If true can (Irish)mankind learn from the past?

I would think rather the opposite. If it weren't for the endemic risk of abuse, I'd think that citizenship ought to be contingent on passing regular examinations, put in place to determine whether the electorate is intellectually acute enough to vote, understands the mechanisms and reasoning behind democratic systems, understands what democracy is in a substantive sense, and is informing itself to an acceptable level of the data that are pertinent to its political activity. If one doesn't make it their business to know that sort of thing, they shouldn't be voting. And if one isn't bothered enough about keeping their vote to make the effort to pass such an exam, then one won't mind disenfranchising oneself (as so many people do.)

But, of course, it would be abused, and the system would be manipulated, and it could never work.

But the people you are forcing to vote are the ones least likely to know anything about the subject and are just doing it to avoid the fine, no? Is that better than them not voting?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow no that's terrifying. Who would even set that test and how would they keep the questions neutral? Impossible.

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said, and hence, why it is undesirable, and why we are stuck with a situation where many many people go to the polling station without anything but the faintest idea of what their civic duty entails.

It wouldn't be terrifying if it wasn't a system open to abuse.

But you could make it the duty of a governmental department. And I don't care to speculate on the nature of the examination, beyond saying that testing someone's knowledge of, say, the Lisbon treaty can be done without risk of bias.

It's all moot, really, because as I said before, I'm not advocating it.

Everyone is entitled to a vote or how would they share a say in a collective voice.

Everyone is not entitled to a vote. In many jurisdictions, certain types of criminal are stricken from the electoral register, for instance, and most people would think this was a good idea.

Nothing I said suggested that any rational, capable person who was willing to do their civic duty, and to prove that they could be relied upon to do so, was not entitled to a vote. I only suggested that, in an ideal world, that entitlement could be conditional (or alternatively, the measure wouldn't be needed.)

One is given to wonder, however, how people who haven't a clue what they're doing might be able to share in the collective voice, either, or precisely how useful the collective voice of many many people who are largely ignorant of what they're doing actually is.

That is one step closer to psuedo (sp?) fascism!

I presume that, by prefixing with "pseudo," you mean "not-fascism, but something equally shocking!!"

Because otherwise you'd be guilty of using the word "fascism" in a way that many many ignorant people are guilty of using it. The truth is, just as most people don't understand what "democracy" means, the same applies to the word "fascism." If you are one of these people, the following is for your benefit. (if you are not, please ignore.)

Wikipedia's definition is nicely concise.

Wikipedia wrote:

Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by placing the nation or race above the individual and promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.

Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

A glance back at what I suggested, which was a minimum requirement for electoral privileges, so as to ensure that the ideals of democracy are upheld, and that nobody who is not sound of mind or unwilling to inform themselves adequately so as to be able to contribute to the rule of the people, will show that any democracy which organised itself the way I suggested would not necessarily (and would preferably not) promote national unity based on ethnic, cultural, national, racial or religious attributes. If anything, national unity would be based only on civic attributes, and nothing more, at the risk of interference from these. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with xenophobia, patriotism, nationalism, militarism, anti-communism or economic planning. It is decidedly incompatible with a selection of other tenets of fascism, such as totalitarianism, populism and autocracy.

The thing to understand about democracy is that it doesn't give us complete freedom:

We're not free to float skywards.

We're not free to kill each other.

And we're not free to think that the words "democracy" and "fascism" mean whatever we want them to mean, or whatever we get the feeling they mean from the way ignorant people erroneously use them.

The word "democracy" has specific meaning, and describes a specific mode of government and social organization. It's all very well to think that it means that everyone is entitled to vote how they like, but it actually stands that voting blind, or remaining ignorant and voting, or voting randomly, runs counter to the ideals that democracy sets in place.

In that recognition, since attitudes are so widespread which advocate "asking the politician what he'll do for us" and since election campaign posters tend to reduce political discourse to the most banal and meaningless of campaign slogans, and since the electorate at large is mostly distracted with the more pressing engagements of their lives, and is willing to regard politics as an amusing diversion which arises once or twice every couple of years, or as something to do when you want to blame someone for something, or something that happens in the papers, we ought to realize that what passes for democracy in Western states, particularly the US, but even here to a great degree, is not, in fact, democracy, but democracy's poorer cousin.

It's this poor cousin of democracy, which gives the people comfort in the superficial platitudes that let them believe they "understand things," when actually, the first thing we ought to admit is that we anything but understand them.

It's the sort of social order which makes of the process of democracy itself a mode of entertainment, to be commented upon in the mass media, to be masticated and prepackaged into digestible chunks which are ready for easy consumption on the 6:01 news, and which masks the fact that to fulfill your civic duty properly is really a rather hard job, which takes a lot of reading, self-education and hard deliberation.

It's the sort of social phenomenon that distracts us with the superficial semblance of political order, and obscures the difficult and sophisticated truth of politics.

It's the sort of social attitude that has us all sailing into the Atlantic unmanned while we all happily pretend we're piloting the vessel from down in the VR lounge.

It's the sort of perverted democracy which, in one form or another, has preceded every lapse from democracy to willing, populist totalitarian government, because it's the sort of democracy which sends the nightwatchmen away while everyone's asleep, and leaves the door open to the wolves.

Besides all of which, the suggestion I made was sandwiched between two disclaimers of how, being open to abuse, it isn't even a viable sort of idealism. But make no mistake here, it's wrong for many reasons, but none of them sit unequivocally on a ready-made, simplistic, "everyman's understanding" type of scale which spreads from democracy at one pole to fascism at the other.

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said, and hence, why it is undesirable, and why we are stuck with a situation where many many people go to the polling station without anything but the faintest idea of what their civic duty entails.

It wouldn't be terrifying if it wasn't a system open to abuse.

But you could make it the duty of a governmental department. And I don't care to speculate on the nature of the examination, beyond saying that testing someone's knowledge of, say, the Lisbon treaty can be done without risk of bias.

It's all moot, really, because as I said before, I'm not advocating it.


Everyone is not entitled to a vote. In many jurisdictions, certain types of criminal are stricken from the electoral register, for instance, and most people would think this was a good idea.

Nothing I said suggested that any rational, capable person who was willing to do their civic duty, and to prove that they could be relied upon to do so, was not entitled to a vote. I only suggested that, in an ideal world, that entitlement could be conditional (or alternatively, the measure wouldn't be needed.)

One is given to wonder, however, how people who haven't a clue what they're doing might be able to share in the collective voice, either, or precisely how useful the collective voice of many many people who are largely ignorant of what they're doing actually is.


I presume that, by prefixing with "pseudo," you mean "not-fascism, but something equally shocking!!"

Because otherwise you'd be guilty of using the word "fascism" in a way that many many ignorant people are guilty of using it. The truth is, just as most people don't understand what "democracy" means, the same applies to the word "fascism." If you are one of these people, the following is for your benefit. (if you are not, please ignore.)

Wikipedia's definition is nicely concise.



A glance back at what I suggested, which was a minimum requirement for electoral privileges, so as to ensure that the ideals of democracy are upheld, and that nobody who is not sound of mind or unwilling to inform themselves adequately so as to be able to contribute to the rule of the people, will show that any democracy which organised itself the way I suggested would not necessarily (and would preferably not) promote national unity based on ethnic, cultural, national, racial or religious attributes. If anything, national unity would be based only on civic attributes, and nothing more, at the risk of interference from these. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with xenophobia, patriotism, nationalism, militarism, anti-communism or economic planning. It is decidedly incompatible with a selection of other tenets of fascism, such as totalitarianism, populism and autocracy.

The thing to understand about democracy is that it doesn't give us complete freedom:

We're not free to float skywards.

We're not free to kill each other.

And we're not free to think that the words "democracy" and "fascism" mean whatever we want them to mean, or whatever we get the feeling they mean from the way ignorant people erroneously use them.

The word "democracy" has specific meaning, and describes a specific mode of government and social organization. It's all very well to think that it means that everyone is entitled to vote how they like, but it actually stands that voting blind, or remaining ignorant and voting, or voting randomly, runs counter to the ideals that democracy sets in place.

In that recognition, since attitudes are so widespread which advocate "asking the politician what he'll do for us" and since election campaign posters tend to reduce political discourse to the most banal and meaningless of campaign slogans, and since the electorate at large is mostly distracted with the more pressing engagements of their lives, and is willing to regard politics as an amusing diversion which arises once or twice every couple of years, or as something to do when you want to blame someone for something, or something that happens in the papers, we ought to realize that what passes for democracy in Western states, particularly the US, but even here to a great degree, is not, in fact, democracy, but democracy's poorer cousin.

It's this poor cousin of democracy, which gives the people comfort in the superficial platitudes that let them believe they "understand things," when actually, the first thing we ought to admit is that we anything but understand them.

It's the sort of social order which makes of the process of democracy itself a mode of entertainment, to be commented upon in the mass media, to be masticated and prepackaged into digestible chunks which are ready for easy consumption on the 6:01 news, and which masks the fact that to fulfill your civic duty properly is really a rather hard job, which takes a lot of reading, self-education and hard deliberation.

It's the sort of social phenomenon that distracts us with the superficial semblance of political order, and obscures the difficult and sophisticated truth of politics.

It's the sort of social attitude that has us all sailing into the Atlantic unmanned while we all happily pretend we're piloting the vessel from down in the VR lounge.

It's the sort of perverted democracy which, in one form or another, has preceded every lapse from democracy to willing, populist totalitarian government, because it's the sort of democracy which sends the nightwatchmen away while everyone's asleep, and leaves the door open to the wolves.

Besides all of which, the suggestion I made was sandwiched between two disclaimers of how, being open to abuse, it isn't even a viable sort of idealism. But make no mistake here, it's wrong for many reasons, but none of them sit unequivocally on a ready-made, simplistic, "everyman's understanding" type of scale which spreads from democracy at one pole to fascism at the other.

Good post! What we have is essentially populism, which is how we keep electing FF, who are a populist party.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Unfortunately for me I seem to be on ShooterSF's side here.

I take many of the FionnMatthews points, and I agree that the disinterest in politics could eventually give rise to fascism or dictatorships.

However the alternative of disenfranchising large segments of the population has consequences too of the same type. Do people have to take exams? What if you have reading problems? No matter how good the system is there would be many many borderline cases.

So while I despair at the political apathy of the public, I don't think selective citizenship is a good option.

Ix

ShooterSF wrote: »

Exactly how can a department set up by the government(who is for the lisbon treaty) be impartial unless you pick random citizens out of a hat and even then what "civic duty" entails would be affected by there prejudices.

Look. I'm not about to get into this argument with you, because it's not even a suggestion I support, so I'm not really interested in how it might all pan out. I will note, however, that while somewhat controversial in many corners (as this measure no doubt would be) many aspects of voting which might conceivably influence matters in the same way are handled by governmental departments. Impartiality is the regulative ideal for civil servants.

And let's be honest how many people have actually read the treaty cover to cover and took the time to understand the implacations of every article in it?

Right. Let's be honest. Probably a disappointingly small proportion. And it's only that disappointingly small proportion of the electorate who should consider themselves informed enough to make a rational and legitimate decision on this matter. That's how democracy is supposed to work, if it is to work at all, that is, if it is to be anything better than the way Big Brother winners are chosen.

The criminal situation is (if in effect) unjust surely our justice system is based on reform if they served their sentence what right has anyone to tell them they can't vote.

In Ireland, we don't actually restrict the right to vote for prisoners, but we do restrict access to the ballot, so that it is effectively impossible for prisoners to vote.

But on a more international scale, there is widespread opinion that serious criminals forfeit their right to vote.

Look at this for instance.

And how does one prove one is ready to perform their civic duty. A test on the subject yeah? Impartial of course.

It's a pretty impartial system that determines that people who are willing to put themselves in serious breach of the laws of the land, and have been shown to have done so in a court of law, are already proving that that they do not observe their civic duty, nor do they hold it in much repute.

Lets try something here, without looking it up and condsidering the vote is tomorrow, (A Sample idea of a test) Can you recall please what article 5.1 of the lisbon treaty states and what it's potential effects are? Anybody? If you can't answer I guess you're not educated in the situation enough to vote. Is this what you mean?

This is a red herring. None of us have the expectation of being examined in our knowledge of the treaty. If we had, yes, our lack of such knowledge would be evidence that we don't take our vote seriously enough to know such things. But, as I've already said countless times, I don't actually advocate enfranchisement by examination. I mentioned it to make a point about how desperate a situation the democracy is in in this country (and other Western states.)

But here's a question: Consider a hypothetical situation where the Irish electorate were asked to vote blind on a treaty which was not available to them - is that situation attractive? Now consider a situation where the treaty is available only to a select group of people. Is that attractive?
Now consider a situation where, although the treaty is available to all, most people throw up their hands and complain that it is written in "difficult language" (this is in a country where 41.6% of the population hold 3rd level degrees, remember), and decide to vote on it anyway, preferring to base their decision on their "gut feeling", or on untested personal prejudice, or on whether or not they are convinced by the superficial, vastly oversimplifying rhetoric of PR campaigns, or on whether they like the attitude or manner of speech of the exponents of 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, or on whether or not the politicians they support, whose status as public servants is testament to the fact that they are in no better a situation to understand the treaty than the average person, think 'yes' or 'no' is a good idea.

How is this situation much different from the first two? Is the fact that the treaty is available to people in the second one only better on point of principle, since nobody reads it anyway? As far as I can see, they are both equally bad varieties of the same situation.

Piece of I.T advice pal never, even if it's a quote saying black is indeed black use wiki-anything as a genuine quote to support an argument.

As someone who has made it his business to know what the terms 'democracy' and 'fascism' actually mean, and as someone with an academic mandate to trust that he's actually achieved this to an acceptable degree, I can lay testament to the fact that the Wikipedia article I quoted to you is accurate. I quoted it because it is concise and accurate. I am not relying on the 'authority' of Wikipedia. I'm not using it to support my argument. What it says has the advantage of being correct.

I invite you to actually investigate the history and philosophical roots of fascism, and read paradigm tracts of fascist philosophy, and read critical commentaries on fascism, so that you can corroborate what I have told you. The very worst way you could determine the meaning of 'fascism' is by listening to the undisciplined, knee-jerk uses of the word in the gutter (and indeed broad-sheet) media, or in common everyday discourse.

Ok I'll use a quote this time. From Miriam-Webster's dictionary (Sorry I couldn't find it on the wikipedia)

Fascism is a broad spectrum political and social phenomenon. To understand the term, you really have to appreciate its myriad senses, and to understand the diverse philosophies that fall under it. That is a single-line dictionary definition (and not a very good one, at that), and the fact that you're using it is indicative of the problem I am trying to point out. If you want to live in a soundbite culture, by all means do. But don't expect your abstruse understanding of a complex field of phenomena to even nearly cut it. Anti-intellectualism is, I should mention, one of the primary features of a populist society, and one of the cornerstones of fascist government. After all, what could be better for the interests of a powerful elite than an electorate which hasn't a clue, and is ignorant of their ignorance, and happy in it too.

Now if people vote what's best for them doesn't it work out that we get what's best for the majority. We can't realistically get whats best for everone everytime.

No. But, time and again, that's not what we're trying to get. We're trying to get what's best for all of us as a unit, not what's best for each individual. That's what collective politics is supposed to be about. For goodness, sake, could you just think about what you're writing?

So rule of the majority is the best viable solution we have. I can't decide whats best for the old man down the road and he can't for me but if we all vote the majority get what's best for them LOGICALLY.

Once again, this is a degenerate form of democracy. I've already corrected you on what's wrong with the above quote, in an earlier post.

Everything else in your post then seems to be opinion ramblings and metaphors.

Look. Go away and do some reading, and then we can talk. You obviously aren't taking me seriously. Perhaps this world-respected, academic, peer reviewed encyclopedia will have better luck with you, if it doesn't have "too many big words" for you.

ShooterSF: I'm confused about this Commissioner arguement, as when did the Commissioner do anything for us, and how long ago did they do it?

To my knowledge the Commissioner only gives us what the Commission gives the Commissioner to give to us... so in fact the Commissioner has very little power in the first place?

You still don't understand it.

ShooterSF wrote: »

"We're trying to get what's best for all of us as a unit" by what means? You can't tell me that everyone will benefit from one decision or other so we look at it as how most can benefit.

Right. But we don't do that by voting on our individual whims. Procedurally, that is a flawed way to proceed. We vote, instead, on how we perceive the collective to be best served.

I.E majority, or have you another wonderful pie-in-the-sky idea how to make sure everyone is happy?

I'm not a utilitarian, so I'm not interested in making everyone happy.

If the yes wins it won't be good for the collective no supporters who'd rather see it not and vice versa.

But as a voter, you're not there to consider the whims of other individuals either, just you are not there to consider your own whims. You are there to consider what could possibly be best for Ireland as a whole, weighing in factors from every sector of society, and how you perceive a country is best governed. You actually have a responsibility to have an informed opinion on these things. Ignorant of them, you are useless to the civic body.

We're not a colony of ants we don't a collective opinion or circumstances.

We are not automatically such, no. We are enjoined by our electoral privilege to assume the attitude of a single collective body, and to abstract from individual circumstances. With the right to vote, comes the duty to do it properly. These are mutual obligations. It's an active thing. We have to deliberately do this, deliberately put ourselves into this mode of thinking.

Rousseau calls it "the general will." The principle is discussed in more modern context with respect to the concept of Justice by Rawls, in A Theory of Justice.

We vote whats best for us and majority rules make sure as many as possible can benefit.

And if the majority, by dint of ignorance, laziness or entrenched willing ideology, make the wrong decision? If the majority ignorantly votes against its own best interests, because each constituent individual is more interested in his own personal whims than the good of the whole?

It's a trivial point that what is in one's interest is not always the same as what one desires. Addicts, for instance, are not best served by continuing to abuse (and the populist electorate, in my reading, resembles a kind of addict.)

Have you ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/#2

YES it would be wonderful if everyone could benefit but there's too wide a spectrum of people with different desires for this to be possible, please get out of your made up fantasy pleasantville land and into reality!!

I'm not in pleasantville. I didn't say everyone could benefit. I said that if democracy is to work, the demos must choose the best option for the collective, and not fragment in the interests of each individual.

I challenge you, further, to provide a comprehensive account of the "reality" in question, because I contend that, although I still consider myself a student of reality, my own grasp on it is entirely less fictional than yours.

Thanks but I'd rather reading suggestions from Oprah than you and that's saying a lot.

Well done. Now you don't have to read anything. That's a great rationalization for not bothering to educate yourself as to your civic duty. Let me just state that it is a disservice to everyone else for you to continue as you do.

Oh and generic insults about ones vocabulary really is petty. Sorry I didn't major in the english language I'm a math's and logic head

I apologize if you took that personally. I was making that point more about the generally anti-intellectual sentiments of the electorate. I can see why you took it personally, and I rescind the comment. I do, however, continue to urge you to read the article.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok my head is spinning we'll never agree on exact wording here. If everyone was completely aware of all things going on before they vote then both ways should theoretically produce the same result correct?

Theoretically, correct. But the democratic process allows for error, and so moves in favour of the majority vote, assuming everyone involved is doing their best to reach an impartial verdict. And also assumes that the minority give their consent, in the trust that the majority of informed, impartial opinions is the most rational collective choice.

The problem so therein lies the fact most people are not educated on the situation and you're putting it down to ignorance. I'm putting it down to an unreadable (called so by some of it's supporters) document,

The word 'unreadable' does not mean what it appears to mean here. It really means that people aren't bothered to read it, or find it frustrating. It's written in the orthographic characters of our alphabet. It's been translated into our language.

Heidegger could be said to be 'unreadable.' So could Tolstoy, and Balzac. For many people, Shakespeare is unreadable. (I think Stephen King is unreadable, for different reasons.) All of these things are, however, quite readable, if the reader is inclined to put in a bit of effort. And with the Lisbon treaty, we are not inclined but obliged to do so.

It's for this reason that literacy is so important in a democratic state.

two sides throwing around buzzwords, catchphrases, scare tactics and little substance

Agreed. Simply don't listen to them.

... so where do people turn the educate themselves on the situation?

It's not something people should be turning to right now, but something towards which a sustained effort ought to have been made, and continue to be made, throughout our lives. Ideally, we should never consider ourselves to be "educated" about anything, but look on life as a process of continual rational inquiry into the matters such as these.

But the treaty is a good place to start, and the discussions on here are very helpful, and there are plenty of books in the libraries of our country which will aid an interested party.

Everyone else has an agenda so one must go to the source which in itself is way to vague.

Do I have an agenda? I haven't even decided which way to vote. I'm not even sure I will.

The source isn't vague at all. It's just difficult. And if it's too difficult for you to handle, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you just aren't cut out for your civic duty, and abstain out of respect for the rest of the electorate?

And that scares me. Why can't we be told we want to change this this and this (with specifics physical changes not verbal masturbation and sight rewording of documents) and asked to vote on it.

Sorry, but the treaty is actually a very concise list of the changes being made. It's not verbal masturbation. It so happens that legal documents are written using words. To change them entails rewording. Those are the rules of this engagement. You need to develop the capacity to deal with it.

Then it'd be a clear black and white choice where people could be better informed.

So you would advocate dumbing down the treaty, to cater for people who want the privilege of voting without the accompanying obligations of responsibility, level-headedness, and democratic conduct?