Would you pay more for chocolate to stop child labour?

[Gnostic]

I really can't agree with her stance on making voting rights selective. The presumption that the few know what's best for the many doesn't appeal to me. It's the main reason I've never been a socialist.

But you could compare Scandanavian democracy with Australian / British democracy with American democracy and you see a sliding scale from government responsibility to individual responsibility. As they say in America, we let people go to hell their own way. Personally, I think the Scandanavian model has it about right.

To sum it up in one word - Fabianism.

 

[lily]

As Cutter previously said my
"Lily's (valid) point is that a part of the population is too stupid and/or lazy and/or disengaged to understand issues".
I often ask my students how much exposure they have to current affairs by both the liberal media and other more conservative press like Fox News. Most have none. This is why they grow up in some cases to be selfish and the aforementioned 3 things. They need to be exposed to more of the developing worlds everyday life.
I also would like to say that I think we can all agree that a child should be in a classroom as opposed to being either big business or by parents who have no choice but to push them into the workforce as early as possible so they can help make ends meet.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Out of interest, what level of students are we talking about Lily? Primary, high school, TAFE or university?

 

[Ruggo]

I don't eat chocolate but I don't mind paying more on principle for SOME items. I apply it by not buying products with palm oil. The problem is if I payed more for product on principle every time I could no sustain that with my income.

Although the right is trying to drive them into extinction we are very fortunate in this country to have unionism to safeguard us from exploitation.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Oh yeah me too, Ruggo. I don't buy products that are at odds with my principles and I'll pay a little more for those that are. But that's easy for me to say, given that I live a comfortable middle class life (that's not a dig at anyone BTW, just a statement of fact on my own behalf).

 

[lily]

I'm a secondary teacher and have taught at private, catholic systemic, public and independent high schools.

 

[Cutter]

I really can't agree with her stance on making voting rights selective. The presumption that the few know what's best for the many doesn't appeal to me. It's the main reason I've never been a socialist.

But you could compare Scandanavian democracy with Australian / British democracy with American democracy and you see a sliding scale from government responsibility to individual responsibility. As they say in America, we let people go to hell their own way. Personally, I think the Scandanavian model has it about right.

In relation to your point about about "the few knowing what is best for the many", surely there is an argument that anyone who is religious believes, ultimately, in a benevolent dictatorship as the best form of ultimate government?

In some ways, we already have selective voting rights. If you are under the age of 18, you aren't entitled to vote. We do that because we don't think anyone under 18 is capable of making sensible decisions and/or is not sufficiently aware of the issues to be able to cast a meaningful vote. Similarly, if you're serving a prison sentence of longer than 3 years we say you forfeit your right to vote. We do that as a way of punishing people who cannot live by our laws. Often those people make one stupid mistake and are otherwise sensible.

Contrast that with someone like, for example (and I don't know him), Todd Carney. He continues to make stupid mistake after stupid mistake. If he'd hit and killed a family whilst driving drunk, he'd be spending more than 3 years in prison and would no longer be voting. His decision making isn't any sounder from having not hit a family, he was just lucky.

It seems arbitrary to me to suggest that Todd Carney is able to vote but a guy is prevented from voting who (to use a made up example) murders a paedophile or rapist for interfering with his children. In the latter scenario, someone who has otherwise been of sound mind and a valued member of the community is unable to vote for doing something most of us have at least some sympathy for whilst the former, who is just serially stupid, can carry on voting.

As I said to Brown Hornet, I don't really think she is suggesting that only people with an IQ of over 150 should be allowed to vote. But I do think she is challenging us to ask our government and our media to treat our intelligence with more respect. There is no doubt in my mind that politicians are not held to account from an intellectual perspective. It really is a sound bite democracy.

 

[lily]

Communism and the ethos of the Catholic Church have alot in common.
For me I would prefer non compulsory voting so the ones who actually care are counted as opposed to the morons that actually started this thread. By this I obviously mean the people involved in this poll. The clip on idiocracy is 3 of the funniest minutes I have had recently.