That's not the problem. The problem is the property owners can vote in their own favor but the political panderers of the crackhead prostitutes won't count their votes and make up more votes to make sure the property owners can't have a say
They want to tell us how we are supposed to live because they know better and don't care. You are advocating to remove their voice, effectively telling them how to live because you know better and don't care. I swear you are tripping negated your views are opposite of the founders
Says the man who would rather tolerate iniquity and degeneracy than raise a hand to stop it.
You might blather on about how a nation cannot survive after turning its face from God, but you also aren't going to do a damn thing about it either. You're a quisling.
Yeah. You are evil and no patriot, as I figured. You're on the wrong site. Just curious, what would you do with black people? They get to vote? Where's the line in your eyes?
Entirely the opposite. I'm advocating for a system in which only veterans or landowners with families get a say in the government at all. Heinlen, basically, although it's also analogous to the Roman Republic and pre suffrage America.
It's not a coincidence that societies always devolve with a generation or two of one pulse one vote being implemented.
Societies always devolve when they turn away from God. Without virtue they will vote for their own self interest rather than the good of the country. Without looking towards God they will not be motivated to be virtuous. Without freedom to worship how they want they will not be virtuous. It's the golden triangle of freedom. Turn away from God and lose your freedom.
So you're advocating for a fantasy. Just so we're clear.
I also seriously doubt you've explored the stupid consequences and infinite amount of loopholes this creates.
Who defines what a "landowner" is? Does a 1-foot-by-1-foot square plot count? Or is the county/state going to decide that only plots exceeding 20 acres count as landowners, because that common rabble with their dingy houses on 1/8-acre plots shouldn't be able to vote either?
You are just returning to an aristocracy where the wealthy landed have everything to lose by expanding the ability to own land and everything to gain by restricting it.
Literally the United States in its founding, but okay.
Now as for you, your account is literally brand new, less than an hour old, so whose alt are you?
You are just returning to an aristocracy
Again, literally the original United States. You didn't read many history books did you?
where the wealthy landed have everything to lose by expanding the ability to own land and everything to gain by restricting it.
Even were this true, which it isn't(you should have paid more attention to what I actually said), this is still preferable to the farce that is "democracy", where the parasite class controls everything and functionally enslaves the productive class. Democracy is just communism that takes a little longer.
I was saying it's a fantasy to think that could ever be implemented again. That ship sailed long ago, for good reason. You can't seriously believe you're going to be able to take anyone's vote away.
I think you also have this romanticized idea of early America that just isn't true; "only landowners can vote" is not as simple and brilliant as you are making it out to be. Elections were frequently corrupt, candidates openly bought votes, whoever maintained the voter rolls manipulated the rules to prevent undesirables from voting no matter how much land they nominally owned, etc.
I was saying it's a fantasy to think that could ever be implemented again.
No you weren't. I think you didn't read any further than the word Heinlen, and you typed out that entire comment based on that.
That ship sailed long ago, for good reason.
For no good reason. The closer you get to one pulse one vote, the more corrupt and degenerate your society becomes. If history is clear on anything, it is that.
Democracy does not work. It is a farce. A farce not long for this continent.
You can't seriously believe you're going to be able to take anyone's vote away.
I can't seriously believe you think it's going to go any other way. Besides, the intent here isn't to give them a choice in the matter. The entire problem is caused because some people get to have a say, but shouldn't. Why would we ever give them a say in fixing that problem, when they are the problem? That's like giving termites a vote in whether you spray them.
Elections were frequently corrupt
Oh say it isn't so. I mean nevermind that "frequently" would be an improvement over what we have today.
How would a restricted franchise of voting require government enforcement? Seems to me it's precisely the opposite, that you minimize the potential for government overreach by not allowing the people who would vote themselves largess from the treasury, access to the treasury in the first place.
You misunderstand me. This is a theoretical, in a future, post Second Civil War scenario. Where the victors, in this case us, would be writing a new Constitution following the disbanding of the current federal government.
There would be no "the government" to involve in any of this, the point is to select a government without the input or involvement of the current crop of parasites. Excluding the corrupt and the proles is the point.
This is not a reform of the existing system, which would be largely impossible as you suggest.
A Constitutional Republic is specifically NOT a democracy. The Founding Fathers criticized democracy as mob rule very eloquently in the Federalist Papers.
I don't like Churchill because he manipulated America into WW2 and the Balfour Declaration was about as dishonest as it gets.
It’s hard to think of a more ‘democratic’ (rule by the people) statement of intent than beginning a written constitution with ‘We the People’. Maybe ‘Fuck off Aristocracy’.
I suspect the false ‘democracy vs republic’ dichotomy stems from the fact they had been debating which form of government to implement, and ‘democracy’ had become shorthand for ‘majority rules, no limits’ and ‘republic’ had become shorthand for ‘not just majority rules, and there are limits’. Did they intend for the US to be a pure democracy like that? No. Did they intend for the US to be ‘democratic’ in the sense that the right to govern flows from the consent of the people, as opposed to inately belonging to an elite? Yes, the constitution makes that clear.
It’s unfortunate that despite the limitless ‘democracy’ vs limited ‘republic’ debate (settling on the latter) America has still ended up right back under rule by the elite anyway. It’s just a bit less hereditary than before.
That's a valid observation. One of their tools for taking power was the misuse of the word "democracy". They held it up as some glorious ideal and infringed on rights of people around the world, including here, in the name of "democracy".
This is why we need to return to being a Constitutional Republic and claw back the States' sovereign powers. Repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments would go a long way towards that end.
"Democracy" in this context refers to how the representatives are selected. We select representatives by allowing everyone to vote for them, hence, the U.S. is democratic or a democracy (because the republic part isn't what we're trying to emphasize in whatever discussion you're having).
In other words, it can be useful to sort the world's countries into those that allow the people to select their leaders and those that don't. You could call one set "democracies" and the U.S. would fall into that set.
You are correct. I think I'm arguing that this use of the word "democracy" isn't entirely accurate, even if it is widely accepted.
Democracy is mob rule, and a direct democracy, as the Dems are pretending we have, is one in which the majority will always terrorize the minority. It is an awful form of government.
We have a Constitutional Republic that uses democratic processes to select leaders, but States have rights just like We The People have rights. We have allowed a Federal Government that has NO rights to usurp State's and People's rights, and we did it under the name of "democracy".
Yeah, that is not correct. They did criticize pure democracy as mob rule in the Federalist Papers, but a constitutional Republic is a form of democracy.
You are defining "democracy" differently than I am. I commented about this nearby on this thread. Please read and let me know if you think I'm still incorrect. It's more than just semantics.
Well by this logic Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and the rest of the elites should control our country while the homeless and middle class people have no say at all.
It works fine as long as people's votes are counted and you protect against fraud and let's not pretend crackheads are showing up at the polls en masse.
Our modern system has very little in common with what the founders intended. They believed only land owners should vote. That's why they built our first universities, so a person could cast a thoughtful, informed, and considered vote.
Totally disagree. Each person has a right to be represented by their government. That crackhead is a human and has not forfeited her rights. In the eyes of God we are all equal. She has the potential to see the light and come out of her drug coma. Even if she never does, she should have a say in how the government handles her rights.
They are one and the same. You think God only cares about his children once we come back on glory? He loves all his children, even when we make stupid choices
Proposed voting system: everyone gets a vote. If you are a veteran, you get an extra vote. Own land? One more vote. Own a business gets you one more vote.
Basically everybody has a voice, but the more skin you have in the game, the louder your voice is.
Democracy in 2020: a married father of six that has two businesses and owns property has1/5000 the voting power of a street walking crackhead prostate with her scanner.
And chances are the crackhead knows 5 friends that volunteer to count more votes for the Democrat than there is actual population in blue voting districts.
Yeah I'm good with limiting our franchise to those that contribute to society. If you leech, you are in direct conflict of interest with the public good and will only vote to rob the needy and our children.
There was a time when only people who actually had a stake in this country could vote (landowners), now it's all fucked up.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry on welfare with section 8 housing can vote and their kids too.
My idea? Only men vote and they get as many votes as there are people in their immediate family.
Single guy...1 vote
Married with 6 kids....8 votes
Divorced with two dependents...3 votes
Man pretending to be a woman....1 vote
Woman pretending to be a man...0 votes
Gay man...1 vote
Lesbian couple...0 votes
Actually unless he voted democrat his vote counts less, or zero!
That's not the problem. The problem is the property owners can vote in their own favor but the political panderers of the crackhead prostitutes won't count their votes and make up more votes to make sure the property owners can't have a say
but they told us it is...
Any system that allows the immorals and the degenerates a say, will always devolve to that point.
The fact of the matter is that we aren't all equal, and we shouldn't all get an equal say.
I want off this ride.
So are you going to draw the line of who is more equal than others? That is what they are trying to do to us.
I already said as much, veterans and land owners.
No, what they are trying to do to us is destroy Western Civilization and functionally if not literally outlaw Christianity.
If you're at all capable of making moral judgments, it's easy to see the vast gulf between us and the left.
They want to tell us how we are supposed to live because they know better and don't care. You are advocating to remove their voice, effectively telling them how to live because you know better and don't care. I swear you are tripping negated your views are opposite of the founders
No, they want to force us to live in an immoral manner, or else be their slaves, because some syphilitic old hobo from the 1860s told them to.
There is a moral difference between a good, decent society not tolerating evil, and "Marxism or die".
Damn right. I'm also advocating for a very large number of them to be slain outright.
The evil should not get a say in how the good live their lives.
Same goal. You're just giving their reason as evil and yours as good. Same plan as Satan. Opposite of Christ. But I already know you aren't Christian
Says the man who would rather tolerate iniquity and degeneracy than raise a hand to stop it.
You might blather on about how a nation cannot survive after turning its face from God, but you also aren't going to do a damn thing about it either. You're a quisling.
Yeah. You are evil and no patriot, as I figured. You're on the wrong site. Just curious, what would you do with black people? They get to vote? Where's the line in your eyes?
Entirely the opposite. I'm advocating for a system in which only veterans or landowners with families get a say in the government at all. Heinlen, basically, although it's also analogous to the Roman Republic and pre suffrage America.
It's not a coincidence that societies always devolve with a generation or two of one pulse one vote being implemented.
Societies always devolve when they turn away from God. Without virtue they will vote for their own self interest rather than the good of the country. Without looking towards God they will not be motivated to be virtuous. Without freedom to worship how they want they will not be virtuous. It's the golden triangle of freedom. Turn away from God and lose your freedom.
So you're advocating for a fantasy. Just so we're clear.
I also seriously doubt you've explored the stupid consequences and infinite amount of loopholes this creates.
Who defines what a "landowner" is? Does a 1-foot-by-1-foot square plot count? Or is the county/state going to decide that only plots exceeding 20 acres count as landowners, because that common rabble with their dingy houses on 1/8-acre plots shouldn't be able to vote either?
You are just returning to an aristocracy where the wealthy landed have everything to lose by expanding the ability to own land and everything to gain by restricting it.
Literally the United States in its founding, but okay.
Now as for you, your account is literally brand new, less than an hour old, so whose alt are you?
Again, literally the original United States. You didn't read many history books did you?
Even were this true, which it isn't(you should have paid more attention to what I actually said), this is still preferable to the farce that is "democracy", where the parasite class controls everything and functionally enslaves the productive class. Democracy is just communism that takes a little longer.
I was saying it's a fantasy to think that could ever be implemented again. That ship sailed long ago, for good reason. You can't seriously believe you're going to be able to take anyone's vote away.
I think you also have this romanticized idea of early America that just isn't true; "only landowners can vote" is not as simple and brilliant as you are making it out to be. Elections were frequently corrupt, candidates openly bought votes, whoever maintained the voter rolls manipulated the rules to prevent undesirables from voting no matter how much land they nominally owned, etc.
No you weren't. I think you didn't read any further than the word Heinlen, and you typed out that entire comment based on that.
For no good reason. The closer you get to one pulse one vote, the more corrupt and degenerate your society becomes. If history is clear on anything, it is that.
Democracy does not work. It is a farce. A farce not long for this continent.
I can't seriously believe you think it's going to go any other way. Besides, the intent here isn't to give them a choice in the matter. The entire problem is caused because some people get to have a say, but shouldn't. Why would we ever give them a say in fixing that problem, when they are the problem? That's like giving termites a vote in whether you spray them.
Oh say it isn't so. I mean nevermind that "frequently" would be an improvement over what we have today.
How would a restricted franchise of voting require government enforcement? Seems to me it's precisely the opposite, that you minimize the potential for government overreach by not allowing the people who would vote themselves largess from the treasury, access to the treasury in the first place.
Exactly. He says you misunderstand him but he is just misunderstanding himself. He didn't know what he is taking about and he is no patriot.
You misunderstand me. This is a theoretical, in a future, post Second Civil War scenario. Where the victors, in this case us, would be writing a new Constitution following the disbanding of the current federal government.
There would be no "the government" to involve in any of this, the point is to select a government without the input or involvement of the current crop of parasites. Excluding the corrupt and the proles is the point.
This is not a reform of the existing system, which would be largely impossible as you suggest.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Churchill.
Churchill was a Deep State cuck and we have a Constitutional Republic.
Besides that, great point Winston.
We pretend like we have a constitutional republic, the reality is closer to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy
That's somewhat accurate, and my entire goal in life is to undo that and return to the Founding Fathers' vision.
Repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments would be a big step in that direction.
A Constitutional Republic is specifically NOT a democracy. The Founding Fathers criticized democracy as mob rule very eloquently in the Federalist Papers.
I don't like Churchill because he manipulated America into WW2 and the Balfour Declaration was about as dishonest as it gets.
Well now I can't argue with you because you're quoting mises.org, one of my favorite sites.
This is a semantical disagreement.
Here's some examples of my point:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/08/3-quotes-from-founding-fathers-remind-us-why-we-are-a-constitutional-republic-not-a-democracy/
It’s hard to think of a more ‘democratic’ (rule by the people) statement of intent than beginning a written constitution with ‘We the People’. Maybe ‘Fuck off Aristocracy’.
I suspect the false ‘democracy vs republic’ dichotomy stems from the fact they had been debating which form of government to implement, and ‘democracy’ had become shorthand for ‘majority rules, no limits’ and ‘republic’ had become shorthand for ‘not just majority rules, and there are limits’. Did they intend for the US to be a pure democracy like that? No. Did they intend for the US to be ‘democratic’ in the sense that the right to govern flows from the consent of the people, as opposed to inately belonging to an elite? Yes, the constitution makes that clear.
It’s unfortunate that despite the limitless ‘democracy’ vs limited ‘republic’ debate (settling on the latter) America has still ended up right back under rule by the elite anyway. It’s just a bit less hereditary than before.
That's a valid observation. One of their tools for taking power was the misuse of the word "democracy". They held it up as some glorious ideal and infringed on rights of people around the world, including here, in the name of "democracy".
This is why we need to return to being a Constitutional Republic and claw back the States' sovereign powers. Repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments would go a long way towards that end.
Not semantical either, but thanks for the Mises.org recommendation.
I am a firm believer in Austrian School Economics.
"Democracy" in this context refers to how the representatives are selected. We select representatives by allowing everyone to vote for them, hence, the U.S. is democratic or a democracy (because the republic part isn't what we're trying to emphasize in whatever discussion you're having).
In other words, it can be useful to sort the world's countries into those that allow the people to select their leaders and those that don't. You could call one set "democracies" and the U.S. would fall into that set.
You are correct. I think I'm arguing that this use of the word "democracy" isn't entirely accurate, even if it is widely accepted.
Democracy is mob rule, and a direct democracy, as the Dems are pretending we have, is one in which the majority will always terrorize the minority. It is an awful form of government.
We have a Constitutional Republic that uses democratic processes to select leaders, but States have rights just like We The People have rights. We have allowed a Federal Government that has NO rights to usurp State's and People's rights, and we did it under the name of "democracy".
Yeah, that is not correct. They did criticize pure democracy as mob rule in the Federalist Papers, but a constitutional Republic is a form of democracy.
You are defining "democracy" differently than I am. I commented about this nearby on this thread. Please read and let me know if you think I'm still incorrect. It's more than just semantics.
Kum-allah is a crackhead?
No skin in the game. If property ownership was a prerequisite to vote no one would be able to vote in large cities. Its all lease or rent.
Huge point in favor of land ownership voting.
Well by this logic Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and the rest of the elites should control our country while the homeless and middle class people have no say at all.
Democracy is monstrous.
51 percent can vote to enslave and kill the 49 percent.
If 51% of a nation wants to enslave and kill the other 49%, I think you’re in trouble no matter your form of government.
American Commies of 2021 have entered the chat.
There is a reason you used to have to be a land owner to vote.
Stop the “everyone has to vote” madness. Seriously.
To be honest, democracy is fine when there’s no election fraud going on. You’d have had Trump for 8 years with democracy.
The hooker, being self-sufficient, has a stronger argument for holding the franchise than the welfare queen.
It works fine as long as people's votes are counted and you protect against fraud and let's not pretend crackheads are showing up at the polls en masse.
They don’t have to. The Democrats mail in their ballot for them!
It's not important that they vote, they just have to be registered to vote. The system takes care of the rest.
Our modern system has very little in common with what the founders intended. They believed only land owners should vote. That's why they built our first universities, so a person could cast a thoughtful, informed, and considered vote.
Both their votes are sacred and completely worthless under current voting practices in this ex-country.
I’m pretty sure said veteran has at most 68% of a prostitutes voting power when Dominion is counting:
Totally disagree. Each person has a right to be represented by their government. That crackhead is a human and has not forfeited her rights. In the eyes of God we are all equal. She has the potential to see the light and come out of her drug coma. Even if she never does, she should have a say in how the government handles her rights.
In Heaven, not on Earth. You can have a shitty life here and you aren’t entitled to anything.
They are one and the same. You think God only cares about his children once we come back on glory? He loves all his children, even when we make stupid choices
It literally should be limited to people who pay (unsubsidized and not waived) property taxes.
Proposed voting system: everyone gets a vote. If you are a veteran, you get an extra vote. Own land? One more vote. Own a business gets you one more vote.
Basically everybody has a voice, but the more skin you have in the game, the louder your voice is.
Weighted voting like Biden got
Das racis
Democracy in 2020: a married father of six that has two businesses and owns property has1/5000 the voting power of a street walking crackhead prostate with her scanner.
And chances are the crackhead knows 5 friends that volunteer to count more votes for the Democrat than there is actual population in blue voting districts.
Yeah I'm good with limiting our franchise to those that contribute to society. If you leech, you are in direct conflict of interest with the public good and will only vote to rob the needy and our children.
National voting is dead. November 2020 confirmed this.
That street walking crack head prostitutes daughters grandpa is the president!
There was a time when only people who actually had a stake in this country could vote (landowners), now it's all fucked up. Every Tom, Dick and Harry on welfare with section 8 housing can vote and their kids too.
My idea? Only men vote and they get as many votes as there are people in their immediate family.
Single guy...1 vote Married with 6 kids....8 votes Divorced with two dependents...3 votes Man pretending to be a woman....1 vote Woman pretending to be a man...0 votes Gay man...1 vote Lesbian couple...0 votes
Our country enables all this bs lmao