should mentally ill people be allowed to vote or be on a jury or have positions of responsibility? should trans people? should women while on their period or during menopause? should drunk or high people?

Comments
No. 1-14
Segev
Segev

@Armadillo , I don't entirely agree that a government is best if people who are in impaired states or in bad moods are "represented," but I do agree that preventing it will limit freedom to be represented too much. The point of representative government isn't to ensure that government is actively doing what you want it to. The point is to limit government's ability to actively do things you don't want it to. We elect representatives in the hopes that they, knowing they're dependent on pleasing us for their positions, won't abuse their power over us. Further, the notion of representative government is rooted in the idea that people won't knowingly elect representatives which will harm their own interests. Sadly, this LEADS to a government ACTIVELY doing things to us that enough of us think they want done. But that's not the PURPOSE.

Armadillo
Armadillo

@Segev Yeah he's basically asking whether intelligence should be taken into account for posistions of power. Not only does this undermine freedoms, but also does not acurately represent the population. A government should have power by the consent of the people governed. The governed would included dumb people, drunk people, and women during periods so it's reasonable that they get a vote. A jury consists of the accused's peers which would include those groups as well. You're idea could lead to a nanny state or even a North Korea style dictatorship.

Segev
Segev

This question feels like bait. The straight-forward answer I'd give is this: if the person is not considered mentally competent enough to be an emancipated adult, they probably shouldn't be voting (because they're very likely just being used as a second vote by their caregiver). Otherwise, they should (provided they're citizens and otherwise would be eligible to vote). This is because you simply can't have a category that removes the right to vote without it becoming a dangerous catch-all for those with power to shunt political opponents into. This gets especially true of "intelligence tests," which I've heard people discuss, because testing for being "intelligent" or "informed" enough can become a disguised way to check for being right-minded (according to the test writer). I imagine Hillary would have won if those in power during the last election cycle could have written a "competency test" to judge whether people were "intelligent" enough to vote. Anybody who indicated they'd vote for Trump would have been automatically disqualified, either overtly or by some careful questions checking to see if you agreed with his "crazy" positions on various issues.

Armadillo
Armadillo

Some women on their periods might still be more cognitively capable then those who aren't or even men. And perhaps women are MORE capable during their periods then not. Men also have cycles as well, so it isn't a gender thing though. In cases of juries, as long as they pick a wide set of people then it should even out. As for posistions of power, as long as they were voted in it dosen't matter. Really I hope people are aware of the things that influence them and adjust accordingly.

ArthurM
ArthurM

oh ffs i just typed a long answer to those 6 points and it got lost.

basically, this is just a thought experiment, a game. im not suggesting or proposing we must or even should implment any of this, and im only briefly imagining what it would take practically if we did.

few things: all of my suggested categories are people who have a degradition in decision making abilities to some degree. there's probably more. and this isnt just about jury, any position of responsbility -whatever that can mean. woman's minds change during their time of the month - a study for example about women preferring typically masculine men when on, and less masculine more caring men when off - would this affect someones chances in a trial? i imagine that it would to some extent. would it affect, say, job interviews? i can imagine it would.

i disagree with your mentally disturbed = instiutiionalized statement. i dont think thats true under law or practice or common usage. and again, trans ppl are (contreversially) diagnosed with gender dysphoria before transitioning.

Stories