Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Ethel mermania]

no, I'd prefer mocking them and making them feel like bad people.
More effective in the long term.

now that is the american way.

[New Socialist New Hampshire]

I think so if it means preserving the future of the entire world. Then again, I don't believe in democracy so....

[West Sylvania]

Why bother to have a democracy at all if you're going to take away people's rights for voting for the "wrong" thing?

That's nothing more than a dictatorship with privileges.

[Shnercropolis]

Why bother to have a democracy at all if you're going to take away people's rights for voting for the "wrong" thing?

That's nothing more than a dictatorship with privileges.

otherwise known as the Russian Federation.

[Ardunshin]

I refuse to have humanity survive if it has to do so under tyranny. I'd rather have the ship sink with decency thanks.

I congratulate you sir. This is, by far, my favourite post on Ns. Ever.

[Divitaen]

Why bother to have a democracy at all if you're going to take away people's rights for voting for the "wrong" thing?

That's nothing more than a dictatorship with privileges.

Exactly. The justification for dictatorship is often that certain viewpoints are illegitimate and hurt social harmony, and thus should be banned. I'm afraid that the decision to not allow climate change deniers to vote is going to lead to just that, because it follows the exact same logic.

Besides, the original post that climate change deniers are illogical and dogmatic, I feel, is one-sided and stubbornly refuses to recognize that climate change deniers have their points as well, including scientists. The climate change debate is so complicated, with so many positions. Some believe in climate change, others deny it. Some believe in anthropogenic climate change, others deny it. Some believe anthropogenic climate change is the main cause of climate change, others believe in anthropogenic climate change but that it is not significant. Some believe in anthropogenic climate change and demand action, others believe likewise but feel action is not necessary.

So you see, the climate change debate is far too complicated to label people under something so simple as a "climate change denier". What is the definition of a denier? Only people who deny the very existence of climate change? Then what about people who admit climate change exists, but feel no action is necessary? Can they vote? If they can, since their not deniers per se, then you solve nothing.

Besides, if I were denier, I would just pretend to not be a denier, but vote in a conservative senator anyway. So, problem not solved.

[Tubbsalot]

climate change deniers have their points as well

No they don't, and I don't know why you'd make that assertion when you have no idea what climate change is about.

[New Rogernomics]

No, 'x' should not be disenfranchised for having a disagreeable opinion, even if it is something as silly as 'the world is flat'.

[AiliailiA]

I don't support the disenfranchisement of anyone.

I've said before that young people should be allowed to vote (and even small children, whether or not this amounts to a 'proxy vote' on behalf of their parents). I've said that convicted felons should be allowed to vote (even while in prison). Let me add that non-citizen residents should also be allowed to vote, if their residency covers the duration of an elected term.

It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway: I very strongly oppose disenfranchising anyone for any belief they hold. Even if their belief, loudly stated, is that Jews or disabled people are subhuman parasites who should be exterminated ... I would let them vote and I would let them stand for office.

People will not be broken of wrong beliefs by disenfranchising them. That will only make their alienation from society worse, making them more likely to break laws supported by the majority, or if they don't rebel to that extent, making them hostile and uncooperative in society. To disenfranchise someone is to give them reason to consider themselves a victim of the system, instead of a participant.

What the OP suggests is particularly absurd, because "climate change deniers" could become a very large minority. The majority currently "believe" in anthropogenic climate change, they accept that it is happening, but there is no majority agreed on what to do about it except in a few countries whose governments have taken steps to implement the Kyoto protocol. The social and political will to do something about it is rather conspicuously lacking.

So if you persecute the minority who outright deny the science -- and make no mistake, disenfranchising a minority is persecuting them with the power of the State -- you will rally a huge middle ground to their side. Those who previously believed in anthropogenic climate change but are reluctant to make any sacrifice to stop it will start seeing themselves as victims too, and distrust the science which you have enforced as necessary belief to participate in government. You could end up with a majority who distrust science of all kinds.

And then it doesn't matter who has the vote. They'll burn universities to the ground, then they will destroy the Internet, then (best protected) the houses of government. If you want to start a new Dark Age of gangs who hold Belief above Knowledge and use the power of the gun to silence the power of the pen ... then go ahead and disenfranchise people for not understanding one small branch of science.

Those of us who survive will have a name for you. "Bluth the Arrogant" perhaps. But probably something worse.

[Yes Im Biop]

Exactly. We don't have an unlimited amount of time. Kids are not infinitely educable, especially if their parents are part of the problem. If push comes to shove, if there's no longer enough time for up to keep trying to educate people, are we seriously supposed to resign ourselves and all humanity to doom simply because people who knew what was going to happen nevertheless insisted on using a hammer to tighten a screw?

I refuse to have humanity survive if it has to do so under tyranny. I'd rather have the ship sink with decency thanks.

Why?

[Norstal]

I refuse to have humanity survive if it has to do so under tyranny. I'd rather have the ship sink with decency thanks.

Why?

Because then he'll be lonely in that sunken ship. Everyone gotta have friends.

[Yes Im Biop]

Why?

Because then he'll be lonely in that sunken ship. Everyone gotta have friends.

Fair point

[Ostroeuropa]

I refuse to have humanity survive if it has to do so under tyranny. I'd rather have the ship sink with decency thanks.

Why?

What'd be the point?

I refuse to have humanity survive if it has to do so under tyranny. I'd rather have the ship sink with decency thanks.

I congratulate you sir. This is, by far, my favourite post on Ns. Ever.

Why thank you =3

[Free South Califas]

But I still maintain that being so myopic as to erode principles on which a nation is maintained and to trust to state not to abuse that new found power is being incredibly naive.

How do you feel about the erosion of pro-genocide principles on which the territory of the USA is literally maintained, and the newfound power of the US government to not commit genocide?

people who advocate disenfranchisement of legitimate voters, should be disenfranchised themselves

Interesting...what is a "legitimate" voter? If you and I disagree over whether people without current U.S. citizenship papers are "legitimate" voters, shall that be grounds to disenfranchise you? If "legitimate" means "currently legal", how is it possible to defend the premise that the federal voting status quo is automatically legitimate, given our history?

That being said...

If a bunch of stupid voters equalize out a bunch of smart voters, I'd say they pose a threat.

in a democracy, people have the right to be wrong

I ultimately agree with this. But not with the second part:

, those who are unable to persuade the majority are at fault.

In the USA, right-wing hegemony is more or less beyond the majority's control at this point. Nevermind that the electorate itself excludes some of the fastest-growing sectors of our population. I could see you making this argument after sweeping campaign/voting reforms, but it's mere victim-blaming with the systems we have.

Except you've given NO scientific sources at all. So again, GIVE SOURCES. At LEAST one scientific source. Go ahead. If you're as objective as you claim, and if you're right, it should be no problem.

You can't honestly expect a scientific report saying that scientists are really frauds. That's a completely unreasonable request from anyone.

Seriously? You think nobody in science would have been willing to challenge, say, the evolutionary theory of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck? If so, how was his view supplanted by the Darwinian one, exactly?

my problem is the thought that disagreement on an issue, is grounds for disenfranchisement. Except eugenics, i think people who support eugenics should be killed to save the species from well people who think eugenics is the answer to save the species. I live for irony.

Are you sure it's not self-contradiction you live for? Tell me, how is it less of an infringement to take someone's life based on their beliefs than to disenfranchise them?

[Ircona]

I don't think climate change deniers should be disenfranchised simply because it wouldn't end well.

But I have to say that the people who think it's morally wrong confuse me. Are you guys saying that if a person was behind the wheel of a car but did not know how to drive, it would be more morally right to let them crash the car, potentially killing themselves and innocent bystanders, than it would be to remove them from behind the wheel?

Democracy in and of itself shouldn't be considered morally right and suitable for every situation.The reason democracy should usually be encouraged is that giving everyone a say (in theory) means that everybody's well-being will be ensured. We shouldn't give everyone a say just for the sake of giving them a say and it's silly to think that democracy should be used even when it would end up hurting the people it was meant to protect.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Why bother to have a democracy

That's just it, though. Electoral "democracy" isn't real democracy in the first place. It's vulgar, formalistic, bourgeois pseudo-"democracy." It's not rule by the people over their own lives, it's rule by those most able to manipulate the system for their own private gain.

Real democracy has no system to be manipulated in the first place, no structures for the would-be elites to take the commanding heights of.

Since electoral "democracy" is basically the opposite of real democracy, why would anyone who sincerely supports democracy be so averse to modifying it if doing so would better serve real democracy?

[Objectiveland]

Only property owners should be allowed to vote. That is what was intended for a reason. Listen to and look at the average voter. Go to any college campus or ghetto or union shop and ask them some questions about current events. Climate change deniers are the least of the worries!

[Zephie]

Why bother to have a democracy

That's just it, though. Electoral "democracy" isn't real democracy in the first place. It's vulgar, formalistic, bourgeois pseudo-"democracy." It's not rule by the people over their own lives, it's rule by those most able to manipulate the system for their own private gain.

Real democracy has no system to be manipulated in the first place, no structures for the would-be elites to take the commanding heights of.

Since electoral "democracy" is basically the opposite of real democracy, why would anyone who sincerely supports democracy be so averse to modifying it if doing so would better serve real democracy?

A real democracy would be dangerous, because bigots who think they know what's best would have tyranny over the minority.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

That's just it, though. Electoral "democracy" isn't real democracy in the first place. It's vulgar, formalistic, bourgeois pseudo-"democracy." It's not rule by the people over their own lives, it's rule by those most able to manipulate the system for their own private gain.

Real democracy has no system to be manipulated in the first place, no structures for the would-be elites to take the commanding heights of.

Since electoral "democracy" is basically the opposite of real democracy, why would anyone who sincerely supports democracy be so averse to modifying it if doing so would better serve real democracy?

A real democracy would be dangerous, because bigots who think they know what's best would have tyranny over the minority.

Since democracy is hierarchy-free, what means would they have to do that?

I think you're thinking of so-called direct "democracy," which is really nothing more than a special case of electoral democracy, and so is also not real democracy at all.

[Raeyh]

Why bother to have a democracy

That's just it, though. Electoral "democracy" isn't real democracy in the first place. It's vulgar, formalistic, bourgeois pseudo-"democracy." It's not rule by the people over their own lives, it's rule by those most able to manipulate the system for their own private gain.

Real democracy has no system to be manipulated in the first place, no structures for the would-be elites to take the commanding heights of.

Since electoral "democracy" is basically the opposite of real democracy, why would anyone who sincerely supports democracy be so averse to modifying it if doing so would better serve real democracy?

Clearly, a number of people support electoral democracy. On the other hand, this real democracy you describe lacks the same support.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

That's just it, though. Electoral "democracy" isn't real democracy in the first place. It's vulgar, formalistic, bourgeois pseudo-"democracy." It's not rule by the people over their own lives, it's rule by those most able to manipulate the system for their own private gain.

Real democracy has no system to be manipulated in the first place, no structures for the would-be elites to take the commanding heights of.

Since electoral "democracy" is basically the opposite of real democracy, why would anyone who sincerely supports democracy be so averse to modifying it if doing so would better serve real democracy?

Clearly, a number of people support electoral democracy. On the other hand, this real democracy you describe lacks the same support.

A number of people supported Jim Crow, too.

[Zephie]

Clearly, a number of people support electoral democracy. On the other hand, this real democracy you describe lacks the same support.

A number of people supported Jim Crow, too.

Which clearly shows democracy doesn't work.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

A number of people supported Jim Crow, too.

Which clearly shows democracy doesn't work.

Democracy didn't create Jim Crow; electoral, majoritarian, "democracy" (which, as I explained above, is basically the opposite of real democracy) did.

[Raeyh]

Clearly, a number of people support electoral democracy. On the other hand, this real democracy you describe lacks the same support.

A number of people supported Jim Crow, too.

A greater number of people opposed it, though, which is why they aren't around anymore. However, this real democracy lacks said number.

[Zweite Alaje]

Why bother to have a democracy

That's just it, though. Electoral "democracy" isn't real democracy in the first place. It's vulgar, formalistic, bourgeois pseudo-"democracy." It's not rule by the people over their own lives, it's rule by those most able to manipulate the system for their own private gain.

Real democracy has no system to be manipulated in the first place, no structures for the would-be elites to take the commanding heights of.

Since electoral "democracy" is basically the opposite of real democracy, why would anyone who sincerely supports democracy be so averse to modifying it if doing so would better serve real democracy?

I agree that the current electoral system is corrupt, but please explain what you mean by "real" democracy, what alternative do you propose?