Search results

My point is that if you can't trust people, (and you can't) the best solution is to depower the most powerful individual as much as possible, otherwise a single individual can do a lot of damage. To do this best, use direct democracy, as it spreads power evenly as much as possible. Since direct...

But this is also true for every other system, and it's much easier in those. Causing a mass movement is much harder than the permanent leaders being selfish/shortsighted/stupid. This, however, is definitely true. Setting guardrails and limiting government is how you ensure freedom.

Whatever you end up with will be some despotic regime that might be called America, but won't be it in anything but name. You would be just as much as a threat as the socialists to America, if you had any power.

Democracy is not what I'm championing here. I believe in freedom and rights. And I will support those when it is difficult and when it is easy. And the right to believe in things is even more basic than the freedom of speech. That's what America means: a dedication to the rights of man, even if...

... You mean the plain English definition of the first amendment? And somehow, defending people from having people like you violate their rights makes me less of an American?

Yes, like the individual's right to believe what they want, even if what they want is the destruction of America. Yes, even that. I will stand up for their rights, even if they kill me afterwards for doing so, because that's what being an American means.

The next step will be graduate college, spend 2 years abroad, then go to a latte stand. The state deciding what people should aspire too is a dangerous idea. Ideologically, I think this is horrifying. More, it is a bad idea, because firm policies like this would need to be very farseeing to be...

The problem is that your solution will not work. By allowing people to be disenfranchised, you are up to the whims of the next vote on who that will be. And it might easily be the socialists who get that power, and then all is lost. In contrast, if the democrats win the next election, not...

Not a good idea. This will be extended to cover any host of unfavored people, and then the people who are in charge will stay in charge by disenfranchising the others. There is no good way to disenfranchise adult citizens. When you do, you encourage all manner of gaming the system so that the...

I see. I have issues with the strategy on an ideological level first of all. But on a practical level, it leads to a couple of problems. First, it creates a new overclass that is politically favored. This will result in that faction voting themselves privileges. In addition, for the underclass...

Also, the multiple vote proposed wouldn't have the effect you want. The problem of socialism mostly comes from 'educated' wealthy whites, who are likely to also work abroad. That puts them at 4 votes.

A multiple vote ends the same way as a restricted franchise, with those in power promising additional votes to those who will vote for them. If you can trust the politicians not to give out these votes for stupid/selfish reasons, then the democracy is working and nothing is wrong. If the...

Basically this. It'd start with an education level minimum. Then they would sneak in mandatory gender studies or whatever classes into the education minimum. This doesn't end well.

No, and here's the reason we can't have restrictions on who to vote: because the second we have any, who ever is in power will make a new law restricting the right to vote to their supporters. Then they are in power forever. Instead of limiting who can vote, limit what people can vote for. If...