Perhaps that is true. But one is testable and the other is not. It’s true that there’s a little bit of looking for your keys under the street lamp but if there’s sufficient correlation it might suffice.
It's weird that people think popular ideas flow from popular politicians instead of realizing that politicians picking up popular ideas is what makes the politician popular.
In other words: idea -> pol.
Everything else you said should get you flagged, but it is popular here so I'm not holding my breath.
Merely being a counter-narrative to some other narrative is not valuable in itself, otherwise all sorts of nonsense would be valuable. Proof that counter-narratives are not automatically valuable: "the moon is made of blue cheese" and "the moon is made of green cheese" provide worthless counter-narratives to each other.
I think the comment you replied to explains it well enough and I don’t feel the need to repeat myself.
I will edit my comment as well since you edited yours instead of responding. I don’t think the GP’s comment is the equivalent of saying that the moon is made of cheese.
The original parent comment (now flagged) essentially said: only people who reproduce have any right to have any say in how society operates. Especially when it comes to mass surveillance.
Which is patently absurd on its face. Much like saying the moon is made of cheese.
Edit: I’m done pretending like regressive ideas like removing voting rights from entire segments of the population are points for valid discussion.
What makes it patently absurd? I don’t agree with this perspective but I don’t agree that it’s the equivalent of saying that the moon is made of cheese. I found their perspective much more interesting than the typical HN opinions, shame it was flagged.
You may be done with that idea but the idea is not done. We can choose to limit the franchise or we can have it imposed on us when a strongman takes advantage of the chaos.
There are two straightforward arguments against that (implied) position[0]:
First, it's entirely possible that you act against their interest while claiming to care for them. The majority of old Americans currently advocate for policies that will drain the next generation while enriching the aged. This is unconscionable theft from our succeeding generations. It is fairly typical of people to act kind in person while advocating for harmful policies. If this explains you then it doesn't matter that you don't express that you want the worst for them if you nonetheless support policies that vampirize them to fund your retirement in your old age.
Secondly, all disenfranchisement will have false positives. There are 17 year olds that are sensible enough to vote. They still cannot. That is the nature of selecting a line: true nature has a fractal edge and no rule that will fit in a rulebook can capture it all.
0: Which I think can be reasonably interpreted as "the fact that I love my relatives' children and my friends' children means that I do have a vested interest in the future".
Half of America reads at a 6th grade level or lower. Something like a quarter of the country is effectively illiterate.
I don't believe disenfranchising them is the best solution- I might take a Jeffersonian view that in being so illiterate, they are already effectively disenfranchised (someone else is "voting" for them - influencing their choice in a probably undue way).
A better solution would be to find effective ways to educate them
A civil war is needed. It’s clear that there are a handful of ideological blocs with inherently incompatible ideologies.
These people cannot all live in the same society and have peace exist. Logistically this problem can’t really be solved peacefully and will eventually boil up. We’re already seeing a sharp ramp up in terrorist attacks across the ideological spectrum
Sometimes, we should let nature play its course. Whoever comes out on top will subsequently canibalize themselves with infighting anyway.
That is highly unlikely precisely because of how powerful the military / surveillance state is. Terrorism only serves as a boogeyman to increase funding for said military / surveillance state. What is much more likely as an outcome is a fascist dictatorship and a sharp increase in the % of the population living in a prison.
The franchise is already restricted to citizens except for weird subsets like SF schools, right? I think any model of franchise restriction must have negative feedback effects:
- should not allow franchise holders to arrogate state function to themselves in a snowball manner
- should not allow franchise holders to enhance franchise power
Not in a direct “outlaw this”sense but in a dynamic systems sense. So something like net tax payer is good. If you use it to vote yourself more state benefits you lose the franchise and others can then remove that benefit from you.
It will be hard to handle delayed reward situations (I pay now to get benefit later) so I think the problem is we just don’t have the correct device for this yet.
But the restricted franchise is something I think is very useful. The model of having free riders vote for more free riding is rapidly approaching its limit.
I think it's simply solipsism, not natality.
Perhaps that is true. But one is testable and the other is not. It’s true that there’s a little bit of looking for your keys under the street lamp but if there’s sufficient correlation it might suffice.
[dead]
What an idiotic opinion
[flagged]
It's weird that people think popular ideas flow from popular politicians instead of realizing that politicians picking up popular ideas is what makes the politician popular.
In other words: idea -> pol.
Everything else you said should get you flagged, but it is popular here so I'm not holding my breath.
I don’t see it as ragebait, I think the parent comment provides a valuable counter narrative to the typical HN talking points
How do you see it having value?
Merely being a counter-narrative to some other narrative is not valuable in itself, otherwise all sorts of nonsense would be valuable. Proof that counter-narratives are not automatically valuable: "the moon is made of blue cheese" and "the moon is made of green cheese" provide worthless counter-narratives to each other.
I think the comment you replied to explains it well enough and I don’t feel the need to repeat myself.
I will edit my comment as well since you edited yours instead of responding. I don’t think the GP’s comment is the equivalent of saying that the moon is made of cheese.
The original parent comment (now flagged) essentially said: only people who reproduce have any right to have any say in how society operates. Especially when it comes to mass surveillance.
Which is patently absurd on its face. Much like saying the moon is made of cheese.
Edit: I’m done pretending like regressive ideas like removing voting rights from entire segments of the population are points for valid discussion.
What makes it patently absurd? I don’t agree with this perspective but I don’t agree that it’s the equivalent of saying that the moon is made of cheese. I found their perspective much more interesting than the typical HN opinions, shame it was flagged.
You may be done with that idea but the idea is not done. We can choose to limit the franchise or we can have it imposed on us when a strongman takes advantage of the chaos.
"We can wait for our enemy to blow us up with nukes, or we can choose to blow ourselves up with nukes first"
You're right, I hate my nieces, nephews, and all my friends' kids! I want the worst for them. /s
There are two straightforward arguments against that (implied) position[0]:
First, it's entirely possible that you act against their interest while claiming to care for them. The majority of old Americans currently advocate for policies that will drain the next generation while enriching the aged. This is unconscionable theft from our succeeding generations. It is fairly typical of people to act kind in person while advocating for harmful policies. If this explains you then it doesn't matter that you don't express that you want the worst for them if you nonetheless support policies that vampirize them to fund your retirement in your old age.
Secondly, all disenfranchisement will have false positives. There are 17 year olds that are sensible enough to vote. They still cannot. That is the nature of selecting a line: true nature has a fractal edge and no rule that will fit in a rulebook can capture it all.
0: Which I think can be reasonably interpreted as "the fact that I love my relatives' children and my friends' children means that I do have a vested interest in the future".
[flagged]
>questionable if we should allow the childless and the aged to even vote
We do need to restrict the franchise drastically. I don't know if this is where I'd draw the line, but it is actually one of the better ideas.
Other ideas: net tax payers, veterans, citizens
Half of America reads at a 6th grade level or lower. Something like a quarter of the country is effectively illiterate.
I don't believe disenfranchising them is the best solution- I might take a Jeffersonian view that in being so illiterate, they are already effectively disenfranchised (someone else is "voting" for them - influencing their choice in a probably undue way).
A better solution would be to find effective ways to educate them
A civil war is needed. It’s clear that there are a handful of ideological blocs with inherently incompatible ideologies.
These people cannot all live in the same society and have peace exist. Logistically this problem can’t really be solved peacefully and will eventually boil up. We’re already seeing a sharp ramp up in terrorist attacks across the ideological spectrum
Sometimes, we should let nature play its course. Whoever comes out on top will subsequently canibalize themselves with infighting anyway.
That is highly unlikely precisely because of how powerful the military / surveillance state is. Terrorism only serves as a boogeyman to increase funding for said military / surveillance state. What is much more likely as an outcome is a fascist dictatorship and a sharp increase in the % of the population living in a prison.
The franchise is already restricted to citizens except for weird subsets like SF schools, right? I think any model of franchise restriction must have negative feedback effects:
- should not allow franchise holders to arrogate state function to themselves in a snowball manner
- should not allow franchise holders to enhance franchise power
Not in a direct “outlaw this”sense but in a dynamic systems sense. So something like net tax payer is good. If you use it to vote yourself more state benefits you lose the franchise and others can then remove that benefit from you.
It will be hard to handle delayed reward situations (I pay now to get benefit later) so I think the problem is we just don’t have the correct device for this yet.
But the restricted franchise is something I think is very useful. The model of having free riders vote for more free riding is rapidly approaching its limit.
I don't know HN was full of neo-confederates.