Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

If you want to go there, then let's go there.

First, while private school students outperform public school students, if you control for parental education level and income, there is no difference in performance.

That will always be the case --- education levels, income, and school performance are all correlated, and reflect genetic differences. The advantage of a competitive, privatized school system is that it will yield a variety of schools, with different educational philosophies, different curricula, catering to students and parents with different interests, values, and abilities.

Second, since private schools don't require teaching certification and the teachers aren't unionized (their benefits are way lower) and private schools don't have the expense of special education, of course their costs are lower.

Yes indeed. Each school can decide for itself who is qualified to teach at their school, and, like all other businesses, will be forced to pay what they must to get the caliber of help they want. Some schools would specialize in hard-to-educate kids.

The goal of universal, "one-size fits all" education is misguided. Not all kids will benefit from 12 years in school; some should probably drop out after grade 3 and their parents consider some sort of apprenticeship program.

No one, I least of all, wants to do away with the option of private education. So we agree in your first paragraph.

I doubt any for profit schools will specialize in educatng poor, special needs children.

Public education is the backstop below which no child should fall. Thus it's mandate, to provide the option of education to all, is different than that of private schools, which is generally to provide the best education money can buy to those who can afford it. I agree with your opinion on apprenticeships.

[GE Morton]

I doubt any for profit schools will specialize in educatng poor, special needs children.

Why wouldn't they, if those students are receiving State vouchers? Moreover, since the costs to educate those kids in public schools are greater, the vouchers could also be larger for them. Nor would all the private schools be for-profit. Non-profit organizations would likely also jump into that market.

[LuckyR]

I doubt any for profit schools will specialize in educatng poor, special needs children.

Why wouldn't they, if those students are receiving State vouchers? Moreover, since the costs to educate those kids in public schools are greater, the vouchers could also be larger for them. Nor would all the private schools be for-profit. Non-profit organizations would likely also jump into that market.

That's not how the programs work. The vouchers are the state per pupil cost of education.

[GE Morton]

I doubt any for profit schools will specialize in educatng poor, special needs children.

Why wouldn't they, if those students are receiving State vouchers? Moreover, since the costs to educate those kids in public schools are greater, the vouchers could also be larger for them. Nor would all the private schools be for-profit. Non-profit organizations would likely also jump into that market.

That's not how the programs work. The vouchers are the state per pupil cost of education.

Since the per pupil costs for special ed kids is higher vouchers for those kids could also be higher.

[LuckyR]

I doubt any for profit schools will specialize in educatng poor, special needs children.

Why wouldn't they, if those students are receiving State vouchers? Moreover, since the costs to educate those kids in public schools are greater, the vouchers could also be larger for them. Nor would all the private schools be for-profit. Non-profit organizations would likely also jump into that market.

That's not how the programs work. The vouchers are the state per pupil cost of education.

Since the per pupil costs for special ed kids is higher vouchers for those kids could also be higher.

I don't disagree with you, COULD be anything anyone might dream up. In a discussion of what is being done, it isn't.

[InfinityMuse]

I think the question is more geared in the direction of the expansion of the electoral college. Should the responsibility vote have various tests of paradigm, philosophy, and the arts of medicine in legislation coveted under intelligence activities act? The privilege of the responsibility vote should reflect well on those who are bill maker (responsible people who use the RESPONSIBLE government, wink wink THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES ....Duhhh ).

And

The mitigation or litigation factors of party programming;
Party vs Party Factor supporter personally.
Do our votes need to be protected or do voters need their Anonymity protected from the used of political slander and Libel?
Voting on the use of the class stratification and research and development of preserve understandings of hypocritical abuses of the left of libertarian system of global migration and trans-nationalism.
What responsibilities to bill,law,and leg makers have in Judicial policy making and how can polling be regulated by credible sources that are reliant on etymology, reality and dialectic didactics of political opportunities for domestic and foreign relations?

I mean I can' go on and on and on about the need for the responsibility vote.
Voters need protection not the vote.

[UniversalAlien]

"Right to vote at national elections; should it be given to all or should people be filtered?"

Let's bring this question up to date - TODAY it is more relevant than ever

In 2020 a very corrupt {my opinion] person Donald Trump lost an election and all evidence showed he lost the election
- Trump however does not believe in free elections, or the United States and its Constitution.

Therefore he started his own corrupt movement of 'election deniers' - People, mainly Republicans some of which are currently running
for important political offices in the current 2022 elections.

These people, people who without any real evidence, deny the very election process they are participating in. should not be allowed
to vote and/or in any way participate in the election process and should quite definitely not be allowed to hold political office.

Trump and his current group of maga Republians are a 'fifth column' out to destroy democratic elections in the United States.

What should be filtered is this fifth column out to destroy Democracy - When people register to vote and/or run for political office
they should have to sign a statement that barring any real evidence of fraud they will accept the outcome of fair and free
elections without prejudice

[InfinityMuse]

"Right to vote at national elections; should it be given to all or should people be filtered?"

Let's bring this question up to date - TODAY it is more relevant than ever

In 2020 a very corrupt {my opinion] person Donald Trump lost an election and all evidence showed he lost the election
- Trump however does not believe in free elections, or the United States and its Constitution.

Therefore he started his own corrupt movement of 'election deniers' - People, mainly Republicans some of which are currently running
for important political offices in the current 2022 elections.

These people, people who without any real evidence, deny the very election process they are participating in. should not be allowed
to vote and/or in any way participate in the election process and should quite definitely not be allowed to hold political office.

Trump and his current group of maga Republians are a 'fifth column' out to destroy democratic elections in the United States.

What should be filtered is this fifth column out to destroy Democracy - When people register to vote and/or run for political office
they should have to sign a statement that barring any real evidence of fraud they will accept the outcome of fair and free
elections without prejudice

Is this a philosophy?

[Pattern-chaser]

"Right to vote at national elections; should it be given to all or should people be filtered?"

Let's bring this question up to date - TODAY it is more relevant than ever

In 2020 a very corrupt {my opinion] person Donald Trump lost an election and all evidence showed he lost the election
- Trump however does not believe in free elections, or the United States and its Constitution.

Therefore he started his own corrupt movement of 'election deniers' - People, mainly Republicans some of which are currently running
for important political offices in the current 2022 elections.

These people, people who without any real evidence, deny the very election process they are participating in. should not be allowed
to vote and/or in any way participate in the election process and should quite definitely not be allowed to hold political office.

Trump and his current group of maga Republians are a 'fifth column' out to destroy democratic elections in the United States.

What should be filtered is this fifth column out to destroy Democracy - When people register to vote and/or run for political office
they should have to sign a statement that barring any real evidence of fraud they will accept the outcome of fair and free
elections without prejudice

I sympathise with your sentiments. But the point of democracy is that everyone gets a vote, and the majority will is implemented. In the above case, roughly 50% of the American people — all of them bona fide voters — are as you describe, and the other 50% are a little closer to sanity. Both sides being so close to majority, it seems unwise to recommend that any of them are prevented from voting. I understand your concerns, even 'feel your pain', but in this, I think you go too far.

[UniversalAlien]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

I sympathise with your sentiments. But the point of democracy is that everyone gets a vote, and the majority will is implemented. In the above case, roughly 50% of the American people — all of them bona fide voters — are as you describe, and the other 50% are a little closer to sanity. Both sides being so close to majority, it seems unwise to recommend that any of them are prevented from voting. I understand your concerns, even 'feel your pain', but in this, I think you go too far.

MAYBE - But consider this:

"Foreign Influence Campaigns Ramp Up to Target US Voters"

WASHINGTON —
U.S. voting systems appear to be safe and secure ahead of next month’s midterm elections, according to senior U.S. officials who warn the more pressing danger could be efforts by countries like Russia and China to convince Americans otherwise.

Just as in past elections, multiple state and nonstate actors are constantly reaching out through cyberspace to scan U.S. networks, looking for vulnerabilities that could allow them to meddle with the voting process.

The FBI official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the bureau in order to discuss sensitive information, cautioned, however, that there is — and has been — a concerted effort by multiple U.S. adversaries to seize on lingering doubts about the election system itself.

“In particular, we are concerned malicious cyber actors could seek to spread or amplify false or exaggerated claims of compromise to election infrastructure,” the official said.

Russia, China and Iran “will take advantage of sort of election integrity narratives that come up in the U.S. ecosystem,” said a second senior FBI official. "We've seen that already, specifically from Russia."

Quote source:
https://www.voanews.com/a/foreign-influ ... 74788.html


So we see that election integrity in the US is under real threats from foreign actors and Trump with his maga heads
- who are at least as much of a threat as the foreign cartels. As to whether they are working together I can not say


So back to the original question "Right to vote at national elections; should it be given to all or should people be filtered?"

I say if you can not filter out the bad actors from the election process then the election process is doomed
and Democracy will die.

So again, if you want to vote in an Ameerican election you should be required to swear allegiance to the election process
unless there is provable fraud

[ernestm]

There's definitely a tension on this question. Before Ive thought how people who apply for citizenship in the USA are taught more about how the government works than native citizens, before they are allowed to take the oath of allegiance. One may think some kind of test should be required with rational basis.

On the other hand, there is what Aristotle points out. Depriving any group from a right to vote means the political apparatus will work to the group's disadvantage, favoring those who can vote, and he warned that would lead to revolution long before Marx ever brought it up. Personally, I think if there is any test, it should be on understanding Aristotle, lol. In that context, I would point out Aristotle's severe warning that leaders should be valued by their virtues, not their wealth. I could go on about that a very long time.

[Sushan]

IMO, this would not have happened if people were filtered when giving the right to vote. What do you think?

An idea that isn't compatible with democracy, so it depends whether one is pro or con democracy.

The word democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.

https://www.coe.int › web › compass

So, I think if people and their votes are manipulated, it is still con democracy even when everyone appears to have a say in politics when they actually do not.

[Sushan]

When thinking about how people vote in elections nowadays in these [third-world] countries, many people just vote without any political literacy. And the politicians simply cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people and rob their votes.

IMO, this would not have happened if people were filtered when giving the right to vote. What do you think?

You make 2 initial points:

1. That people cast their votes "without any political literacy".
2. That (elected) politicians "cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people".

Only point 1 concerns your question. Corrupt politicians are relatively unaffected by who has the right to vote. I assume that the background to your question is a democratic political system, where a government is elected by vote.

Your question seems to say that people may vote unwisely, perhaps because of limited political understanding, and that this is a good reason why they should be denied a vote. I disagree.

All of us are responsible for our own actions. In the same way, but turned around: those who do the work, and bear the consequences, are entitled to their say — a vote. That's my argument, so I see no need to write more for now.

We are responsible for our own actions and we have to bear up the consequences. There is no argument. But if our actions lead to consequences that have to be faced as a group of people (a country), then I think the situation becomes more complex. Anyway, in a democratic system this is what happens. The majority will have the say in governing, and if their decision is wrong the consequences will be upon the minority who raised against that decision as well, which is quite unfair.

[Sushan]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I think it is a paradox. It is better if a politician is knowledgeable. But then the question rises, "in which field should he/she be knowledgeable?". It is better if a politician is knowledgeable in every field. But is it possible? I do not think so. How many will we be able to find to nominate as politicians who are both philosophers and experts in several fields? I think the number will be less than the count of the fingers in our hands.

[Sushan]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

I think the issue is,

some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote

Since the electors have only a proportion of knowledge, it is easy for the cunning and smart politicians to manipulate their minds, so then their votes.