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My wife wants the 19th repealed.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.)
Pension is not assistance. While you work, you are putting money into the pension fund. When you get old, you are getting money back from the pension fund.
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.
Historically, voting was deferred to the states, While some states had a more liberal view of voting. Other's did not but the general was Men, age of 21 or older of white nationality who owned land could vote. This was more in the south as a means to disenfranchised non-whites whom earned their freedom after their indentured servant contracts were over pre-1776. However in the south there was also concessions to allow widowed women to vote as it was seen as a hereditary transfer (the Pre-Democrat party was mental gymnastic practice for the real party). Still while I was making the argument I was just throwing a number for simplicity sake.
I do agree, there needs to be a restriction of sorts without sandbagging our own ideals in the process. Ideally military service, or some form of service would be the primary route. Another would be exercising the ability to suspend those who do not vote. Ideally, if someone were to say...not vote for 2 cycles (be it state, Federal or combination of both) they would have their rights suspended until they reapplied/reaffirmed that they still have a pulse. However after reapplication they will be barred from participating from that current cycle until the next voting cycle happens. Their right to vote was never taken 'away' from them, but it was suspended out of fear of fraud thus to keep voting integrity intact. So in essences those non-voters would never be able to have their votes counted because of disreguard to vote. However they can always regain the ability to vote again as long as they reapplied for it.
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?
Pension is not assistance. While you work, you are putting money into the pension fund. When you get old, you are getting money back from the pension fund.
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.
Historically, voting was deferred to the states, While some states had a more liberal view of voting. Other's did not but the general was Men, age of 21 or older of white nationality who owned land could vote. This was more in the south as a means to disenfranchised non-whites whom earned their freedom after their indentured servant contracts were over pre-1776. However in the south there was also concessions to allow widowed women to vote as it was seen as a hereditary transfer (the Pre-Democrat party was mental gymnastic practice for the real party). Still while I was making the argument I was just throwing a number for simplicity sake.
I do agree, there needs to be a restriction of sorts without sandbagging our own ideals in the process. Ideally military service, or some form of service would be the primary route. Another would be exercising the ability to suspend those who do not vote. Ideally, if someone were to say...not vote for 2 cycles (be it state, Federal or combination of both) they would have their rights suspended until they reapplied/reaffirmed that they still have a pulse. However after reapplication they will be barred from participating from that current cycle until the next voting cycle happens. Their right to vote was never taken 'away' from them, but it was suspended out of fear of fraud thus to keep voting integrity intact. So in essences those non-voters would never be able to have their votes counted because of disreguard to vote. However they can always regain the ability to vote again as long as they reapplied for it.
Yeah. Cause Rome failed the same way. They let more non citizens become Roman and they started demanding free grain.