Question Re: Voter Access

[therealUT]

you grouse over the notion of a $10 fee for a photo ID and that it's a "poll tax" but with a straight face advocate 3 years of public service, after which documentation is provided proving citizenship and eligibility to vote.

I do.

I will agree that many people who vote are ill-informed and probably have no business voting, but people should be free to be ignorant.

Yes, they should.

 

[MG1968]

remind me how 3 years of public service will make a person more informed in the voting booth

 

[therealUT]

remind me how 3 years of public service will make a person more informed in the voting booth

How did agreement to the proposition that "people should be free to be ignorant" commit me to the proposition that these individuals would be more informed?

 

[MG1968]

How did agreement to the proposition that "people should be free to be ignorant" commit me to the proposition that these individuals would be more informed?

If the end result is a voter who isn't any more informed, why bother requiring service which leads to citizenship?

All you've done is advocate for a government jobs program.

 

[theFallGuy]

There are plenty of illegal immigrants that pay taxes; and, there are plenty of Citizens that do not.

You mean like the entire Obama Administration?

lol:

 

[therealUT]

If the end result is a voter who isn't any more informed, why bother requiring service which leads to citizenship?

All you've done is advocate for a government jobs program.

If the end result is a voter who isn't any more informed, why bother with the requirement that voters must be citizens?

Not sure your critique of this sort of government jobs program wouldhave any legs. Would such a system entail a jobs program? Yes. Would it entail any more government jobs than already exist? No. Would this jobs program focus on jobs deemed necessary for the proper administration of a state? Yes. Would this jobs program be inherently pernicious? Not even close.

Your problem is that you believe 'jobs program' to be an ethically-thick phrase. It is not.

 

[Lexvol]

Explain why it would be impossible to administer the civil service placements at a sufficiently fair level?

What you are saying certainly is not a self-evident truth; thus, there are reasons for drawing your conclusion. Provide the reasons.

Philosophy may deny the self evidence of said truth, but I argue that historically, the onus is on you to prove that a govt jobs program can be fairly and efficiently administered.

 

[therealUT]

Philosophy may deny the self evidence of said truth, but I argue that historically, the onus is on you to prove that a govt jobs program can be fairly and efficiently administered.

This one be a damning critique if and only if the following two propositions are both true:
1. There has never been an efficient and fair government jobs program, and
2. Any of those governments are relevantly analogous to what I am proposing.

 

[therealUT]

Philosophy may deny the self evidence of said truth, but I argue that historically, the onus is on you to prove that a govt jobs program can be fairly and efficiently administered.

This would be a damning critique if and only if the following two propositions are both true:
1. There has never been an efficient and fair government jobs program, and
2. Any of those governments are relevantly analogous to what I am proposing.

 

[Lexvol]

This would be a damning critique if and only if the following two propositions are both true:
1. There has never been an efficient and fair government jobs program, and
2. Any of those governments are relevantly analogous to what I am proposing.

1. Makes it damning enough for me without any further discussion.

 

[therealUT]

1. Makes it damning enough for me without any further discussion.

I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Lexvol]

I can't say I'm surprised.

If only my life revolved around giving you surprises.

 

[therealUT]

If only my life revolved around giving you surprises.

I would hope that in some sense it involves trying to be logical. So, let's review some first-order logic:

A IFF (B AND C)
Not B
Therefore, not A

There is no manner in which one could say
A IFF (B AND C)
Not B
Therefore, A

That is invalid, inconsistent, illogical, and irrational. Yet, this is exactly what you just did.

Now, you could certainly reject the premise:

(A)This would be a damning critique if and only if the following two propositions are both true:
(B)1. There has never been an efficient and fair government jobs program, and
(C)2. Any of those governments are relevantly analogous to what I am proposing.

Yet, that premise must appear to everyone as true. Thus the logical structure of the argument you have taken is:
A IFF (B AND C) or "Damning Critique" IFF ("Never efficient and fair" AND "Relevant Structures")
Not B ("Never efficient and fair")
Therefore, A

That is invalid.

Thus, even if I grant you "Not B", your critique still is not damning.

However, I would not grant you "Not B". The Athenian jobs program under Pericles is widely accepted by historians as one of the most fair and most efficient systems, ever. You might reject the use of the phrase "jobs program"; however, a job is merely a duty one fulfills in return for something one values and Citizens in Athens fulfilled multiple duties that they were appointed to and, in return, retained their Citizenship. Even Socrates felt that the system was efficient and fair and was willing to drink the hemlock as opposed to corrupt the system.

Of course, I still think you would argue this point; thus, I will charitably grant you "Not B". Feel free to make the "Not C" argument.

 

[Lexvol]

I would hope that in some sense it involves trying to be logical. So, let's review some first-order logic:

A IFF (B AND C)
Not B
Therefore, not A

There is no manner in which one could say
A IFF (B AND C)
Not B
Therefore, A

That is invalid, inconsistent, illogical, and irrational. Yet, this is exactly what you just did.

Now, you could certainly reject the premise:

(A)This would be a damning critique if and only if the following two propositions are both true:
(B)1. There has never been an efficient and fair government jobs program, and
(C)2. Any of those governments are relevantly analogous to what I am proposing.

Yet, that premise must appear to everyone as true. Thus the logical structure of the argument you have taken is:
A IFF (B AND C) or "Damning Critique" IFF ("Never efficient and fair" AND "Relevant Structures")
Not B ("Never efficient and fair")
Therefore, not A

That is invalid.

Thus, even if I grant you "Not B", your critique still is not damning.

However, I would not grant you "Not B". The Athenian jobs program under Pericles is widely accepted by historians as one of the most fair and most efficient systems, ever. You might reject the use of the phrase "jobs program"; however, a job is merely a duty one fulfills in return for something one values and Citizens in Athens fulfilled multiple duties that they were appointed to and, in return, retained their Citizenship. Even Socrates felt that the system was efficient and fair and was willing to drink the hemlock as opposed to corrupt the system.

Of course, I still think you would argue this point; thus, I will charitably grant you "Not B". Feel free to make the "Not C" argument.

Pass the hemlock, Socrates....