply do not possess.

However, this is a view that most people share. If we left the populous to their own ends. Free markets, few laws, etc.. It is commonly accepted that the people will work to their own ends, whether or not they coincide with the greater good of the whole.

Now, I believe that no such punishing litigation is necessary. I think it is possible for people to retain their individual freedoms and rights, and even maintain a democracy, but it would require an entire country totally devoted to one particular goal, and all of them prepared to sacrifice some things to get there. Be it a day per week sacrificed to service of the government or some other kind of productivity entirely devoted to the whole. Simply make it voluntary, but try to put into play a massive shift in the public (And, indeed, human) tendency to work selfishly.

It'd be very, very hard. And take a very long time. It'd take a huge shift in the very human nature we base our entire society upon, but I think it's possible, because I believe in people.

In the end I hope we lead ourselves into a single, world-spanning government which follows a system similar to this. Albeit more refined.

Heh, as you can see, going far enough down the fascism train takes you back to communism.

Spoiler: Response

So you believe that the group is an entity of its own and this has rights of its own? Further, these rights are inherently more important than the individual? Thus, one could justify sacrifing individual liberties (or even individuals) for the benefit of the greater number, i.e. society. Following on from this, it comes to the point that out of all the groups, the State wields the power and is thus the most important, meaning that it is acceptable to sacrifice individual citizens for the benefit of the State. This is the root of all collectivist ideologies, whether fascist, socialist, or communist.

I woulg argue that there is no such 'thing' as a group - you can't see it or touch it, only the individuals that form it. The 'group' is an abstraction that does not exist in a tangible reality, in a similar way to a forest - a forest is merely a collection of individual trees. Go looking for a forest without paying heed to the underlying premise that it is abstracted from a collection of individual trees and your search will be fruitless. What I mean to say is, that only individuals are 'real', therefore only individuals can have rights. These rights are not derived from numbers, but they are intrinsic to individuals - simply having more people on your side does not mean that you have a higher priority over the minority.

When someone says that someone else should be sacrificed for the good of society, what they are really saying is that they should be sacrificed for the perceived benefit of other individuals. The link between collectivist ideologies, such as fascism, and authoritarian dictators comes about because throughout history, dictators have claimed to represent the greater good for the greater number - this seems to be the central tenet of your argument for fascism.

You say that it is typical of people to act 'selfishly'. However, it is typical of collectivists to portray those who do not agree with their line of thinking in agreeing to sacrifice rights, liberties or themselves for the group (usually individualists) as 'selfish' and/or 'antisocial'. But what could be more selfish than demanding that people are sacrificed for your own benefit? I would argue that society is better served by protecting individuals, not demanding sacrifices of them. By leaving individuals to follow their own paths, society as a whole benefits because people will do what benefits them.

I get what you mean about the Communism bit, but it's because fascism and communism are fundamentally similar things in that they are collectivist ideologies.

That's my 2 Cents

 

[Monocle Man]

Electricians don't need to know shit about the American Civil War to do their job, but as resident's of America they still deserve the chance to participate in government.

So basically you're saying that you don't have to know jack shit about governing a country if you want to actually participate in governing the country. It's like not requiring a heart surgeon to have a surgeon's degree, at least that's what it sounds like to me.

It's a bit different:
You don't need to know your history to know what would be good for you.

A little example
-Party one: Less tax for people who work in factories, more tax for people who work in restaurants and pubs
-Party two: Less tax for people who work in restaurants and pubs, more tax for people who work in factories.

You don't need to know which crazy man ruled your country 500 years ago to know which one is more beneficial for you. And if the majority choose the choice that benefits the Industrial sector, then the majority would probably benefit from that.

Just force the voters to read some paper that tells what each party is planning to do without mentioning the mudslinging and blossoming.

 

[Bigsmith]

You should replacve question 18 and 24 with 'Does america glorify them selfs over wars they had very little part in: Yes, Yes or Yes'

 

[Cowabungaa]

It's a bit different:
You don't need to know your history to know what would be good for you.

Of course it's not the only part, but never forget that history is man's greatest lesson. The fact that we ignore it so often is why we make the same mistakes over and over again. Man is stubborn and should start paying more attention to history. Anyway, don't forget either that I said:

Now I don't think this test is uber fantastic, but I don't have anything particular against this idea.

A proper test would encompass a lot more than just historical facts about the history of the government, economics should play a large part as well, just to name something. But don't be silly and dismiss history as something not that important.

But once you start saying certain people don't deserve the right to vote--you're on thin ice. People will take advantage of the system and start trying to limit others.

No no, in a system like that everyone just has to earn the right to vote, but everyone has the right to try to earn that right and the only person that can stop you from earning it is yourself.

But the biggest hurdle of this system is: who makes the test? Who would decide what questions need to be answered? That person, or that group of people, would have a lot of power, who should have that power? Scholars?

 

[McNinja]

Yeah no. Poll taxes and such were removed for a reason. This would be the same thing. maybe if it counted for an extra vote it would be fine.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

why the math problem? the rest makes some sense I suppose but I don't really like it.

 

[D.C.]

Well, you know what the Spartans said; Democracy works aslong as the majority of the public isn't stupid.

Really? When did the Spartans say this? Because they had no Democracy. They were a society like sms_117b described in the first quote I posted here above. You had to be in the military to be a full citizen.

But Athen's was; and Sparta and Athen's were the two Power houses of The Ancient Greek World.
It's just like American's Criticising communism during the cold war.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Move to Scandinavia, problem solved. Over here we aren't stupid and the system is complex and fair.

Well, you know what the Spartans said; Democracy works aslong as the majority of the public isn't stupid.

Really? When did the Spartans say this? Because they had no Democracy. They were a society like sms_117b described in the first quote I posted here above. You had to be in the military to be a full citizen.

But Athen's was; and Sparta and Athen's were the two Power houses of The Ancient Greek World.
It's just like American's Criticising communism during the cold war.

Athen's "Democrati" allowed senior males with a sufficient capital to vote. The rich men ruled.

 

[ioxles]

This is not on. In order vote I think a rational mind should be justified rather than a degree of knowledge.

A preferable method of sorting the wheat from the chaff would perhaps be a specialized iq test designed not to measure, but instead as a way of judging rationale and thinking capacity and taking that as a indicator of whether voting should be permitted or not.

This. Er... Well sort of.

I think discriminating against the uneducated is pretty bad. Uneducated does not equal stupid. And a lot of the time it may not be their fault they're uneducated. Actually, I don't think there should be a means test at all. I think the best current system is the democracy in place. It has its faults (George Bush elected twice, being a major one) but I think a means test to vote is far more fault ridden (and also quite horrible and discriminatory). What you're basically saying is 'only people who are the same as me may vote'. And ok, you're going to ask 'where did I say that?' but I'm guessing you know all the answers to your means test. And I'm guessing the reason you want this test done is because you reason that people who can answer it will be simliar to you, and will vote the same way. Correct me if I'm wrong (haha as if I had to ask).

I think you are right, that was not what I was trying to get at at all. I don't want a separation between the educated and the uneducated or the intelligent and the dumb, what I'm trying to get propose is a method of testing whether an individual will "think" about what or who he/she is voting for.

I really dislike people who completely rely on being spoon fed their thoughts through the idiot box.... I don't vote, I've never voted. My reasoning is childish and banal when it comes to this, but I hate politics and politicians, but believe that if you want to vote for what you believe in there should be some sort of rationale test to make sure your thoughts are thought out and most importantly YOUR OWN, however impossible that may be.

 

[Monocle Man]

It's a bit different:
You don't need to know your history to know what would be good for you.

Of course it's not the only part, but never forget that history is man's greatest lesson. The fact that we ignore it so often is why we make the same mistakes over and over again. Man is stubborn and should start paying more attention to history. Anyway, don't forget either that I said:

Now I don't think this test is uber fantastic, but I don't have anything particular against this idea.

A proper test would encompass a lot more than just historical facts about the history of the government, economics should play a large part as well, just to name something. But don't be silly and dismiss history as something not that important.

I see history as a fun thing to ponder about. It's good to know which disasters and paradises certain events brought with them and interesting to think how it would have gone better.
But it's not too important, knowing that some guy abused his power as dictator and killed both people he knew and didn't knew for the heck of it says enough that you may never give something limitless power. Looking that people negotiate months and months on little things tells us that building labyrinths of procedures is counter-productive.
Dates and names is good to locate events but not necessary to know what to do.

Although if you look at the dates and actions at the same time you could find something interesting concerning the future.

In short, history is only useful in its most basic form, adding names and dates is ponder-material.

Knowing a lot about economics isn't required either. The political parties and neutral experts should think about the advanced economics so they can simplify the results of certain procedures to nothing more than Pros and Cons so everyone can understand.
Only allowing people who understand everything to vote could give results that hurt the majority, which is a bad thing even if the majority consists of rather dumb people.

 

[wolfy098]

yes and no

First you should try a system where those who are:

In work
Actively looking for work
unemployed but not on doll

get to vote

that way those who don't just take from your country have the right to vote

 

[ben---neb]

One Man One Vote.

I'm the man. I have the vote.

My main criticism is that the system is just begging for abuse by governments keen to make sure only their voters get to vote.

 

[lwm3398]

Well, you know what the Spartans said; Democracy works aslong as the majority of the public isn't stupid.

Proves once again that Greece was fucking awesome.

Seriously. If I get a time machine, there I go.

And I agree. You take a test that says you are smart enough to vote, get a license, and go to vote. This has to be done every year, so they know that you aren't any less eligible.

 

[WolfMage]

No. Just no.

First of all, people deserve to choose their leaders, even if they dont know american history that well.

However, if people who pass this test would get a stronger vote ( +2 instead of +1), i would agree.

How about you must get 80% on it, and you now count for +/- 5, instead of +/- 1.
You'd be 4/5 on smarts, and everyone starts with one, so it's logical-ish.
Also, those calling "FASCIST!" can shut up. We're a semi-fascist state as it is now, and we were under Bush, too, so don't be calling me Liberal or Conservative.
The system is fucked, but the people more so.
If fucked people stop talking, both parties disappear, and we'd have to judge candidates on the actual views of said candidate, not what party their in, not what mud has been slung at them, and not what "general opinion" polls say.
And finally, we really just need to give people a better education, and these problems start to fade to black.

 

[Cerrax]

... I personally think its...

ITS should be IT'S when used as the contraction of IT IS. You actually do this several times in your post.

Federal Apptitude Test before you're allowed to vote.

Aptitude. Only one P there.

people in OTHER COUNTRIES know more about my country THEN THE PEOPLE WHO FUCKING LIVE HERE

You should use THAN in that sentence, not THEN.

13: Without using a calculator, figure out how much money one would earn working 40 hours a week, 4 weeks a month, for 6 months, at a wage of $8.44, before taxes.

Should the answer include earnings before or after taxes? You have not specified and many "intelligent" test takers would get the wrong answer.

16: President Lincoln was which President?

Again you have not specified what you are looking for as the answer. Many people would answer "incorrectly". (I assume you mean which number in the order of presidents he was?)

28: Who wrote the Declaration of Independance?

There has never been a Declaration of INDEPENDANCE. There is however a Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

Just from the errors in your own post, I would doubt your voting ability based on the criteria of the test you would want all Americans to take.

 

[G1eet]

24: During WWI, what side was the United States on? (Circle one.)

Allies or Entente

24: Entente

Fail.
It was the Triple Alliance vs. the Triple Entente. The U.S., UK, Belgium, France, Italy, and Russia were the "Triple" Entente; the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Ottomans, and Bulgarians were the Central Powers, aka the "Triple" Alliance.

OT, this seems very fascist in principle to me. "Let's not let certain people vote, they're too stupid!"

While it may sound like a good idea, just remember that writing a book about modern day vampires with a wholly Mormon message also sounded like a good idea.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Yeah, but it worked (fictionally), I also agreed with a lot that came up in Starship Troopers, and 300 (Spartan society)

When did 300 and Spartan Society become interchangeable?

I think proper education would fix all the above problems. I would say that capitalism is the cause of them all, but...well...telling America to drop capitalism is like telling a dog to stop licking its balls.

Good luck in "the land of the free."

-is laughing very, very hard-

The index of economic freedom says the 5 most economically free (capitalist) countries are:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Ireland
4. Australia
5. United States

(Yahoo)

 

[axia777]

Well, you know what the Spartans said; Democracy works aslong as the majority of the public isn't stupid.

Really? When did the Spartans say this? Because they had no Democracy. They were a society like sms_117b described in the first quote I posted here above. You had to be in the military to be a full citizen.

But Athens was; and Sparta and Athens were the two Power houses of The Ancient Greek World.
It's just like American's Criticizing communism during the cold war.

ROFL. Communism was an epic fail. America was right on that one.