onthewindowstand

You irritate me.

Why are you so angry?

alright. sure thing.

Therefore, if we want a truly represented society which doesn't ignore a large portion of its populace (the ignorant, poor, and uneducated), how could we remove the problem of ignorant, poor, uneducated voting without doing so?

Also, it's good to keep in mind that most poor, uneducated people don't vote much anyway. The elderly and usually more wealthy people tend to vote. Young people also don't vote. Thus, there are lots of practical difficulties with trying to just throw in a test to remove the stupidity of the part of the population which is generally ignorant and uneducated. Thus, this seems like a huge dilemma. And I don't think a simple political test or logical assessment will really be the solution. Hence, I'm mixed.

If the uneducated and poor's interests are not served by this natural process, because they cannot vote, then how will they ever, themselves, actually be able to have a chance of gaining political power themselves? It would become a vicious cycle of being too poor to become educated enough to vote, which would mean your interests wouldn't be met, which means more poverty and lack of education for more years to come, which means you can't vote even longer. It's a perpetual cycle of poverty and lack of education.

Thus, democracy would be entirely ruined by this mechanism, if it wasn't somehow done in a way which still protects the interests of the poor and uneducated, because you cannot have a legitimate society which completely ignores its lowest social classes, merely because they are generally stupid and ignorant. They are citizens none-the-less.

Hence, separation of powers and representative democracy.

Now, if the elites only really want to dominate their subjects and collect all of the power for themselves and their own kin (which has been the case in an historic sense), then it stands to reason that society is always moving toward aristocracy. Now, if the elites are inclined to create forms of aristocracy, then it makes sense that they'd want to subdue the votes of the common people.

Now, if the top pillars of society are privileged, wealthy, and politically powerful, how can they retain their power, wealth, and privilege for generations to come (much like a royal family used to a few centuries back)? Basically, if the uneducated poor, unprivileged people were not able to pass a test, their interests would most likely be lost and the elites would keep nominating candidates who do not serve the interests of the uneducated and poor.

But, I do notice that trying to eliminate this problem through testing would only create a problem. Here's why: if society is really nothing more than a giant struggle for power—both on an individual level (politicians in general) and a collective level (between interest groups)—then it stands to reason that the smartest (and usually most privileged people) will want to subdue the actual will of the people they are going to govern, so they can dominate the socio-political environment (for there are many links between money and political power, and many interests are tied together this way, for example, the IRON TRIANGLE). Now, if the elites only really want to subdue the common people, why do you think that is? Well, as I feel, every society has eventually degraded to a state of elitism, whereby the highest pillars of society eventually concentrate wealth and power to a small segment of society. And supposedly, many societies have had a desire to avoid this natural process.

First of all, LOL @ your friend. 10 levels higher.

Second, I'm totally split on the voting test idea. Here's why: it's a great thing to attempt to get rid of the "stupid factor." For instance, George W. Bush Jr. was able to capture many votes on the simple basis that he appealed to simple people who genuinely felt he was a nice guy. In fact, many people voted for Obama just because he was either a) an African American (and it's good to have change!) or b) he was young and not corrupted by Washington or c) that he had a nice smile and looked friendly and they thought he reminded them of John F. Kennedy. Thus, many people do vote on a largely non-substantial basis. Instead of voting based on issue-awareness and logical insight, they just go with whoever looks prettier and might somewhat share their interests.

haha, 3 days straight.

I play on the ps3. But I do have an xbox. And yeah, getting people addicted to wow is crazy lol.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Civilization is fun. I used to play World of Warcraft. And a few others. I haven't been playing much lately.

That sounds good, dude. I want to be some sort of creative writer, too. Perhaps we can share our work with one another and try to grow as creative writers. Anyway, you're a cool dude. I'll keep in touch. Cya.

Indeed, philosophy is my one true passion in life. I do philosophy all the time, except when I'm playing video games. I just zone out. haha But thinking is something natural for me, as is probably the case for many INTPs.

And yeah, it's very undervalued in society, which is sad. I wish philosophy were more appreciated. But no matter, we'll have our day! I have 'faith.'

And yeah, many people who have taken philosophy are inferior to myself, as well. It annoys me, sometimes, that some people have been privileged with a philosophical education which they don't even use properly. But I will take great advantage of my education when the time comes. I've been privately learning and absorbing philosophy my entire life. I haven't been trained at all! So yeah... I probably do seem as though I've already begun classes, lol. I'm going to fit in so easily when I start taking courses.

What's your main major though?

I haven't actually begun to take philosophy courses! haha
I'm still doing some basics, but I will begin taking them by the end of the year, hopefully. Sorry I can't be of more assistance, lol. I'd tell you everything, if I actually knew anything myself. =p

But it's cool that you also enjoy philosophy. A double major doesn't sound too bad.

Yeah, thanks. I just looked it up and realized there are two different codes.

Yeah, I know how to edit it, lol. But do you have to paste the code in any particular format? Mine doesn't seem to be coming up.

How did you get your personality link up on your signature?

Nothing much. Glad you noticed!

It depends on how intelligent the person is who is trying to tell. Usually intelligent people recongnize me for my intelligence much earlier than the non-intelligent. Someone who is very arrogant will take a while too.

What makes you say I am intelligent though? I am curious because I haven't been posting here that long.

Your comment prompted me to flesh out my profile a bit. How long after meeting you do people get a true sense of your intelligence?