Affirm or deny: Universal suffrage is detrimental to the survival of a republic.

[keepthefaith]

5 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

You can't always blame the people, especially when the government creates an incentive program to earn more government money by having more babies out of wedlock.

 

 

When you subsidize something, you almost always get more of it. 

[Doc Brown]

The other alternatives scare the crap out of me so deny.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Do you affirm or deny that the country was more stable politically, economically and socially when the vote was restricted to landowning men than it is now?

 

 

Affirm.

Our country isn’t anything like that now and never will be. And for that reason I still deny the premise contained in your thread title.

 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

That becomes easy if we have a sensible tax structure.  That being one in which we tax consumption rather than productivity.

 

Like a VAT?

When you cut off people from the vote because they’re shiftless, you need a “social credit score system” like they have instituted in Communist China.  No thanks.

 

People don’t contribute for a myriad of reasons. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean they don’t have other moral values which do contribute to society. Cutting them out is the antithesis of inclusion.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

The elected officials in a Republic are ostensibly there to serve the citizens who elected them.

That's the seutp of a Republic.  If the officials get too despotic, then  the masses answer back by electing someone else.

In a pure sense -- I deny.

Consider:

Government, any government, is not instituted by the common man to protect his interests against the powerful and elite.

 

Government is instituted by the powerful and elite to protect their interests against the common man.

 

Democracy is especially insidious in this arrangement, as it creates in the mind of the voter a false truth that they are in charge of their destiny and life. “The forest shrunk smaller and smaller, Yet the trees continued to vote for the axe, because his handle was made from wood, and the trees believed he was one of them.”

 

In the United States there is a population of roughly 380 million people. Of those, generously speaking, only one third vote. That one third is split roughly equally between the two major parties, as two major parties have created insular law which protects them against third party participation.

 

This creates a reality in which a false-choice dilema rules supreme, and in which one sixth of the population dictates to five sixths of the population how they will live.

 

 The system is designed to be despotic.

 

Stop voting for the axe.

[snafu]

26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Consider:

Government, any government, is not instituted by the common man to protect his interests against the powerful and elite.

 

Government is instituted by the powerful and elite to protect their interests against the common man.

 

Democracy is especially insidious in this arrangement, as it creates in the mind of the voter a false truth that they are in charge of their destiny and life. “The forest shrunk smaller and smaller, Yet the trees continued to vote for the axe, because his handle was made from wood, and the trees believed he was one of them.”

 

In the United States there is a population of roughly 380 million people. Of those, generously speaking, only one third vote. That one third is split roughly equally between the two major parties, as two major parties have created insular law which protects them against third party participation.

 

This creates a reality in which a false-choice dilema rules supreme, and in which one sixth of the population dictates to five sixths of the population how they will live.

 

 The system is designed to be despotic.

 

Stop voting for the axe.

 

You and I are going to have to disagree on this, which is fine by me.

I see the representative democracy we live in as a contract among people.  Not every agreement is perfectly representative of any single contracting person’s voice or conscience. As long as the end result is less repression and more freedom, I’m okay with that.

 

Government isn’t necessarily instituted by the corrupt, but more often than not, it is co-opted by the corrupt, and regular people let it happen.  I think that’s a problem as much as you think it is a problem. It isn’t a failure of how the system is set up, it is a failing of people as a collective group to participate, buy in, keep the contract alive, and accept the minority voices.

 

The forest should never shrink, like government should never grow.  I’m sure we agree on that. Axes shouldn’t go around selling themselves as parts of trees, that’s a failing of both the axe for being false, and of the trees for being lazy.

 

As for your 1/6th issue, it seems that in order for our representative democracy to work better it needs to allow more voices, not fewer — and that’s why I deny the original premise.

 

I want to say that it seems as though you see each individual as so unique that a system in which compromise is necessary stifles each person’s true, pure voice and therefore oppresses everyone.  If what I take from your post is true, then I believe you’re failing to see that individuals can and do have common morals and goals for they way they want to live their lives.  There exist (mainly) common social mores.  Why not exploit those when forming and maintaining a government?  As I said, in a pure sense, that’s the way a republic should work.  The commonalities are few enough to keep government small, if people don’t allow it to over-expand. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

50 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Like a VAT?

When you cut off people from the vote because they’re shiftless, you need a “social credit score system” like they have instituted in Communist China.  No thanks.

 

People don’t contribute for a myriad of reasons. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean they don’t have other moral values which do contribute to society. Cutting them out is the antithesis of inclusion.  

Inclusion isn't a virtue unto itself.

[snafu]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Inclusion isn't a virtue unto itself.

 

Exclusion is oppression. 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Exclusion is oppression. 

 

 

Is it though? As it is, more than half of eligible voters don't vote 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

You can't always blame the people, especially when the government creates an incentive program to earn more government money by having more babies out of wedlock.

 

Who voted the politicians in who created those policies?

[snafu]

8 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Is it though? As it is, more than half of eligible voters don't vote 

 

You’re talking about two different things. One is that you propose to exclude burdensome individuals from voting.  

The other is that you bring up people who voluntarily exclude themselves from voting. Big difference.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

You’re talking about two different things. One is that you propose to exclude burdensome individuals from voting.  

The other is that you bring up people who voluntarily exclude themselves from voting. Big difference.

 

 

Point is, there is a large portion of society who don't understand the workings of government and who don't have a stake in its success that are still allowed to vote, and benefit off the efforts of those who do.its immoral.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Point is, there is a large portion of society who don't understand the workings of government and who don't have a stake in its success that are still allowed to vote, and benefit off the efforts of those who do.its immoral.

 

That’s not what you said earlier.  You said that freeloaders vote to keep the freeloading-enablers in office.  I’d say that’s a pretty good understanding of the workings of government, and I’d say they do have a stake in its success — the way they see success. Get the people to fit the system. Don’t alter the system to fit an elitist attitude, or at least an attitude that isn’t consistent with yours.

 

There’s already a remedy to deal with cheats:  investigate them and enforce the laws of restitution and imprisonment. Or, alternatively, take out social programs and  most taxes. 

I deny. 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

58 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Exclusion is oppression. 

 

Participation by those with no stake in costs, or with no skin in the game militarily is oppression.

[SectionC3]

3 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Anyone who consumes more tax dollars than they send off to the government. Anyone who outsources the care of his or her children to child welfare rather than taking responsibility for them. Anyone who hasn't contributed to the improvement of the nation in any way. You know, like Joe  Biden.

 

 

So, by your logic Donald Trump is a free loader.  Costs us millions to play golf but pays only a pittance in taxes.

18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Participation by those with no stake in costs, or with no skin in the game militarily is oppression.

Hmmm ...  looks like kids can’t participate in democracy by your logic.  Hope they don’t offer opinions between now and November.  

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Ok, you defend wife beaters and rapists.  

Hoax.   For a guy who is the intellectual standard bearer of a community, even one as poorly educated as the alt wrong, you just aren’t very bright.  I’ve noticed you tend to make a lot of stuff up.  This guy is a communist, that guy is a pedophile.  It’s very hoaxy of you. 

[Wacka]

 

[Wacka]

IMHO, C section  will commit hari-kari when Trump is re-elected. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Wacka

[GG]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.   For a guy who is the intellectual standard bearer of a community, even one as poorly educated as the alt wrong, you just aren’t very bright.  I’ve noticed you tend to make a lot of stuff up.  This guy is a communist, that guy is a pedophile.  It’s very hoaxy of you. 

 

Or they could be all of the above, and you celebrate them.  And you encourage others to do the same.  History judges people like you.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Participation by those with no stake in costs, or with no skin in the game militarily is oppression.

 

I’m not going to ascribe motivation on people.  I just believe that more is better when it comes to voting. Do I want voters to be serious? Of course. And everyone has a stake in the cost of the results whether they choose to vote or not; whether they’re eligible to vote, or not.

 

26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

But if that’s the type of accusation to which you must resort when someone has a point of view different from yours, so be it.

 

I’ve been disagreeing with Tasker this whole thread and he’s treated me admirably.