Democracy is fine. The part where shit started going bad is when we found ways to legalize bribes, allow paid lobbying, and ultimately pass laws that favor the unique interest of certain industries
If democracy is fine why did they create the bill of rights (which scotus ignore)? The problem with democracy is you only need 51% to outlaw what 49% want. Thats the only reason the US still have guns. 51%+ want them. In Australia 70% were happy for them to go so we lost that right. So then the only way to maintain a functioning democracy is through ensuring those that vote maintain values. Once democracies dilute values they begin to fail see Rome. The truth is once you let everyone vote or non citizens they vote for a welfare state and then its all downhill from there.
The truth is once you let everyone vote or non citizens they vote for a welfare state and then its all downhill from there.
It's weird you mention that because the US didn't used to let everyone vote. It's almost like the founding fathers actually understood that only people that have a stake in the country should have a voice in how it should be run. That limit was chipped away at and then totally removed a century ago and look where we've ended up.
Democracy with limits is fine, and the founding fathers knew that. You had to actually work hard and earn your vote by owning land. Universal Suffrage was the largest mistake this country ever made.
The truth is once you let everyone vote or non citizens they vote for a welfare state and then its all downhill from there.
My wife wants the 19th repealed. I now agree with her.
You take any public assistance, farm, corporate, personal, anything - you should not be able to vote for 10 years from last date of use.
Only tax payers should be allowed to vote. Except for government civilian workers. They should not. (I'm an early retired fed.)
I want to do a slight push back. It was fine up until Woman's Suffrage movement and even then pre-Great Society everything was ok. The real downfall was when we allowed education to be ran by Government. That'd be around 1925, as education standards started to lower, the voting patterns started to lean towards more government. Its a safe reason that a population that does not keep its education system in line will eventually fall as it will become a tool for propaganda.
Even if we were to move everything back to Men of the age of 25 that own property, we'd still see a rapid rebound of giving these 'wrongs' back because of the education system. If anything it'd make it worse because a educated populace will eventually revolt. You would have to make education a direct correlation to property ownership. (families that own property will only be allowed to get education).
The quickest remedy is the implosion of the Government Ran/backed educational system. Divest it back to locality, that means to the municipalities themselves. Colleges would no longer have access to government backed student loans and finally removal of Unionization from schools themselves. A well educated society that is not brainwashed is the ultimate bulwark against socialism. I've posted it a lot but the greatest weakness of the Republican party is not trying to connect to the youth. Its maintaining and securing schools as a pro-American institution that teaches the failures of monarchy, totalitarianism and communism. That promotes freedom, unity through American Culture, individualism, honesty and virtue of hard work.
What you're describing is a snowball effect. You're not wrong in that the decline of the education system is part of the problem, but you can't just fix that AND keep everyone being allowed to vote because as we see today not everyone is capable of understanding or being taught at the same levels. The core issue is giving everyone the vote. All the other nonsense is caused because of that and piles onto it.
You cannot teach someone with an 85 IQ to the same degree that you can teach someone with a 110 IQ. Even if we rollback "no child left behind" and push through massive education reforms such that we separate children out based on their capacity and willingness to learn and overhaul the education system curriculum to no longer be "teach to a test", it still wouldn't fix the problem of letting everyone vote. It would help things, but it isn't addressing the core problem.
There's also an issue of human nature that you're not looking at. Right now not everyone that can vote does vote, meaning if you "took away" the vote from everyone in order to meter it back out to those that earned it most people would just shrug and not bother because that would require work and effort and they wouldn't see it as "worth it". Most people are lazy, which is why meritocratic practices are being targeted to win those people over. If you require people to not be lazy to gain something as powerful as the vote it would mean that most would simply not bother. You wouldn't see a rebound of "the wrongs" for the same reason you didn't see one until marxists started prodding upper class bored white women to start demanding the right without responsibilities to destabilize society, if someone has to earn something that they don't see the value in they won't bother.
Even if we were to move everything back to Men of the age of 25 that own property
This is actually not correct. It was ANYONE, male or female, that was a landowner could vote. Widows could and did vote as did women that took on jobs such as a seamstress and earned enough to eventually purchase land. The reason you never hear about that is because most women were married young, or simply didn't fuck around and start burning everything down by voting the way many women do today because earning the vote changed how they acted.
The difference between now and then is not only was the age at which you actually obtained land to earn the vote being MUCH older than even 25 in almost all cases, but you actually understood the work necessary by that point and didn't just vote frivolously because you knew it could cost you everything if you did. That style of needing to work and earning something is just as important as a proper education.
Haha. Tried suggesting this one on Reddit. Did not go over well.
But really, net contributors should have more say in basically any kind of organization.
One way to ease this in could be to retain voting rights for everyone, but add an additional voting credit to people who are net contributors to the system. Might be easier to start on the state level rather than federal.
If you receive more benefits than you pay in taxes, you are owned, therefore your vote is being bought. You think you're just "voting in your interests" but your interests align with what your masters tell you and you'll line up to take what they give you.
If you are a net taxpayer, citizen, have voter ID, and a non-felon, you have the right to vote.
Never happen. Those on the receiving end of the money outnumber those on the paying end. And sadly the situation suits the modern aristocracy, so the Uber rich will be no help. It's those of us in the middle getting fucked, and the only way to fix it involves a whole lot of liberty roots being watered, sadly.
This is why we are a republic. That said, I do not think those advocating for dictatorship have thought things through. In fact I think it is further evidence of a failed educational system.
The US is actually a constitutional republic but with democratic ideals (in the democracy sense of the word). Certain aspects of the country really on a 51% majority rule vote, but that’s usually at a local or state level. At a federal level (like absolute changes to the constitution) you need a fairly large majority to get things rolling. If you recall from the impeachment trial earlier this year, it only required a majority to “impeach” trump In the House, but to actually convict would have required a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
That is, in fact, exactly the reason why. The Founders foresaw basically all of this because they studied history. They even had commie-like movements to deal with, though they called them "levellers."
Or over tax corporations. And still repeal the 17th.
Corporations used to require an act of Congress to be formed. For a reason. Anything too large to be owned by one person/family would by definition be too large to be accountable. If you or I sold "tickle my clit" Troll dolls to kids, our asses would be getting pounded as we speak. But Hasbro? They'll just have a quiet recall.
How about just be a law-abiding citizen without any criminal convictions? Because that whole land-ownership thing never really worked out as well as people wanted it too in many cases.
I don’t know how we could possibly pull off such a requirement without it being some kind of rights violation. Like OK, sure paying taxes makes sense. But then what’s the barometer for how much tax one needs to pay, or how frequently they should pay. So for example a retiree collecting a pension with no income would maybe only be paying state taxes on property. But what about for example somebody who had to stop working for a long period on account of an injury? Do we make certain exceptions ? The only voting-related regulation I’m personally in favor of is raising both the age and implementing a basic intelligence requirement test. Maybe raise the age to 25, and come up with a test that requires at least a 9th grade level of reading comprehension?
Democracy is fine. The part where shit started going bad is when we found ways to legalize bribes, allow paid lobbying, and ultimately pass laws that favor the unique interest of certain industries
If democracy is fine why did they create the bill of rights (which scotus ignore)? The problem with democracy is you only need 51% to outlaw what 49% want. Thats the only reason the US still have guns. 51%+ want them. In Australia 70% were happy for them to go so we lost that right. So then the only way to maintain a functioning democracy is through ensuring those that vote maintain values. Once democracies dilute values they begin to fail see Rome. The truth is once you let everyone vote or non citizens they vote for a welfare state and then its all downhill from there.
It's weird you mention that because the US didn't used to let everyone vote. It's almost like the founding fathers actually understood that only people that have a stake in the country should have a voice in how it should be run. That limit was chipped away at and then totally removed a century ago and look where we've ended up.
Democracy with limits is fine, and the founding fathers knew that. You had to actually work hard and earn your vote by owning land. Universal Suffrage was the largest mistake this country ever made.
My wife wants the 19th repealed. I now agree with her. You take any public assistance, farm, corporate, personal, anything - you should not be able to vote for 10 years from last date of use.
Only tax payers should be allowed to vote. Except for government civilian workers. They should not. (I'm an early retired fed.)
Doesn’t the government give you a pension? Isn’t that assistance? You don’t want to be allowed to vote anymore?
End Women's Suffrage! Last goddamn funny thing that cuck Kimmel did.
I want to do a slight push back. It was fine up until Woman's Suffrage movement and even then pre-Great Society everything was ok. The real downfall was when we allowed education to be ran by Government. That'd be around 1925, as education standards started to lower, the voting patterns started to lean towards more government. Its a safe reason that a population that does not keep its education system in line will eventually fall as it will become a tool for propaganda.
Even if we were to move everything back to Men of the age of 25 that own property, we'd still see a rapid rebound of giving these 'wrongs' back because of the education system. If anything it'd make it worse because a educated populace will eventually revolt. You would have to make education a direct correlation to property ownership. (families that own property will only be allowed to get education).
The quickest remedy is the implosion of the Government Ran/backed educational system. Divest it back to locality, that means to the municipalities themselves. Colleges would no longer have access to government backed student loans and finally removal of Unionization from schools themselves. A well educated society that is not brainwashed is the ultimate bulwark against socialism. I've posted it a lot but the greatest weakness of the Republican party is not trying to connect to the youth. Its maintaining and securing schools as a pro-American institution that teaches the failures of monarchy, totalitarianism and communism. That promotes freedom, unity through American Culture, individualism, honesty and virtue of hard work.
What you're describing is a snowball effect. You're not wrong in that the decline of the education system is part of the problem, but you can't just fix that AND keep everyone being allowed to vote because as we see today not everyone is capable of understanding or being taught at the same levels. The core issue is giving everyone the vote. All the other nonsense is caused because of that and piles onto it.
You cannot teach someone with an 85 IQ to the same degree that you can teach someone with a 110 IQ. Even if we rollback "no child left behind" and push through massive education reforms such that we separate children out based on their capacity and willingness to learn and overhaul the education system curriculum to no longer be "teach to a test", it still wouldn't fix the problem of letting everyone vote. It would help things, but it isn't addressing the core problem.
There's also an issue of human nature that you're not looking at. Right now not everyone that can vote does vote, meaning if you "took away" the vote from everyone in order to meter it back out to those that earned it most people would just shrug and not bother because that would require work and effort and they wouldn't see it as "worth it". Most people are lazy, which is why meritocratic practices are being targeted to win those people over. If you require people to not be lazy to gain something as powerful as the vote it would mean that most would simply not bother. You wouldn't see a rebound of "the wrongs" for the same reason you didn't see one until marxists started prodding upper class bored white women to start demanding the right without responsibilities to destabilize society, if someone has to earn something that they don't see the value in they won't bother.
This is actually not correct. It was ANYONE, male or female, that was a landowner could vote. Widows could and did vote as did women that took on jobs such as a seamstress and earned enough to eventually purchase land. The reason you never hear about that is because most women were married young, or simply didn't fuck around and start burning everything down by voting the way many women do today because earning the vote changed how they acted.
The difference between now and then is not only was the age at which you actually obtained land to earn the vote being MUCH older than even 25 in almost all cases, but you actually understood the work necessary by that point and didn't just vote frivolously because you knew it could cost you everything if you did. That style of needing to work and earning something is just as important as a proper education.
Yeah. Cause Rome failed the same way. They let more non citizens become Roman and they started demanding free grain.
you'd probably see an improvement if only net taxpayers could vote (taxes paid - any welfare received); maybe set a minimum tax paying threshold
Haha. Tried suggesting this one on Reddit. Did not go over well.
But really, net contributors should have more say in basically any kind of organization.
One way to ease this in could be to retain voting rights for everyone, but add an additional voting credit to people who are net contributors to the system. Might be easier to start on the state level rather than federal.
ya reddit is not going to be receptive to this
This would solve most of the problems.
If you receive more benefits than you pay in taxes, you are owned, therefore your vote is being bought. You think you're just "voting in your interests" but your interests align with what your masters tell you and you'll line up to take what they give you.
If you are a net taxpayer, citizen, have voter ID, and a non-felon, you have the right to vote.
I second this HARD. We shouldn't get rid of democracy but we need to put it back in balance, as the Founders intended.
Never happen. Those on the receiving end of the money outnumber those on the paying end. And sadly the situation suits the modern aristocracy, so the Uber rich will be no help. It's those of us in the middle getting fucked, and the only way to fix it involves a whole lot of liberty roots being watered, sadly.
This is why we are a republic. That said, I do not think those advocating for dictatorship have thought things through. In fact I think it is further evidence of a failed educational system.
The US is actually a constitutional republic but with democratic ideals (in the democracy sense of the word). Certain aspects of the country really on a 51% majority rule vote, but that’s usually at a local or state level. At a federal level (like absolute changes to the constitution) you need a fairly large majority to get things rolling. If you recall from the impeachment trial earlier this year, it only required a majority to “impeach” trump In the House, but to actually convict would have required a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
That is, in fact, exactly the reason why. The Founders foresaw basically all of this because they studied history. They even had commie-like movements to deal with, though they called them "levellers."
Stop taxing corporations and repeal the 17th.
Or over tax corporations. And still repeal the 17th.
Corporations used to require an act of Congress to be formed. For a reason. Anything too large to be owned by one person/family would by definition be too large to be accountable. If you or I sold "tickle my clit" Troll dolls to kids, our asses would be getting pounded as we speak. But Hasbro? They'll just have a quiet recall.
This times one thousand
Democracy is fine if you have to be a land owning tax paying male to be able to vote.
How about just be a law-abiding citizen without any criminal convictions? Because that whole land-ownership thing never really worked out as well as people wanted it too in many cases.
I don’t know how we could possibly pull off such a requirement without it being some kind of rights violation. Like OK, sure paying taxes makes sense. But then what’s the barometer for how much tax one needs to pay, or how frequently they should pay. So for example a retiree collecting a pension with no income would maybe only be paying state taxes on property. But what about for example somebody who had to stop working for a long period on account of an injury? Do we make certain exceptions ? The only voting-related regulation I’m personally in favor of is raising both the age and implementing a basic intelligence requirement test. Maybe raise the age to 25, and come up with a test that requires at least a 9th grade level of reading comprehension?
That doesn’t work. Have to at least add “that pay taxes”. Otherwise more people climb in the wheelbarrow and less are willing to push it.