D
Deleted member
Guest
It was almost certainly working internationally, or being posted overseas as a soldier or diplomat, in Shute’s vision. Two years, after all.
It was almost certainly working internationally, or being posted overseas as a soldier or diplomat, in Shute’s vision. Two years, after all.
Floridaman
Well-known member
Have you seen American colleges, a good chunk of the people leave there worse than when they started. Tradesmen who would be excluded from your proposal are on average much better citizens.
Starship Troopers actually covered this idea, the service was based around what you could do, and no matter how disabled, they would find something. So even a quadriplegic could earn the vote.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
The father of the MC considered the time doing a service, both the armed-forces one and the desk job and other tasks, to be a waste of tax money and that the MC should have just settled for running the business
There's not much money to be made in said armed forces
The reality is that when you remove voting from one group and not another you are simply trying to direct politics in a way that you want.
So what would you want people to vote for? Or more specifically; what boundaries do you want to be absolute? Because you will be narrowing the gradient between two ends of the 'left/right' and shunting them in a specific direction?
So what would you want people to vote for? Or more specifically; what boundaries do you want to be absolute? Because you will be narrowing the gradient between two ends of the 'left/right' and shunting them in a specific direction?
I will say this. If you restrict the right to vote of people. You have no right to then ask them to pay taxes. They no longer have a say in the way government is run so they should be able to keep ALL of their money. See how long things will last when only the restricted vote holders have to foot the bill for everything. Because news flash they don't right now.
If you're restricting the votes of people then you have done away with 'rights' being anything more than something the government gives you anyways. So you'd sure be able to tell people who cannot vote to pay taxes. What's the alternative? The government can simply deny you access to basic public services like electricity, water, or gas.
That is how Civil Wars start.
Only if the people you are disenfranchising are willing to start them. Otherwise they remain disenfranchised.
Just losing the right to vote is not going to be enough for people to freak out and push the civil war button, nor would still paying taxes. There's this weird and hilarious fantasy that the right (especially in America it seems) seem to have that they're going to civil war. They're not; they're going to do what they've been doing for the sixties and roll over and take it. No one civil war'd when they fucked up the sanctity of marriage, when the immigration started flooding, when promiscuity was normalised, and no ones civil warring now when the institutions and one of the parties meant to represent you guys is egging on race riots. And the same would happen in reverse. If the institutions of power like the military and local governance aren't willing to go against the government as a whole then there won't be a civil war.
If you took away peoples vote tomorrow with some sort of enabling act bill, no one would civil war. They'd just keep paying their taxes like normal, and bitch on twitter about it.
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
That's why I said positive tax income as the cuttoff. Most of the poor don't actually pay right now anyway. What they do pay is returned by the IRS.
Um they pay Town Taxes. Property Taxes on Vehicles and land. Plenty of poor people pay taxes that don't get refunded to them. Income tax is only one type of tax and that is it. More taxes get paid than just income tax.
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
If you own property you'd be able to vote. So at best you've got sales tax. Not that it really matters none of this is going to happen. It's just a theoretical excercise not policy discussion. Giving the state the ability to disenfranchise people will turn out badly.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Ideally I want to get rid of the weaker aspects of the body politic. Those who are too easily led to or stupid to vote, those who vote on emotional grounds(most women), and troublesome and subversive elements.
Now this is a very broad and dangerous set of categories, but I want people to vote for policies that are beneficial for the nation. No sexual degeneracy, no lax immigration, and so on.
PeliusAnar
Well-known member
Again I would argue that the best system is a voting share system. Each person is given 1 share at their majority and after that they can purchase shares. People with money are contributing members of society will keep and buy shares, while useless people will sell their shares for money (drugs).
To make the system work, first corporations are not allowed to own shares. Second each individual can own up to 0.01% of available shares and no more, with the total amount being the population count. Third, shares cannot be inherited or traded between individuals and can only be sold through a public market. Fourth, have different shares for both the state and national elections. Fifth, tax share sales heavily after the initial voting share is sold.
This will naturally move voting power towards people with wealth, who contribute and are invested over time into buying up shares. People who don't care will naturally sell their shares. This also has the side effect of the people buying into the system being more concerned and informed about what is going on.
To make the system work, first corporations are not allowed to own shares. Second each individual can own up to 0.01% of available shares and no more, with the total amount being the population count. Third, shares cannot be inherited or traded between individuals and can only be sold through a public market. Fourth, have different shares for both the state and national elections. Fifth, tax share sales heavily after the initial voting share is sold.
This will naturally move voting power towards people with wealth, who contribute and are invested over time into buying up shares. People who don't care will naturally sell their shares. This also has the side effect of the people buying into the system being more concerned and informed about what is going on.
The only people who should vote and hold public office for that matter are people who are invested in the proliferation of the nation and in securing a prosperous future for the next several generations. IE; people who vote should be married, have children and own either a couple cars, an apartment or some form of physical assets that will increase in value.
I stress that...the voluntarily childless and unmarried have no right to exercise control over the nation.
And before anyone babbles about homophobia..gays and Lesbians can adopt. Adopting should most definitely be a qualifier, especially given the mental and emotional state of a lot of the kids that get adopted, shits pretty selfless and if you're willing to take that into your home, you deserve the franchise.
Welfare recipients should be as barred from voting as well as public employees, unless the recipient in question was disabled on the job, maimed in combat or in public service or was born physically impaired. the first group falls under "paid for the right to vote the hard way and you're an asshole for curtailing their rights" and the last one falls under "act of god"
I stress that...the voluntarily childless and unmarried have no right to exercise control over the nation.
And before anyone babbles about homophobia..gays and Lesbians can adopt. Adopting should most definitely be a qualifier, especially given the mental and emotional state of a lot of the kids that get adopted, shits pretty selfless and if you're willing to take that into your home, you deserve the franchise.
Welfare recipients should be as barred from voting as well as public employees, unless the recipient in question was disabled on the job, maimed in combat or in public service or was born physically impaired. the first group falls under "paid for the right to vote the hard way and you're an asshole for curtailing their rights" and the last one falls under "act of god"
PeliusAnar
Well-known member
I strongly disagree with setting criteria like this to vote. It invites a lot of complications, exceptions, and nit picking. What if people have a medical illness that doesn't let them have children? What if their child died and they got divorced? There are too many situations that come about from almost any system that creates requirements for voting.
That is why I would go with a share system. Rather than promoting a behavior, it promotes people who gather wealth and are productive to society. This in turn forces them to pay attention to politics. With your system it creates a tiered system of have and have nots, with the have nots being pushed downwards.
That is why there should be universal suffrage, but people should be able to give up their vote if they don't care. By having an open marketplace as the only way to buy or sell votes along with a total cap, it would create a group that pays attention to politics. Also if someone is complaining about how things are, then they can be asked, 'Well did you sell your vote?' I guarantee that most of the protestors currently would sell their vote if they were able to. That is what not having a job gets you.
Honestly the issue I have with democracy is that I see it as fairly easy for bad actors to subvert and use it against a nation.
It's not about removing the rights of people to vote; it's about setting limitations on what can and cannot be altered and changed by voting. The American constitution comes to mind; and then you have to have a galvanised people willing to fight for that.
It's not about removing the rights of people to vote; it's about setting limitations on what can and cannot be altered and changed by voting. The American constitution comes to mind; and then you have to have a galvanised people willing to fight for that.
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.
Yinko
Well-known member
Depends on what you mean. This thread is mainly about changing representative democracy, and the proposals are very abusable, but there are so many inherent flaws in the fundamental system of representative democracy itself that the only fix would be to replace something that was less disingenuous.
It's why laws need to be phrased as simply as possible.
Also lobbyists should all be thrown in blacksites...kidding..mostly
covered under adoption and disability.
They had a child and were married.
But yeah..Spinsters shouldn't be allowed to vote tbh.
Neither should 47 year old men who proudly declare their lack of progeny. you're too much of a selfish piece of shit to be allowed to exercise force over peoples lives.
Doing nothing is why America is about to die and with it, the whole damn free world though.
I aint entirely against this.
Mind ye people like Jack Dorsey should lose the franchise...
They should also lose their civil liberties but that's a different topic.
Proxy voting is one of the biggest destroyers of civilizations dude.
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 democracy isn't really practical, we use representative democracy instead. Then, to defend minorities from majority rule and protect individual rights, we add in a constitution limiting government (and hence limiting what people can vote for).
Last edited: