You're getting downvoted, but I don't think everyone needs the right to vote. Unless you have an actual stake in the election and you benefit the country somehow (you're a land owner, business owner, etc), you're probably just gonna look for handouts with each election. Does that make sense?
Wives' votes are most likely going to be a duplicate of her husband's, and 3rd generation Welfare Bums are going to vote in their best interest regardless of gender. So, there should be certain stipulations in who decides the outcome of our elections. The fact that there are almost ZERO stipulations is what's causing problems in this country.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
I don't know, I could see the argument that we are going from apathy to dependence. We're not entirely dependent on our government yet. At least not compared to say European countries.
We need to fix this shit somehow, but any force given will be multiplied and directed towards making the country sink faster. Can we start a new United States?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
This page talks about their origins, if interested.
I like the idea of a civics test. It's directly related to the thing you're going to vote on so it makes sense. It doesn't even need to be that hard - maybe a 5th or 6th grade level - just enough so that we know you don't think government is a magical fairy who operates on hopes and wishes. That would disqualify a lot of people, thankfully.
I think any relevant test would have to include whether they understand that this country is supposed to be a bunch of independent states and a federal government all acting as a check against each other to ensure none of them gets too powerful. I find that is the single more misunderstood component of American civics.
The problem with that is that with the current corporate oligarchs there will be pushes for structuring in policy to make sure only they and their circle can vote. Suddenly you would see a bunch of legislation calling for multiple "stimulus " payments that magically target and match average regional tax payments for certain voting demographics.
I agree with it as a test, but it can't be the only one. I think a "are you or have you been on public assistance for more than 6 months in the past 3 years " question as well as a constituonal test would work, i.e. "The 2nd amendment was written to give civilians the right to keep and bear arms: True or False" You say false, fuck off to the congo.
I think the right to vote should be divided up based on issues. Are you not a business owner? Then you don't get to decide the rules businesses abide by. Are you not a worker? Then you don't get to decide the rules workers abide by. Are you not a soldier? Then you don't get to decide anything involving foreign policy.
You can then break it down further than that. If you're not a farmer, you don't get a say in farming regulations, retail for retail regulations, etc. The devil is in the details of course and you'll run into the problem of who gets to decide who is doing the deciding in each particular case, but it makes the relevancy of the vote less ambiguous and prevents people who don't bear the costs from having a say in policy.
I don't feel confident saying that as a statement is applicable to the entire world, but I'm definitely leaving it up to 'is possibly true'. The best form of government is one which upholds individual rights, and more importantly, is oriented towards Justice and Truth. Various cultures may or may not be best suited to modeling themselves in this way via monarchy.
You're getting downvoted, but I don't think everyone needs the right to vote. Unless you have an actual stake in the election and you benefit the country somehow (you're a land owner, business owner, etc), you're probably just gonna look for handouts with each election. Does that make sense?
Wives' votes are most likely going to be a duplicate of her husband's, and 3rd generation Welfare Bums are going to vote in their best interest regardless of gender. So, there should be certain stipulations in who decides the outcome of our elections. The fact that there are almost ZERO stipulations is what's causing problems in this country.
I'm saying this as a woman, by the way.
What was the line about the government realizing they can bribe and buy the populace with their own money.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler
I don't know, I could see the argument that we are going from apathy to dependence. We're not entirely dependent on our government yet. At least not compared to say European countries.
^ You are here
We need to fix this shit somehow, but any force given will be multiplied and directed towards making the country sink faster. Can we start a new United States?
You may be thinking of these two quotes:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
This page talks about their origins, if interested.
I like the idea of a civics test. It's directly related to the thing you're going to vote on so it makes sense. It doesn't even need to be that hard - maybe a 5th or 6th grade level - just enough so that we know you don't think government is a magical fairy who operates on hopes and wishes. That would disqualify a lot of people, thankfully.
I think any relevant test would have to include whether they understand that this country is supposed to be a bunch of independent states and a federal government all acting as a check against each other to ensure none of them gets too powerful. I find that is the single more misunderstood component of American civics.
The problem with that is that with the current corporate oligarchs there will be pushes for structuring in policy to make sure only they and their circle can vote. Suddenly you would see a bunch of legislation calling for multiple "stimulus " payments that magically target and match average regional tax payments for certain voting demographics.
I agree with it as a test, but it can't be the only one. I think a "are you or have you been on public assistance for more than 6 months in the past 3 years " question as well as a constituonal test would work, i.e. "The 2nd amendment was written to give civilians the right to keep and bear arms: True or False" You say false, fuck off to the congo.
This is a great idea.
Especially when you realize 47% of the population pays zero to negative income tax.
They don't fund government, so why should they get to decide how government spends money?
Well the government doesn't run off income tax. The whole system is simply a wealth transfer; the top 50% pay in, that money goes to the bottom 50%.
I think the right to vote should be divided up based on issues. Are you not a business owner? Then you don't get to decide the rules businesses abide by. Are you not a worker? Then you don't get to decide the rules workers abide by. Are you not a soldier? Then you don't get to decide anything involving foreign policy.
You can then break it down further than that. If you're not a farmer, you don't get a say in farming regulations, retail for retail regulations, etc. The devil is in the details of course and you'll run into the problem of who gets to decide who is doing the deciding in each particular case, but it makes the relevancy of the vote less ambiguous and prevents people who don't bear the costs from having a say in policy.
Voting has never been a right. Voting is always a privilege.
It would be infinitely preferable to live under an emperor who upheld actual rights than an elected tyranny, would it not?
I don't feel confident saying that as a statement is applicable to the entire world, but I'm definitely leaving it up to 'is possibly true'. The best form of government is one which upholds individual rights, and more importantly, is oriented towards Justice and Truth. Various cultures may or may not be best suited to modeling themselves in this way via monarchy.