MDFubar

We have the obligation to vote for people to represent us and hope that they do it in our vest interests, as we all know this does not happen. We do not elect our president, the electorial college does, and like it or not, they can vote any way they want without any regard to the popular vote. That is one of the biggest problems with our system, the popular vote should be the one that counts and the electorial college should not exist.
Once again, we do not decide the laws, our representatives do! This country is not a democracy, so we do not decide anything except for which crook will be in office....in some cases the least of two evils. Usually once you get a politician that wants to try and change things for the better.they do not last long. The politician was supposed to be a public servant, not to be made rich by our tax money.
As a collective voice we may be heard, maybe even listened too.........but too many people are more concerned with their immediate surroundings than the big picture. Many people feel that if it doesn't directly effect them, who cares.
Example: John takes public transportation and therefore does not care about the price of gasoline, until the gallon of milk goes to $4.00 and he can't figure out why. The cost of getting that milk to the store went up and therefore, the increase in gasoline DID effect him.

__________________

sordavie

I did not say or imply that a single citizen can not change the laws. What I said is that one shouldn't reason the following way: if we collectively decide what laws we have, then each of us decides what laws we have; we collectively do; therefore, we each do.

The reason why someone would be confused as to how you used 'you' to specify an indefinite person (that is to specify lots of indefinite people collectively) in this context is that you used a second person together with a first person pronoun. Moreover, you use singuar pronouns instead of a plural one. That is how I read it, using singuar pronouns referring to indefinite citizen's of America. That forces a distributive reading of the predicate, since when you have a singular subject the predicate must be distributive. Thus the reading would be that each (indefinite, singular) citizen of America choses the laws. There is a nondistributive reading of the predicate, but it takes 'you and I' as a plural first person pronoun. But this is a complex pronoun built out of singular pronouns and conjunction. I don't see how you get to refer to the American population by it (especially in the context of a conversation with a single person).

Another possibility is that you meant 'you and I' as short for 'you and I and the rest of the American population'. That would be fine, and it seems like what you do mean.

Either way, what you literaly said can't be exactly what you wanted to say. If what you wanted to say was that the American population choses what laws there are, then you must have been speaking loosely. We speak loosely all the time, but it surely can't be literaly what you said; and loose speak doesn't distinguish the fine detail of what is said, which I think is the general cause of many fallacies like the nondistributive/distributive one.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

An interesting opinion here:

http://kriszyp.com/2007/11/12/get-out-and-dont-vote/

Found while googling for the quote "Democracy must be something more than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".

MDFubar

INteresting take on the situation, thanks for the link ScratchMonkey.

Sordavie, I think that you are over-thinking what was being said. The fact is, I understood the meaning of Cingular's posts with no confusion. Proper punctation and grammar is not always required and I think that we are getting off subject with the focus on how things where said. Just my opinion.

Although, rather informative.

__________________

sordavie

But proper grammar is required if what's at the heart of typical mistakes in reasoning that lead one to believe their vote is worth a lot are due to imprecise grammar. I think that is at least a large part of the reason.

I would question that you understood Cing with no confusion. Here are some basic important questions about what Cing said. Can you answer them?

1. Given what he said, does Cing believe that I, sordavie, decides what laws there are?
2. Given what he said, does Cing believe that Tybalt and Cing decide what laws there are?
3. Given what he said, does Cing believe that Cing decides what laws there are?
4. Given what he said, does Cing believe that an indefinite citizen of America decides what laws there are?
5. Given what he said, does Cing believe the following conditional: If we as a society decide what laws there are, then each individual in the society decides what laws there are.

If you understood exactly what he meant, then you should be able to answer each of these.

__________________

xTYBALTx

It's beyond me how someone can expect an impartial observer to think that the "you" is inclusive in, "...it's the law because you and I have chosen it to be the law."

Regardless, you still haven't really deviated from "It's good because it's the law."

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

ScratchMonkey

Individuals may be able to influence the process of law-making, but they don't do so by voting, any more than one can influence the tides by spitting in the ocean.

MDFubar

Collectively speaking, we all decide what the laws are based on the representatives that we elect to do the job set forth. We, you, him, her, it, all are supposed to have a voice in our government and help decide the path which it takes. The majority of the elected representatives decide the laws that will be added to our society. The majority of the people voting decide who those representatives will be.
Again, WE ARE NOT A TRUE DEMOCRACY and only have a say in who represents us.

So, Given what Cing said, he believes that the collective society has input on the laws at hand and that everyone who chooses to be involved has a voice.

You should probably start a thread on proper English so that you may educate us all and then be able to understand what us common folk mean when we speak.
Nothing said was meant to offend, but it has gone from a thread about voting to a thread about proper grammar.

__________________

CingularDuality

It's a figure of speech that is very commonly used by orators. You and I, all of us, are empowered for whatever the speech giver wants to promote. Can we stop with these semantic games? You know exactly what I was saying.

I haven't meant to say that. If you want to boil down my position, try this:

Laws are in place because we, the people, put them there, regardless of whether we do it directly or indirectly.

We, the people, have decided that it's in society's best interest to not allow certain people (that have at one time shunned what we, the people, have determined to be our most important laws) to be able to mold society like law abiding citizens. We, the people, have made laws to ensure this.

It's good because it's what the people want. It's also what I, personally, want.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

ScratchMonkey

Once upon a time, we, the people of Britain, decided to tax the colonies. A few malcontents didn't like having to pay the tax without a personal say in the matter, and war ensued. Perhaps if those malcontents had had a vote, the world would be very slightly different. We'd still have the same stifling interventionist do-gooder government, but it would be an ocean away.

xTYBALTx

Yeah, I'm just not seeing how your position deviates in any way whatsoever from, "It's good because it's the law.' Your last post described the theoretical justification for the existence of laws, sure, but it didn't provide any reason as to why it's a good idea to keep people who were once convicted of a felony from voting. Society decided to make that rule, yes I understand that, just as society decided to ban booze eighty years ago. But that don't make it just, decent, or smart.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

MDFubar

Not all convicted felons lose the right to vote. Thanx to this thread I found some interesting stats on this:

State Disenfranchisement Laws
46 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while serving a felony sentence. Four states-Maine, Massachusetts, Utah, and Vermont-permit inmates to vote.

32 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole and 29 of these states exclude felony probationers also.

10 states disenfranchise all ex-offenders who have completed their criminal sentence. Four others disenfranchise some ex-offenders. In addition, Texas disenfranchises ex-offenders for two years after they have completed their sentences.

The main part of this law ws basically to ensure that the "inmates where not running the prison" so-to-speak. England sent thier criminals away.........Australia, I believe.

Do I personally believe that all felons should lose this right? Yes, and I say this only beacuase we need to have rules and punishments for disobeying the rules. These punishments must be harsh enough so that you choose not to break the rules.

I do not believe that you should lose those rights for misdemeanors. Maybe the classification of certain crimes should be changed? At what point do you stoop changing things to make people happy?

What penalty is there to not go out and kill 10 people? If you get the death penalty, you have a good 10 ro 20 years before they even think of executing you. You get three hots and a cot, no taxes, free college education, and the hope that you can win an appeal on a technicallity.

For more information on the voting rights of felons go to:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/378.html

__________________

sordavie

Since you aren't answering the basic questions, I'll take it that you didn't fully understand what Cing said, even if you got the gist. The problem is is that the details matter if we are to really evaluate what he said.

__________________

MDFubar

Actually, I understood what he said. However, I am not taking an SAT and if I wanted to see such tests I would enroll in college. I understood the point he was trying to make, as explained in my post........you probably didn't understand my post.
I am not looking to understand his literal uses of many words and phrases becasue I choose not to over-think his responses.
Your argument could be made about the constituiton too:

"We the people, of the United Sates"

Does that refer to all of the people?
Just the people who ratified it?
Does this include the Indians?
What of the people that didn't know about it?

I truly beleive that I understood his responses quite well.

If you are traveling the speed of light and turn on your headlights, will they work?

__________________

CingularDuality

You want to know why I think it's a good idea? I've already explained that I don't think that people that have chosen to live that far outside of societal norms deserve to decide how to steer our society.

I also believe we need to update our criminal codes, but that's a separate issue.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran: