tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093594144580022909.post5654907448523396185..comments2023-04-11T01:32:10.798-07:00Comments on from outside the box: The Next StepCody Bornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11594694883560144113noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093594144580022909.post-68510127565667187612015-02-22T22:09:04.660-08:002015-02-22T22:09:04.660-08:00Thanks for commenting @hatspretty, those are some ...Thanks for commenting @hatspretty, those are some good points. <br />I'm cautious not to provide an actual implementation of a test or system following this belief because anything I could possibly come up with would be incorrect. I don't want to compromise the validity of an idea just because there is a flaw in how the idea is practiced, so forgive me if I don't go into specific details.<br /><br />Regarding voting and the potential for corruption in deciding this test...<br />I believe the question is fundamentally this: given a minority group and a majority group, what is to stop the majority from completely taking advantage of the minority in a purely democratic state. The majority could even vote for taking the minority's vote away. This is not widely seen in the U.S. today because we've all agreed upon a set of basic human liberties. We have an elementary set of assumptions that we make in every decision we take (ex. the constitutional amendments). It is a painstakingly slow process to raise the bar of human liberties because it rarely pays out in the short term for the majority. However, it's an investment we must make for the benefit of humanity in the long run (ex. the right to due process instead of witch hunts). This is both the solution and the problem; today we see that the majority has taken the vote away from the minority, where the minority is the youth. Raising the bar of basic human liberties is so slow that it gets stuck in these hypocritical positions.<br />tl;dr It's the job of the people to provide the proper checks and balances.<br /><br />I agree that the way we try people will also have to change. The two systems: giving people responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions must complement each other but can still remain independent. They are two systems optimizing for two different things, but should share fundamental beliefs. If we don't believe we can hold someone accountable for a certain action, they should not be given the responsibility in the first place. Holding someone accountable for their actions should again, not be based on their age but on the underlying factor that makes us assume that age matters, whatever that may be.Cody Bornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11594694883560144113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093594144580022909.post-75132391435605392402015-02-21T20:02:43.243-08:002015-02-21T20:02:43.243-08:00On voting: It sounds like you are recommending cre...On voting: It sounds like you are recommending creating a test children would need to pass in order to vote. But then I assume you mean this would apply to all people, not just children. This sounds like a scary bad idea because it could so easily be used to disenfranchise people who tend to disagree with those currently in power. Who gets to make the test and decide who passes?<br /><br />Also: Children taking a test to drive, just like everyone else, sounds like a reasonable idea if anyone is willing to insure them. But I wonder whether you argue that they should not only be allowed the same rights, but also the same penalties as adults? If a kid has passed his driving test, does he get tried as an adult if he recklessly kills someone with a car? If the same kid has not passed his gun test (are we creating a gun test too?) and instead recklessly kills someone with a gun, does he get tried as a kid? If he at age 12 has passed all tests available to him but commits a crime not directly related to any test, is he tried as a kid?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com