Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote? [W:7]

[yobarnacle]

The USA is based on God given rights.
If you don't believe in god, where did YOUR rights come from, or do you not have any?
Atheists can enjoy the God given rights we all enjoy, but when they start trying to change things to suit THEIR view, they should be kicked out of the country!

 

[RGacky3]

Seriously? You really think that I'm making the argument that shopping and voting are the same exact same thing? When a kid spends his money he absolutely influences how society's scarce resources are used. If he buys a comic book then society's resources are directed towards the production of more comic books. But if the kid was allowed to vote...what do you think the chances are that his vote would influence how society's scarce resources are used?

Of coarse his vote would influence how societies resources are used .... but that is NOT the reason we don't allow children to vote, and not the reason we DO allow them to shop (if their parents allow them).

It's simply irrelevant to the issue.

It's like me saying "I like cheese but I don't potatoe chips, because I'm not into salt" and then you saying "but they are both yellow, if they are both yellow, and you ilke one yellow thing, why don't you ilke the other."

What in the world? There are people who vote for the legalization of marijuana and there are people who vote against the legalization of marijuana. They both can't have their interests protected. Whichever group comes up with the most votes will have their interests protected while the losers will have their interests harmed.

The fact that I have to explain this to you is proof that Churchill was talking about you.

You cannot vote to take away someone freedom of speach ... that's an example of a built in constitutional protection.

The marijuana example is one, but amung those who agree with legalization they may disagee one something else, and some of those who agree with maijuana legalization may agree with those who don't agree with legalization when it comes to a seperate issue.

 

[Xerographica]

The USA is based on God given rights.
If you don't believe in god, where did YOUR rights come from, or do you not have any?
Atheists can enjoy the God given rights we all enjoy, but when they start trying to change things to suit THEIR view, they should be kicked out of the country!

Shopping and voting give us the opportunity to try and change the world to suit our view. I agree that theists should have the freedom to try and change the world to suit their view. But clearly theists do not believe that children should have the freedom to vote. Do you think that children should be allowed to shop/vote?

 

[yobarnacle]

Shopping and voting give us the opportunity to try and change the world to suit our view. I agree that theists should have the freedom to try and change the world to suit their view. But clearly theists do not believe that children should have the freedom to vote. Do you think that children should be allowed to shop/vote?

Children DO shop but not vote.
The USA was not intended to be a democracy. It's a republic.
Originally, Only landowners, white men, could vote.
Universal suffrage is a BAD idea. You end up with a crazy runaway, spend it all fast government, with no sense of honor, or restraint, or responsibility!

 

[Xerographica]

It's simply irrelevant to the issue.

We're talking about voice here. Allowing kids to shop gives them a voice. Preventing them from shopping diminishes their voice. Do you want kids to have a voice or not? If you think they are incompetent/irrational/ignorant/inexperienced/immature ...then clearly you believe that they would have a harmful impact on how society's scarce resources were used. This is relevant whether we're talking about shopping or voting.

You cannot vote to take away someone freedom of speach ... that's an example of a built in constitutional protection.

And the constitution can obviously be amended.

The marijuana example is one, but amung those who agree with legalization they may disagee one something else, and some of those who agree with maijuana legalization may agree with those who don't agree with legalization when it comes to a seperate issue.

We don't vote on issues that we agree on. That would be a waste of society's scarce resources. We vote in order to peacefully determine whose interests should be protected and whose interests should be harmed.

 

[RGacky3]

We're talking about voice here. Allowing kids to shop gives them a voice. Preventing them from shopping diminishes their voice. Do you want kids to have a voice or not? If you think they are incompetent/irrational/ignorant/inexperienced/immature ...then clearly you believe that they would have a harmful impact on how society's scarce resources were used. This is relevant whether we're talking about shopping or voting.

Voting means you are capable of looking at the issues effecting society and make a decision on it that you can rationally defend, children are not legally able to do that.

When Voting you're voting on laws that apply to everyone universally in the country, when shopping you're buying for yourself and any external effect is secondary.

And the constitution can obviously be amended.

Of coarse

We don't vote on issues that we agree on. That would be a waste of society's scarce resources. We vote in order to peacefully determine whose interests should be protected and whose interests should be harmed.

Did you read what I said? my point is people who support one side on issue A will not necessarily agree on issue B, so you can't put people in Block 1 or block 2, there are not blocks, people have different oppinions on different issues.

 

[Xerographica]

Voting means you are capable of looking at the issues effecting society and make a decision on it that you can rationally defend, children are not legally able to do that.

When Voting you're voting on laws that apply to everyone universally in the country, when shopping you're buying for yourself and any external effect is secondary.

When kids buy candy...the candy maker buys more sugar and the sugarcane farmers use more land for sugarcane. More land for sugarcane means less land for everything else...like artichokes. The interests of kids are protected while the interests of adults are harmed.

You said that you understood the concept of scarcity...and you agreed that it was relevant to both shopping and voting...yet here I am having to explain the concept of scarcity to you.

 

[RGacky3]

When kids buy candy...the candy maker buys more sugar and the sugarcane farmers use more land for sugarcane. More land for sugarcane means less land for everything else...like artichokes. The interests of kids are protected while the interests of adults are harmed.

You said that you understood the concept of scarcity...and you agreed that it was relevant to both shopping and voting...yet here I am having to explain the concept of scarcity to you.

Buying candy doest force others to buy candy, if you vote for a law that passes that law applies to everyone, thats one of the many distinctions between voting and buying that is significant.

Again, they both invovle scarcity, but that doesn't mean that there are not other distinctions that are significant, infact they ARE significant which is why we allow children to buy things (if their parents allow them) but not vote.

 

[Xerographica]

Buying candy doest force others to buy candy, if you vote for a law that passes that law applies to everyone, thats one of the many distinctions between voting and buying that is significant.

Ok, how about this. Kids can vote but they can only have 1/10th a vote. Deal or no deal?

 

[RGacky3]

Ok, how about this. Kids can vote but they can only have 1/10th a vote. Deal or no deal?

How is this an economics question?

 

[Xerographica]

How is this an economics question?

Ok, how about this. Kids can shop but they can only spend $1/year. Deal or no deal?

 

[RGacky3]

Ok, how about this. Kids can shop but they can only spend $1/year. Deal or no deal?

It's up to the parents.

 

[Xerographica]

It's up to the parents.

What would happen to society's scarce resources if parents gave half of their paycheck to their kids and allowed their kids to spend the money on whatever they wanted?

 

[RGacky3]

What would happen to society's scarce resources if parents gave half of their paycheck to their kids and allowed their kids to spend the money on whatever they wanted?

Probably a lot of stuff ... but they won't ... and they don't ... it's a rediculous question.

What's the point you're trying to get at?

 

[Xerographica]

Probably a lot of stuff ... but they won't ... and they don't ... it's a rediculous question.

What's the point you're trying to get at?

Which would be worse...allowing kids to vote or forcing parents to give half their paychecks to their kids so the kids could buy whatever they wanted?

We're talking about economics here. You think it would be economically harmful to allow kids to vote. I want to know whether the economic impact would be worse if kids had half their parents' money to spend however they liked.

 

[RGacky3]

Which would be worse...allowing kids to vote or forcing parents to give half their paychecks to their kids so the kids could buy whatever they wanted?

We're talking about economics here. You think it would be economically harmful to allow kids to vote. I want to know whether the economic impact would be worse if kids had half their parents' money to spend however they liked.

No I think whether or not kids should vote is not an economics question, it may have economic consequences (as almost everything does if you look hard enough).

Now, I'm not going to answer you're question here for one reason. You're playing sophistry games, what is the POINT you're trying to make.

 

[Xerographica]

No I think whether or not kids should vote is not an economics question, it may have economic consequences (as almost everything does if you look hard enough).

Allowing kids to vote may have economic consequences...but allowing them to shop certainly does have economic consequences. If you don't want kids to vote...then you certainly shouldn't want them to shop. Unless you see the amount of money that kids spend as a drop in the bucket/ocean. What's the total amount of money that kids spend each year? $100 billion dollars? What's the opportunity cost?

 

[RGacky3]

Allowing kids to vote may have economic consequences...but allowing them to shop certainly does have economic consequences. If you don't want kids to vote...then you certainly shouldn't want them to shop. Unless you see the amount of money that kids spend as a drop in the bucket/ocean. What's the total amount of money that kids spend each year? $100 billion dollars? What's the opportunity cost?

The consequences (economic or otherwise) of voting are applied UNIVERSALLY, since it's voting on the law .... shopping is primarlity just personal consequences and then you have economic externalities.

But the REASON we don't allow kids to vote, is because voting is making laws that apply to OTHER PEOPLE, infact to EVERYBODY, and our society have determined that children are not fully legally responsible for their own decisions, and this sort of a decision is is one that MAKES laws .... shopping doesn't MAKE laws that apply universally.

 

[Xerographica]

The consequences (economic or otherwise) of voting are applied UNIVERSALLY, since it's voting on the law .... shopping is primarlity just personal consequences and then you have economic externalities.

Can you give me an example?

 

[RGacky3]

Can you give me an example?

If I vote to ban weed, everyone cannot buy weed, if I vote to legalize it, every one can decide to buy it.

If I choose to buy a sandwich, only I have the sandwich, if I choose to buy a massage only I get the massage.

 

[Xerographica]

If I vote to ban weed, everyone cannot buy weed, if I vote to legalize it, every one can decide to buy it.

If you vote to ban weed...then there's a vanishingly small chance that you're going to change the outcome (how society's resources are used).

If I choose to buy a sandwich, only I have the sandwich, if I choose to buy a massage only I get the massage.

If you choose to buy a sandwich...then there's a 100% chance that you're going to change the outcome (how society's resources are used).

If you don't want children to directly influence how society's limited resources are used...then you shouldn't want them to vote or shop.

 

[RGacky3]

If you vote to ban weed...then there's a vanishingly small chance that you're going to change the outcome (how society's resources are used).

If you choose to buy a sandwich...then there's a 100% chance that you're going to change the outcome (how society's resources are used).

If you don't want children to directly influence how society's limited resources are used...then you shouldn't want them to vote or shop.

As I said before, voting is taking part in a decision that effects EVERYONE and is binding for EVERYONE.

Purchasing something, is only binding for the purchaser and merchant.

 

[Xerographica]

As I said before, voting is taking part in a decision that effects EVERYONE and is binding for EVERYONE.

Purchasing something, is only binding for the purchaser and merchant.

Both voting and shopping are group efforts. Do you honestly believe that artichokes are available at supermarkets because I'm the only one who buys them? That's absurd. Artichokes are available at supermarkets because countless others use their dollars to vote for artichokes. And as a result of our votes...resources are shifted away from other possible uses and utilized to help produce artichokes.

If we prevented children from dollar voting in the private sector...then the allocation of resources would change. Would the allocation of resources improve? From your perspective it would. This is because you don't trust children to vote.

 

[RGacky3]

Both voting and shopping are group efforts. Do you honestly believe that artichokes are available at supermarkets because I'm the only one who buys them? That's absurd. Artichokes are available at supermarkets because countless others use their dollars to vote for artichokes. And as a result of our votes...resources are shifted away from other possible uses and utilized to help produce artichokes.

If we prevented children from dollar voting in the private sector...then the allocation of resources would change. Would the allocation of resources improve? From your perspective it would. This is because you don't trust children to vote.

First of all there is no objective better or worse allocation, it depends on better for whome.

If a child buys an artichoke it raises demand slightly, and supply will raise slightly as well, but still, the purchase of the artichoke will NOT bind you or anyone else to buy or consume or produce artichokes.

Voting to Ban or tax artichokes is universeal, everyone has to follow it.

But you're bringing up a huge problem with Capitalism, where resources go is plutocratically decided, which is why we have a lack of affordible housing for those who need it, but dont' have the money to influence the market enough, but definately not a lack of yacts. That has to do with wealth inequality though.

 

[Xerographica]

First of all there is no objective better or worse allocation, it depends on better for whome.

If a child buys an artichoke it raises demand slightly, and supply will raise slightly as well, but still, the purchase of the artichoke will NOT bind you or anyone else to buy or consume or produce artichokes.

Voting to Ban or tax artichokes is universeal, everyone has to follow it.

But you're bringing up a huge problem with Capitalism, where resources go is plutocratically decided, which is why we have a lack of affordible housing for those who need it, but dont' have the money to influence the market enough, but definately not a lack of yacts. That has to do with wealth inequality though.

You want the poor to have more influence...yet you don't want children to vote. Are you really so clueless that you don't understand that poor people have more children than rich people?

In a related paper, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt say that, “There is overwhelming empirical evidence that fertility is negatively related to income in most countries at most times.” They are right. Whether you cut the data across countries, through time, or across people at a point in time, the same fact arises: The richer you get, the fewer kids you have. - Justin Wolfers