Poll: Civic Duty

[Infohawk]

Juries are too frequently used in this country. There's too much of a burden on the population. And I'm not saying juries don't have their place in many cases for the reading-comprehension challenged out there.

 

[gordanfreeman]

i dont see how jury's are overused when they are supposed to be a right guarenteed in the bill of rights...?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Juries are too frequently used in this country. There's too much of a burden on the population. And I'm not saying juries don't have their place in many cases for the reading-comprehension challenged out there.

Spoken like a true Liberal Elite- set up committees, allow judges, etc (as long as they think like you) and let them make our decisions... after all, the masses can't be trusted with such important duties, right?

As far as the poll and discussion goes, mandatory voting seems like the outlawing of flag burning, in that you're sort of forcing a behavior that goes against the principles of the issue itself. And there's a huge difference between taking some time off work to serve on a jury and compelling people down a barrel of a gun to go and die in a battlefield in the draft.

 

[imported_Condor]

Funny how cowards never like the draft much!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Spoken like a true Liberal Elite- set up committees, allow judges, etc (as long as they think like you) and let them make our decisions... after all, the masses can't be trusted with such important duties, right?

As far as the poll and discussion goes, mandatory voting seems like the outlawing of flag burning, in that you're sort of forcing a behavior that goes against the principles of the issue itself. And there's a huge difference between taking some time off work to serve on a jury and compelling people down a barrel of a gun to go and die in a battlefield in the draft.

But... But... How else will his candidates ever win another election? This is why he wants to force people to vote, not because of any ideals he has with respect to the virtues of voting.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: daveshel
In the New Order, our civic duty is to SPEND.

Aye. Perhaps I should elaborate on my previous post:

Point 1 - Although ostensibly it is your duty to vote in a Democracy, your vote is lost in a sea of uninformed, ignorant morons, who base their opinions of candidates on only the most superficial of qualities. These people are easily taken in by petty rhetoric, vague and insincere promises, and blatant lies. Though it is technically your duty, it is quite irrelevant.

Point 2 - Although ostensibly it is your duty to take part in our justice system, as a member of a jury made up of the aforementioned uninformed, ignorant morons, you will find yourself the lone voice of reason. Honestly, it doesn't matter how dedicated members of a jury are if they aren't fit to judge. You will most likely find the jury deadlocked (due to you), and either you do the right thing and deliberate for months whilst bringing in almost no money, or you can cave into the mob and sacrifice your principles.

Point 3 - The draft is ostensibly a noble institution, but not when you are being drafted to fight for an unjust cause, for an unjust people, controlled by an unjust government.


So here we are. Your Democracy is corrupted by demagogues and charlatans, sustained by an ignorant and obedient populace. Your court system reflects this. Your army reflects this. You have nothing left to do but go to work, consume your indulgences, and procreate. Your children are only becoming more apathetic and uneducated, insuring that things continue as they are (assuming no outside interference).

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Spoken like a true Liberal Elite- set up committees, allow judges, etc (as long as they think like you) and let them make our decisions... after all, the masses can't be trusted with such important duties, right?

As far as the poll and discussion goes, mandatory voting seems like the outlawing of flag burning, in that you're sort of forcing a behavior that goes against the principles of the issue itself. And there's a huge difference between taking some time off work to serve on a jury and compelling people down a barrel of a gun to go and die in a battlefield in the draft.

well, im a liberal elite (i read the nyt!!!!!!!)
so shut your mouth about what i want.
ill tell you what i want, when i want it.
and you'll do it..cause im so damn elite.

seriously, though...
forced voting is dumb.
jury duty is good as it is.
draft isnt really necessary, as we seem to have proven. so...i dont really have a good answer for the first one, because i dont conisder the draft to be a part of it and the other two arnt all that comprable in my mind.
heavy fines for jury duty dodging. i spose for draft dodging but i really dont see it as necessary, assuming properly run military, it shouldnt be.

so, in short: i agree with you.

 

[Robor]

I got served for jury duty a couple of years ago. The problem? My employer didn't pay for it. I could not afford to be off work without pay so I was excused. I offered to serve after work or on the weekend but I guess it wasn't an option.

I think employers should be required to pay their employees when they are called to serve.

 

[fell8]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Ah, and now your true, bigoted self is made known to everyone. Let me clue you in on a little secret - 'random' does not mean 'we only count the votes that will help swing the election in my favor.' Your whole 'point' of your ridiculous poll is a feeble attempt to get out the vote of people, as long as they support your agenda. What a joke.

I'm not sure how, but you once again missed the point. I used the example I did because it illustrates my point so well and is fresh in everyone's memory. I could also have cited the 1984 presidential election where many people came out to vote simply because Frerraro was a woman. That also has nothing to do with governance, much like gay marriage (the issue for many who voted for Bush) or the man's religion.

I really don't care who people vote for, I simply wish they would do so bearing lgitimate issues in mind. Had you actually paid attention to what I was trying to say instead of simply looking for a reason to attack me, you might have understood.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Condor
Funny how cowards never like the draft much!

My grandfather fought in the second world war, strongly supported the war in vietnam, and still thought the draft was a ridiculous and unacceptable intrusion on the lives of American men.

Funny how people who thought their country was supposed to be free of coercion react strongly to artificially created 'civic duties' that require people to die.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Condor
Funny how cowards never like the draft much!

My grandfather fought in the second world war, strongly supported the war in vietnam, and still thought the draft was a ridiculous and unacceptable intrusion on the lives of American men.

Funny how people who thought their country was supposed to be free of coercion react strongly to artificially created 'civic duties' that require people to die.

How about artificially created 'civic duties' that require people to elect their next slavemaster? That appears to be what some deluded individuals are advocating here.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: fell8
I'm not sure how, but you once again missed the point. I used the example I did because it illustrates my point so well and is fresh in everyone's memory. I could also have cited the 1984 presidential election where many people came out to vote simply because Frerraro was a woman. That also has nothing to do with governance, much like gay marriage (the issue for many who voted for Bush) or the man's religion.

I really don't care who people vote for, I simply wish they would do so bearing lgitimate issues in mind. Had you actually paid attention to what I was trying to say instead of simply looking for a reason to attack me, you might have understood.

Yes, Christians are constantly trying to take over the world. It's in everyone's memory due to the Great Christian Uprising of '02, during which we almost pulled it off. Every example you gave was "Christians are stupid because _____" veiled behind a thin wall of pseudo-tact that failed to hide your bigotry. You're just another guy who is pissed off because you're in the minority - people don't like or agree with your stance on the issues that you consider so obvious. Maybe you should reconsider your opinion on these matters rather than trying to force the election to turn your way through illicit means.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You shouldn't use the term 'draft'. There are various methods of compulsory service which are entirely different (and more fair as well as useful). To suggest requirement of military specific service indicates a requirement to be willing to do harm on behalf of the government, and that's a moral/religious conviction, not a civic decision.

Actually, if you want to be honest, there is NO SUCH THING AS CIVIC DUTY. No where do American citizens sign an agreement requiring something of them for their citizenship. That's not to say there aren't valid arguments for civic duty, only saying we shouldn't speak about it as if it were a fact in print, because it's just opinion at this point.

 

[gordanfreeman]

actually im under the impression that choosing to live within a country as an adult basically gives implied duty to that country. you get the rights but you better be prepared to take on the duties that come with those rights. thats how the US was designed at least. the few duties we have as citizens are few and far between compared to our rights... we are supposed to vote and do jury duty. beyond that i dont think we have any civic duties ...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: gordanfreeman
actually im under the impression that choosing to live within a country as an adult basically gives implied duty to that country. you get the rights but you better be prepared to take on the duties that come with those rights. thats how the US was designed at least. the few duties we have as citizens are few and far between compared to our rights... we are supposed to vote and do jury duty. beyond that i dont think we have any civic duties ...

Can you please provide documentation to that affect? I'll save you trouble, you really can't. You can reference Plato's Crito if you'd like, which suggests much as you say...but Plato does not (as far as I'm aware) dictate American policy.

I'm not saying I don't see them as duties mind you, I'm very civic minded. I'm just pointing out that there IS NO ACTUAL REQUIREMENT placed on us. It's opinion, maybe even tradition to some degree, but it's not fact and it's not binding.

I just spent 3 months in a 10 credit class in college on these issues, so I'm kind of fired up about them right now. Forgive any passionate replies I make as a result, it's finals week.

 

[gordanfreeman]

you are right there is nothing in writing saying we have a duty to do these things other than the laws that say so. personaly i see voting as much as a right as a duty, anyone suggesting laws to require voting are crazy for all i care.i would rather have the informed people who actually care about issues vote than any old nincumpoop who knows nothing, even if they do vote for my side. they are voting for the wrong reasons.

hmmm... now assuming their are laws saying that you must show up for jury duty, which i believe their are, then one might say it is your civic duty to follow the laws of the state you live in. this may be too much plato'ish for you but i see no reason why jury duty being required is such a monsterous burden on anyone, assuming their should be something that says you should be compensated for your time.

meh when it comes down to it we are discussing civic duty which i would differentiate from a requirement of citizenship. when speaking hypothetically i see a duty as something you ought to do, not something you are necessarily required to do. and jury duty is something i think you ought to do as a civic duty.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Excellent points.

Jury duty is 'required' but you can easily get out of it if there's an honest reason. In that respect it's an avoidable duty. The original question mentions punishments for trying to get out of it, but the punishments aren't for tyring to get out of it, they're for lying. Because of that, I have no issues with them.

As I said before I'm actually civic minded. I joined the military after a rousing bout with Starship Troopers (the book, not the stupid movie) and a passionate history teacher (passionate about history, not the other kind of passionate which would have been really gross because his beard would have tickled mine). Even so, I was called to jury duty this month, and had to explain to the courts that I would be taking finals the week I was called. I would love to serve on a jury (not that any court would have me) but need to be treated reasonably like I was. I don't feel that I should be looked down on or punished for bad timing on the part of the courts.

The draft is something entirely different as I already pointed out so we won't go there.

Voting is something else again. I understand peoples hesitation and/or refusal to vote, I just don't share it. For most of us, we think the two major candidates are idiots and so we choose not vote because no third party candidate has a chance. That's sad though, because if we could all get together and support that third candidate we might just be able to start some much needed changes. As you suggested though, it's a right, not a duty, and it needs to stay that way. We just need to find better ways to motivate people to exercise their rights.

 

[fell8]

I must say, I'm seeing some good thoughts and arguments being tossed around here. I like the discussion about the very notion about what civic duty is and it's broader ramifications/consequenses, but again, my aim was not to advocate manditory voting.

Rather it was to point out the alarming discrepency between the civic duties that the government deems most important (jury duty/military service with their penalties for evasion) and the one that actually is most important (voting, which many people have been wrongfully denied by gov't officials). My view is that this discrepency needs to be fixed. If more people saw voting as the most important thing a person could do for their country, more people would do it, and do so responsibly. If that were to happen, maybe we'd still be one of the most looked-up-to and respected countries in the world, instead of one the most feared and hated.

Moving on...

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, Christians are constantly trying to take over the world. It's in everyone's memory due to the Great Christian Uprising of '02, during which we almost pulled it off. Every example you gave was "Christians are stupid because _____" veiled behind a thin wall of pseudo-tact that failed to hide your bigotry. You're just another guy who is pissed off because you're in the minority - people don't like or agree with your stance on the issues that you consider so obvious. Maybe you should reconsider your opinion on these matters rather than trying to force the election to turn your way through illicit means.

Wow. You're taking this ridiculous posture to illustrate some point I'm not picking up on yet, right? I mean, you're not actually this obtuse, are you?

Since I can't be sure, I guess I'll just try to respond to your, um, argument as it appears.

Oh boy, where to start? Okay, you seem to think I'm anti-Christian or something.

Every example you gave was "Christians are stupid because _____"

I've got some sad news for you, Sunshine, I'm a white, hetero, male Christian. In my 450+ posts in Anandtech Forums I have never once, implicitly or explicitly, slandered, denounced or in any way put-down Christianity (do a search on me--you'll discover that 99% of my posts are about helping people in these forums, can you say the same?)

Prehaps you were refering to my "don't want them damn faggots gittin' hitched" comment. Christians hardly hold a monopoly on anti-gay sentiment, so to consider that anti-Christian is kind of silly. Maybe it was when I brought up the word "theocracy". Well, a lot of the neophyte voters went to the polls at the behest of their church leaders who told them they needed to make sure a particular candidate won because he would govern in a way more in keeping with their faith. Such ideas of governance definately lean toward the theocratic, and are frowned upon by The Constitution, what with it's "separation of Church and State" and all.

Simply put, using a person's religion as the primary reason to vote for them is irresponsible and dangerous. That is how Theocracies arise. There is not a Theocracy on this Earth whose Citizens are not oppressed or robbed of their Liberty in some way. I do not want that happening in my country (maybe you do, you certainly have the right to).

Okay, let's see...

Yes, Christians are constantly trying to take over the world.

True, but what religion isn't? Those in power can't be oppressed.

veiled behind a thin wall of pseudo-tact that failed to hide your bigotry

Thay's the second time you've called me a bigot. Are you sure you know what that word means? Here, let me help...dictionary.com. As I stated before, I have suggested nothing anti-Christian, merely that using it as a basis of government is wrong. If you're saying I'm politically bigoted, you could be right, but The Constitution is on my side.

You're just another guy who is pissed off because you're in the minority - people don't like or agree with your stance on the issues that you consider so obvious.

Which is it that people don't agree with, that voting is the most important civic duty (because the opinion poll suggests otherwise) or that everyone should vote, only responsibly (very sad if true). Those are the only issues I have tried to pursue in this thread. Also, I wouldn't say I'm pissed off, just disappointed.

Maybe you should reconsider your opinion on these matters rather than trying to force the election to turn your way through illicit means.

Okay, I've reconsidered, and I still believe that voting is the most important civic duty and that everyone should do it responsibly. Sorry.

I'm not sure how everyone voting responsibly would force the election to turn my way, unless it means the best possible candidate is elected (if it does, then, MUWAHAHAHA!). I'm also not sure how it's illicit.

Okay, I think that's all. I hope I have addressed your concerns in a clear and satisfactory manner

P.S. If your posture was to illustrate some point I'm not picking up on, then please explain the point. I can be a little obtuse myself sometimes.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Condor
Funny how cowards never like the draft much!

"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.

"It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
-- AYN RAND

 

[Zebo]

Jury duty? Pay me my wage and I'll sit otherwise I always ask about "jury nullification" for instant dismissal. Voting? to not vote is a vote right?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I think calling any of those a 'civic duty' is nothing but propagation of tyranny.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: fell8
...

My apologies. I assumed too much and figured you were yet another anti-Christian bigot. They seem to be in excessive supply in this forum this time of year.

Originally posted by: Zebo
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.

"It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
-- AYN RAND

I don't see too much problem with people who flee the country to dodge the draft. However, I don't see any reason to let them back in the country after the fact. If they don't want to follow the law of the land, then they shouldn't partake of the benefits after its legally upright citizens have waged the war.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: fell8
...

My apologies. I assumed too much and figured you were yet another anti-Christian bigot. They seem to be in excessive supply in this forum this time of year.

Originally posted by: Zebo
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.

"It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
-- AYN RAND

I don't see too much problem with people who flee the country to dodge the draft. However, I don't see any reason to let them back in the country after the fact. If they don't want to follow the law of the land, then they shouldn't partake of the benefits after its legally upright citizens have waged the war.

The well healed always "dodged the draft" perfectly legally. Next you assume these ghetto kids/farm boys drafted in the past had the means to leave the county. Most did'nt and forced to die by their economic circumstance. Then who's going to take them? Canada? Mabe maybe not. Then why should these young men have to flee thier country where they were born to fight some old usually a well healed draft dodgers war?

IMO Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war. Right there would eliminate all but defensive wars and killing and stop the MIC boondoggle going on at tax payers and poor soldiers spent bloods expense. That's not the way it works though excutives at Lockheed/hal get millions in bonuses while our soldiers and familes suffer. How about paying them what a soldier makes in time of war? The soldiers are sacrificing why not them?

 

[fell8]

Voting is something else again. I understand peoples hesitation and/or refusal to vote, I just don't share it. For most of us, we think the two major candidates are idiots and so we choose not vote because no third party candidate has a chance. That's sad though, because if we could all get together and support that third candidate we might just be able to start some much needed changes. As you suggested though, it's a right, not a duty, and it needs to stay that way. We just need to find better ways to motivate people to exercise their rights.

Well put, I totally agree. The fact that a lot of people see elections as choosing the lesser of two evils (the Kang or Kodo? dilemma, if you will) illustrates how poorly represented the importance of voting is, especially in the media. The number of candidates vary by election, but big ones like President usually have a good half-dozen or so. Even if you don't like any of them, there's almost always a write-in option.

If there were large voter turnout, but small percentages of votes for the two mainstream candidates, that would send a clear message to their parties. Such a message would not be lost on them, these are smart people, though they may choose to ignore it. If they choose not to ignore it, they might just be willing to put up some decent candidates (McCain or Feingold anyone?). Sure it may not be what's best for the party, but it would be best for the country.

My apologies. I assumed too much and figured you were yet another anti-Christian bigot. They seem to be in excessive supply in this forum this time of year.

Apology accepted. I can't fault a person for defending their ideals, and you're certainly right about Christianity having it's share of critics (I try not to take it too personally--bad for the stress levels). Besides, I don't feel religion should be completely factored out of the equation as it can be a good indicator (but not a guarantee) of a person of good conscience, I just feel it should be a minor consideration and never trump what's really important.

Also I would like to offer my only apologies if I was being an ass in my response. Just because I try not to take things personally doesn't mean I always succede.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: fell8

Voting is something else again. I understand peoples hesitation and/or refusal to vote, I just don't share it. For most of us, we think the two major candidates are idiots and so we choose not vote because no third party candidate has a chance. That's sad though, because if we could all get together and support that third candidate we might just be able to start some much needed changes. As you suggested though, it's a right, not a duty, and it needs to stay that way. We just need to find better ways to motivate people to exercise their rights.

Well put, I totally agree. The fact that a lot of people see elections as choosing the lesser of two evils (the Kang or Kodo? dilemma, if you will) illustrates how poorly represented the importance of voting is, especially in the media.

Um, no. It represents how only the two, MAYBE three (Pero a few years back) candidates get noticed, and the GOP/Dem candidates agree not to even debate any others. The relationship with the MSM is part of the problem. If a person gets on enough states' ballots, they should be able to at least debate the other candidates.

The number of candidates vary by election, but big ones like President usually have a good half-dozen or so. Even if you don't like any of them, there's almost always a write-in option.

First off, try three. Second, most states don't even count write-ins.

If there were large voter turnout, but small percentages of votes for the two mainstream candidates, that would send a clear message to their parties. Such a message would not be lost on them, these are smart people, though they may choose to ignore it. If they choose not to ignore it, they might just be willing to put up done decent candidates (McCain or Feingold anyone?). Sure it may not be what's best for the party, but it would be best for the country.

I doubt it. Why would have such big PR machines for crappy candidates if they could field good ones?