If you could make ONE change to this country... [Archive]

a0cake

10-03-12, 16:58

Add philosophy classes to the middle-school and high-school curriculum in public schools. There is no better way to sharpen the mind than to rigorously dissect and criticize philosophy. Philosophy majors consistently post the highest test-scores to post-graduate programs. College should not be the first time students are introduced to the discipline.

If you want a higher level of discourse in this country, an overall higher level of demonstrated intelligence, and a marked decrease in the incidence of dumbassery -- teaching kids to analyze philosophy using both formal and informal logic is the way to do it.

Fix the fundamental disease of stupidity in this country by teaching young minds HOW to think rather than what to think, and a vast majority of symptoms will work themselves out in short order.

If I could only do one thing, it would be this, because the benefits of having a populace that can think clearly and logically will spill over into every facet of life.

Failure2Stop

10-03-12, 17:01

Fix the fundamental disease of stupidity in this country by teaching young minds HOW to think rather than what to think, and a vast majority of symptoms will work themselves out in short order.

That's pretty good too.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

ForTehNguyen

10-03-12, 17:11

to obey the Constitution's original intent forever and always. Everything good comes as a result of this, theres nothing else to wish for.

Denali

10-03-12, 17:57

Battle*Hound

10-03-12, 18:06

Require serious ongoing inquiries regarding each and every person who is receiving welfare. Set limits to that welfare on a case by case basis, with very very strict rules and requirements. Allow not one single illegal alien to receive any kind of U.S. Govmnt benefits. Punish any who abuse the system because it is fraud and theft. Discontinue any further welfare payments to that individual for the term of their life. Be sure to help those who need help and be sure to allow every lazy twentysomething pos who would rather not work, to starve to death.

Redmanfms

10-03-12, 18:15

I'm sorry, but I have several things that need changing, first off any senator, or congressman who is guilty of political corruption pays with there lives, automatic death penalty for those who are convicted of corruption, no exceptions!

Secondly, those same august representatives of humanity, may not exclude themselves from the laws that they intend to enact, they pass a law, they are subject to it!

Lastly, and most importantly, I would ensure that the press remain fair & balanced by subjecting them to the exact same penalties for political corruption, as those meted out to corrupt senators & congressman...

To hell with the the 8th Amendment.............. I'm OUTRAAAAAAGGGGGGEEEEEDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!

Keep it cranked to 11 dude.

I wouldn't change much. A0cake's philosophy idea isn't half bad. I'd add that 10 credits of calculus and at least 6 credits of economics/statistics be required of all diplomas at a school in order for it to receive accreditation.

citizensoldier16

10-03-12, 18:35

a0cake

10-03-12, 18:38

a0cake

10-03-12, 18:45

In the realm of politics, I think Neil Degrasse Tyson makes an extremely good point here (yes, it's on Bill Maher's show -- I don't like him either -- whatever)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSJFbOfA4SE&feature=related

Voodoo_Man

10-03-12, 18:46

Emphasis on hard work and self reliance.

Delete any, and all gov support for the individual tax payer.

It will suck for a few years, but then WIN.

chadbag

10-03-12, 18:52

A strong and independent judiciary that is skeptical of new laws and adheres to the intent of the Constitution.

The philosophy idea is a good idea too. But you need check's and balances so you have to have a better informed electorate as well as checks on power and ability to put in bad laws.

--

Caeser25

10-03-12, 18:54

I was going to say being a landowner as a requirement to vote but we've all seen the force of the government has has on the banks to force banks to lend money to unqualified people. Maybe making losing ones right to vote when receiving any form of compensation from the government: welfare, food stamps, social security, Medicare, employed by a company that gets government contracts, etc.

I like aocakes idea, and the idea of abolishing the fed, but once the treasury can bribe voters with other taxpayers money all is lost.

Abraxas

10-03-12, 19:07

Redmanfms

10-03-12, 19:08

I don't know why you guys are all raging against the politicians. I'm not an apologist for our "leaders" any more than most of you are, but I have to say that I think you're missing the point.

What we need is a better electorate and some better journalists. A political arena with more educated voters who value and demand nuanced and erudite articulations of policy propositions will self select worthy politicians.

You're trying to fix the problem backwards.

On that front the Founders were already ahead of the game, they limited franchise. Getting an entire body politic "up to snuff" as it were just isn't possible. Most people are profoundly stupid, and no amount of education will change that. The Founders recognized this fact so they limited franchise to the best metric they thought would prove capability to render rational decisions, property ownership. In the days when property had to be revenue generating, those who were stupid or ignorant wouldn't remain property owners for very long.

That isn't likely to work today. I generally favor military service being required for franchise, not so much because military men are smarter than average (though in my experience they are), but because they have shown they are willing to sacrifice for the body politic. They've also learned to suck eggs, something lacking in the last several generations of Americans.

I would be open to some other metric.

And while I appreciate the study of philosophy and would see younger people exposed to it just because, given how well American teachers teach mathematics which is completely black and white with no interpretation allowed, I wouldn't hold out much hope for them being able to teach something as intellectually complex of philosophy. Honestly, I think the thing that would engender the biggest change in the electorate would be requiring all students regardless of diploma program take home economics in high school.

a0cake

10-03-12, 19:37

I would be open to some other metric.

And while I appreciate the study of philosophy and would see younger people exposed to it just because, given how well American teachers teach mathematics which is completely black and white with no interpretation allowed, I wouldn't hold out much hope for them being able to teach something as intellectually complex of philosophy. Honestly, I think the thing that would engender the biggest change in the electorate would be requiring all students regardless of diploma program take home economics in high school.

I'm of the position that if you're an American citizen, you ought to have the right to vote. Period.

It might seem expedient or practical to institute some kind of qualification, but it destroys the very premise of the entire enterprise.

One citizen / one vote cannot be encroached upon. We need to develop another way to solve our problems; that option is off the table. If we suffer for it, then so be it. It's what gives our system legitimacy, no matter how imperfect.

The second American Citizens are denied the right to vote because of a lack of land ownership or military service or whatever else, is the point where a red line is crossed for me and I start organizing direct action. Others have enumerated their red lines -- that's mine (not including felons, minors, etc.)

Redmanfms

10-03-12, 20:00

I'm of the position that if you're an American citizen, you ought to have the right to vote. Period.

It might seem expedient or practical to institute some kind of qualification, but it destroys the very premise of the entire enterprise.

One citizen / one vote cannot be encroached upon. We need to develop another way to solve our problems; that option is off the table. If we suffer for it, then so be it. It's what gives our system legitimacy, no matter how imperfect.

The second American Citizens are denied the right to vote because of a lack of land ownership or military service or whatever else, is the point where a red line is crossed for me and I start organizing direct action. Others have enumerated their red lines -- that's mine (not including felons, minors, etc.)

And therein lies the trap of mob democracy.

Voting isn't a right, it is a privilege of citizenship. We provide restrictions on other privileges of citizenship (notably holding public office), I fail to see the difference in voting. It's really telling to me that even though you threaten violence if your "red line" is crossed, you placed caveats on it nonetheless.

a0cake

10-03-12, 20:29

And therein lies the trap of mob democracy.

Voting isn't a right, it is a privilege of citizenship. We provide restrictions on other privileges of citizenship (notably holding public office), I fail to see the difference in voting. It's really telling to me that even though you threaten violence if your "red line" is crossed, you placed caveats on it nonetheless.

It's different because voting is THE means by which citizens exercise political power. Citizens that cannot run for public office are still enfranchised through voting -- without it, they are not citizens, they're completely disenfranchised subjects.

I also don't see the problem with how I qualified my red-line position. Babies, felons, people in comas, etc., cannot vote and for good reason. Why on earth would it have to be all or nothing? This is what I'm talking about when I speak about the ability to deal in nuance.

TAZ

10-03-12, 21:34

It's different because voting is THE means by which citizens exercise political power. Citizens that cannot run for public office are still enfranchised through voting -- without it, they are not citizens, they're completely disenfranchised subjects.

Who often turn to desperation after feeling like they are being raped by those who can voice their political opinion via a vote. Just think.... Most if not all Americans feel disenfranchised to a certain degree simply because they don't feel like their one vote means much in the giant vat of votes. Take that "meaningless" vote away and the apathy will eventually turn into anger.

IMO the biggest thing that the USA needs a a serious dismantling of the federal government. 90%+ of the things the federal government involves itself in should be handled at a much lower level of government. The lower you push the issues the more meaningful elections become to people. Their vote now means more and chasing down the meaning of the issues is also much easier.

Bolt_Overide

10-03-12, 22:26

any sort of welfare is limited to 6 months, excepting disability.

If you cannot get your shit together in 6 months, you are on your own.

And if you have children (IE welfare moms with 16 kids and no daddy around), they are placed by the state in a home that will actually give them a chance to be something more than a drain on society.

SMETNA

10-03-12, 22:32

Limit federal government spending to:

5% of GDP on military during times of no declared war.
5% of GDP on other stuff.]

Either that, or:

A constitutional amendment that says something to the effect of:

"No private central bank shall have the authority to create money, set interest rates, or absorb government debt via creating money at the governments request. The U.S. Treasury is the only legitimate institution that has the power to create and regulate paper or digital dollars. Those dollars must be backed by a precious metal, redeemable on demand by any person in possession of them, whether in physical or virtual form."

scottryan

10-03-12, 22:42

I'm of the position that if you're an American citizen, you ought to have the right to vote. Period.

A citizen does not have a right to vote in a federal election per the constitution of the united states.

Why do you think that is?

Senators were originally appointed by the states, not elected by the people. Why do you think that was?

Only educated, land owning, tax paying citizen were allowed to vote when the country was founded. Why do you think that was?

scottryan

10-03-12, 22:44

Only people than own land and work (pay both property and income taxes) should have the right to vote.

After this happens, everything else will work out because all the liberal edicts we live under will be repealed with the people that are sent to DC.

VIP3R 237

10-03-12, 23:59

I would implement strict term limits for ALL elected politicians, from the federal level down to the local level. America is being raped by professional politicians who are only interested in being re-elected. Their decisions are not made on whats best for our nation, but whats best to get votes in the ballot box.

I agree with this whole heartedly. Most professional politicians have long passed their prime in trying to do better for america. Now its all about pleasing the special interest groups and such.

Redmanfms

10-04-12, 00:39

It's different because voting is THE means by which citizens exercise political power. Citizens that cannot run for public office are still enfranchised through voting -- without it, they are not citizens, they're completely disenfranchised subjects.

I also don't see the problem with how I qualified my red-line position. Babies, felons, people in comas, etc., cannot vote and for good reason. Why on earth would it have to be all or nothing? This is what I'm talking about when I speak about the ability to deal in nuance.

I've always wondered about the obsession liberal arts majors (and well, liberals) have with the word "nuance." I'll give you this, at least you actually used the word correctly which I don't see very often. Rights are rights, they are not subject to abrogation. Your own "nuanced" position requires the abrogation of what you claim to be a right (which voting is not), thus invalidating your argument that it's a right in the first place.

I strongly recommend you read Locke and his Scottish Enlightenment heirs (particularly Hume and Smith), and then read the writings of the Founders (especially Jefferson and Madison) to understand why you are so desperately wrong on this issue.

ETA: It should give you pause that Karl Marx was a strong proponent of universal franchise......

Hogsgunwild

10-04-12, 01:30

Members of Congress would not earn salaries higher than the median income for their state.

This is good. Also not allow them to serve one term and then collect their exorbitant retirement for the rest of their lives. It seems like even the ones earning felonies along the way still get the free luxury ride for life deal, if I recall correctly.

a0cake

10-04-12, 01:48

I've always wondered about the obsession liberal arts majors (and well, liberals) have with the word "nuance." I'll give you this, at least you actually used the word correctly which I don't see very often. Rights are rights, they are not subject to abrogation. Your own "nuanced" position requires the abrogation of what you claim to be a right (which voting is not), thus invalidating your argument that it's a right in the first place.

I strongly recommend you read Locke and his Scottish Enlightenment heirs (particularly Hume and Smith), and then read the writings of the Founders (especially Jefferson and Madison) to understand why you are so desperately wrong on this issue.

ETA: It should give you pause that Karl Marx was a strong proponent of universal franchise......

I thought it was pretty clear that I was making a normative argument; that voting-rights should be a corollary of citizenship (with certain rational qualifications). Not trying to be a dick, but you'd think that my use of the words "ought" and "should" would make it clear that I wasn't being merely descriptive. If you want to argue that something can't simultaneously be a right and be qualified by certain restrictions, then you have all your work still ahead of you. Just because babies, felons, and people in comas, for example (not all inclusive), cannot vote, doesn't mean that voting can't be a right for those who don't fit into one of those categories. That's like saying that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a right because we don't grant it to prisoners. Don't you agree that this is something rather different than a privilege? Making voting a "right" for those who qualify makes it impossible to usurp the ability to vote past that point. Making it a privilege is saying anything goes, and whoever holds political power may decide who can vote (as you wish to do). I hold that all non-felonious and "mentally-present" adult US citizens ought to have a right to vote.

Second, I've read every relevant work by every author in your reply. I'd call it an embarrassment to be a grown-up American and not have read them. My position remains the same.

Only on M4Carbine.net can somebody suggest that all mentally competent and non-felonious citizens should be able to vote for their leaders and get criticized for it. What a trip this place is.

I should ask at this point: What is your criteria for citizens being able to vote? I don't believe you've explicitly stated one yet. Who's vote do you want to take away and why? Or -- to make the question more palatable to you: to whom do you wish to grant voting privileges?

ETA:

"I've always wondered about the obsession liberal arts majors (and well, liberals) have with the word nuance."

It's a natural push-back against the reactionary, dogmatic, and reductionist far right-wing.

Redmanfms

10-04-12, 03:22

Second, I've read every relevant work by every author in your reply. I'd call it an embarrassment to be a grown-up American and not have read them. My position remains the same.

Only on M4Carbine.net can somebody suggest that all mentally competent and non-felonious citizens should be able to vote for their leaders and get criticized for it. What a trip this place is.

I should ask at this point: What is your criteria for citizens being able to vote? I don't believe you've explicitly stated one yet. Who's vote do you want to take away and why? Or -- to make the question more palatable to you: to whom do you wish to grant voting privileges?

I did in my first response on this subject. I'd see it restricted to those who have shown they are willing to sacrifice in the interest of the body politic, namely those who've served in the military with a minimum length of service requirement. I really like Heinlein's ideas on the subject, though I'm not averse to some other method.

I'd see the metric attainable to all of sound mind and body.

ETA: I mainly posed the position because your utopian idea of lifting the electorate through education is ridiculous. Some people are simply too stupid to be trusted with the force of the vote, the Founders recognized this fact, which is why they limited franchise. I'm a bit surprised that you are shocked that there are a large number of people on this board who prefer the Founders thoughts on franchise to those of Marx.

ETA:

It's a natural push-back against the reactionary, dogmatic, and reductionist far right-wing.

:sarcastic:

Holy ****ing shit, there is no group more dogmatic and doctrinal than the left. They beat the religious in that regard.

Besides, liberals usually use the word incorrectly anyway.

M4Fundi

10-04-12, 06:21

I would change......make myself Emperor :D

Then I'd fix this place and then hand it back..... and then get tried for my warcrimes;)

ThirdWatcher

10-04-12, 07:36

Term Limits. For starters, only one six year term for POTUS.

Failure2Stop

10-04-12, 08:40

Guys, this is a fantasy thread.
Let's not get our panties too wadded up with politics, I know, a near impossibility in a Presidential Election year.
If this was a "what's one thing you would change about the AR platform?" thread, and somebody said that it should launch rabid weasels, would it evoke the same response as some are having to others' comments here?
Considering that we are all equally powerless to effect sweeping social change and a sharp turn our current trajectory toward Hades, let's at least not bicker pointlessly amongst ourselves.

nineteenkilo

10-04-12, 08:48

1. Single set term limits for the Federal Judiciary - including SCOTUS

RogerinTPA

10-04-12, 09:20

Have an oversight commission on elected officials. Anyone violating the Constitution be terminated and sent to prison for treason. :p

a0cake

10-04-12, 10:35

I'd see it restricted to those who have shown they are willing to sacrifice in the interest of the body politic, namely those who've served in the military with a minimum length of service requirement. I really like Heinlein's ideas on the subject, though I'm not averse to some other method.

So, all polemics, rhetoric, and vague language aside, you essentially want a national draft, and only those who qualify for service and do their time can vote for elected officials?

Then, on top of that, you want those people to have to solve a quadratic equation or something similar (as per Heinlein) before entering the voting booth?

Does this misrepresent your view?

ETA: You know, when you said that I ought to be cautious because my views aligned with Marx on this, I really had to laugh. So what? Your boy Heinlein was a strong supporter of a one-world government IIRC. Does that mean you throw out everything the guy ever said? Of course not. My own opinion is good enough for me, and if a part of it happens to align with some historical figure who once said something unsavory, then fine.

Voodoochild

10-04-12, 10:43

Term limits for Congress. Two terms and you are out.

TAZ

10-04-12, 11:47

I did in my first response on this subject. I'd see it restricted to those who have shown they are willing to sacrifice in the interest of the body politic, namely those who've served in the military with a minimum length of service requirement. I really like Heinlein's ideas on the subject, though I'm not averse to some other method.

I'd see the metric attainable to all of sound mind and body.

Let me see. People who don't serve in the military have no say in the policies that affect them, but have to pay 40% of their hard earned cash to support the wishes of those who did/do serve??? WTF. Didn't we have a revolution a while back partially based on a government policy of taxation without representation?? How would this be any different or do you intend to only tax voting citizens to support government programs? My guess there is probably not cause you wouldn't have any funds to even feed your men if you couldn't fleece the non voting public's wallets.

Sorry, but if you assert the power to take my earnings then I have the right to judge your use of my work via a vote. Personally I view loosing over a half a years labor to cover government taxes and fees and service charges and .... for the rest of ones life as a pretty damned big sacrifice for the body politic.

We have discussed the merits of a draft previously and my opinion on the roof stays the same. Aside from a drastic emergency ala ww3 it is nothing but a different form of slavery. Additionally, nobody ever answers the old question of how in the hell are you going to fund hundreds of thousands of young workers being removed from the work force/tax pool and put on the dole. You gonna borrow more $$ from Comrade Mao???

WRT term limits. We already have term limits. We just call them elections. If people didn't like what their reps were doing they can simply unelect them. IMO term limits wouldn't help as muscly as we think. These free loading sacks of shit are elected over and over because their constituents are too stupid to see through their BS. These people would elect a different version of the same stinky poop. The things that need to have limits are the ability for deuche bags to rob from one group and give to another.

markm

10-04-12, 12:57

Deport rob_s.

500grains

10-04-12, 12:59

Term limits for Congress. Two terms and you are out.

Warren Buffet said he could balance the budget in one Congressional term by prohibiting anyone in Congress from running for re-election while the budget is not balanced.

Hogsgunwild

10-04-12, 13:19

Have an oversight commission on elected officials. Anyone violating the Constitution be terminated and sent to prison for treason. :p

I like this as it goes hand in hand with an issue that I almost brought up but did not due to my feeling that I am in fantasy land to think that we could really make a dent in the issue of corruption in our government. Fighting the oceans of money from special interest groups of large corporations, unions, etc seems almost futile.

As several here have already alluded to, if we went back enforcing the Contstitution, it could keep the myriads of manipulated legislation in check.

chadbag

10-04-12, 15:05

WRT term limits. We already have term limits. We just call them elections. If people didn't like what their reps were doing they can simply unelect them. IMO term limits wouldn't help as muscly as we think. These free loading sacks of shit are elected over and over because their constituents are too stupid to see through their BS. These people would elect a different version of the same stinky poop. The things that need to have limits are the ability for deuche bags to rob from one group and give to another.

Sorry, but this is false. The idea that people would elect a different version of the same stinky poop. For one big reason: the types of people who would even run when the most they could be there is 2 terms -- 4 years for HOR -- would be a totally different pool of candidates. When you cannot make a career out of it, it becomes more a sacrifice for service to the country and your district and that would attract a different pool of candidates than you currently get. I am not saying they would be better candidates -- I don't know. But if I had to put money down, I would put it down on a better group of candidates as a whole.

You will still get some who try and make a career out of it by going from HOR to SENATE to whatever. You need to make it that you get X terms in Congress, combines between HOR and SENATE. And a block on being appointed to czar/cabinet (including under secretaries etc) positions for X years after serving, similar to some prohibitions on lobbying etc after service that have been floated.

----

Redmanfms

10-04-12, 15:50

So, all polemics, rhetoric, and vague language aside, you essentially want a national draft, and only those who qualify for service and do their time can vote for elected officials?

Then, on top of that, you want those people to have to solve a quadratic equation or something similar (as per Heinlein) before entering the voting booth?

Does this misrepresent your view?

ETA: You know, when you said that I ought to be cautious because my views aligned with Marx on this, I really had to laugh. So what? Your boy Heinlein was a strong supporter of a one-world government IIRC. Does that mean you throw out everything the guy ever said? Of course not. My own opinion is good enough for me, and if a part of it happens to align with some historical figure who once said something unsavory, then fine.

No, military service would still be voluntary, I never said anything about a draft. Yes, by definition military service would be limited to those with sound mind and body (as it basically is today), that is precisely the point of using military service as the metric for earning franchise. One, volunteering for service indicates that one is willing to potentially sacrifice one's life for the body politic, theoretically weeding out those whose only interest in the political process is selfish; two, the military selection process weeds out those not of sound mind or body. I really haven't given poll testing much thought. Of the top of my head that actually doesn't seem like a bad idea, though I'd make it something everyone who graduated high school should know, something like balancing an equation or finding the missing length/angle in a triangle.

It really isn't as if your views on this subject are actually all that terribly different than my own, as you would see franchise limited only to those whom you see fit to wield it.

Re, Marx: You hold more than a few views that are simpatico with his philosophy. Much of what you have displayed as your worldview is compatible the 19th Century intellectual fathers of 20th Century totalitarianism.

TAZ, in my "perfect world" there would be no income tax. We would see the government returned to its constitutional limitations, an attainable metric would be applied in order to earn franchise (I honestly don't really care what it is, military service just seems the most realistic).

Universal franchise has always ended poorly historically, the Founders knew this. Even the Marxists knew/know this, they would (and have) use this fact for their own ends and in those ends become entirely undemocratic, removing liberty altogether. In theory, liberty is only reattained once the God-state has suitably improved man (another idea you share with these 19th Century totalitarian thinkers a0cake, the lifting of man) and the function of the state is no longer needed.

This conversation really isn't going to go anywhere at this point. The "I'm going to start killing if my way isn't met" declaration of action has already been made (which is ironically a profoundly reactionary impulse :sarcastic:), making rational discussion essentially impossible.

ETA: Heinlein's views on transnationalism remained changed through is life. He was a proponent of it in his early writings (when, it should be noted, he was a fairly left-wing liberal), and became gradually more hostile. Privately he seemed to despise it once his sea-change in worldview occurred. In his fiction he seemed to use it as a pragmatist back drop to the future world(s) toward the end.

glocktogo

10-04-12, 15:52

I thought it was pretty clear that I was making a normative argument; that voting-rights should be a corollary of citizenship (with certain rational qualifications). Not trying to be a dick, but you'd think that my use of the words "ought" and "should" would make it clear that I wasn't being merely descriptive. If you want to argue that something can't simultaneously be a right and be qualified by certain restrictions, then you have all your work still ahead of you. Just because babies, felons, and people in comas, for example (not all inclusive), cannot vote, doesn't mean that voting can't be a right for those who don't fit into one of those categories. That's like saying that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a right because we don't grant it to prisoners. Don't you agree that this is something rather different than a privilege? Making voting a "right" for those who qualify makes it impossible to usurp the ability to vote past that point. Making it a privilege is saying anything goes, and whoever holds political power may decide who can vote (as you wish to do). I hold that all non-felonious and "mentally-present" adult US citizens ought to have a right to vote.

Second, I've read every relevant work by every author in your reply. I'd call it an embarrassment to be a grown-up American and not have read them. My position remains the same.

Only on M4Carbine.net can somebody suggest that all mentally competent and non-felonious citizens should be able to vote for their leaders and get criticized for it. What a trip this place is.

I should ask at this point: What is your criteria for citizens being able to vote? I don't believe you've explicitly stated one yet. Who's vote do you want to take away and why? Or -- to make the question more palatable to you: to whom do you wish to grant voting privileges?

ETA:

It's a natural push-back against the reactionary, dogmatic, and reductionist far right-wing.

I'm not necessarily against letting everyone who is of voting age and not disqualified by felony, coma, etc. vote. What I'm against is the fact that it's perfectly legal for political candidates to bribe lower class citizens (and I mean class, not race, poverty, inner city, etc.) with handouts when they win the office. There should be a complete ban on telling any group that you'll dole out taxpayer funds or credits for them if they vote for you. I don't care whether it's for blacks, factories, industries, agencies, etc., it's wrong. We have a $16T debt to prove that fact. It's outright legalized bribery and it's killing us! :mad:

glocktogo

10-04-12, 15:59

Warren Buffet said he could balance the budget in one Congressional term by prohibiting anyone in Congress from running for re-election while the budget is not balanced.

Thinking like this is why Buffet is rich. :D

Redmanfms

10-04-12, 16:04

I'm not necessarily against letting everyone who is of voting age and not disqualified by felony, coma, etc. vote. What I'm against is the fact that it's perfectly legal for political candidates to bribe lower class citizens (and I mean class, not race, poverty, inner city, etc.) with handouts when they win the office. There should be a complete ban on telling any group that you'll dole out taxpayer funds or credits for them if they vote for you. I don't care whether it's for blacks, factories, industries, agencies, etc., it's wrong. We have a $16T debt to prove that fact. It's outright legalized bribery and it's killing us! :mad:

This touches on why the Founders thoroughly opposed universal franchise, they knew that given the vote, the masses would quickly realize they could use the proxy violence of the government to vote themselves other people's property. The Democrats realized this truth from the very founding of the party.

Doc Safari

10-04-12, 16:08

This touches on why the Founders thoroughly opposed universal franchise, they knew that given the vote, the masses would quickly realize they could use the proxy violence of the government to vote themselves other people's property. The Democrats realized this truth from the very founding of the party.

Here I go hijacking my own thread:

This is, in a fundamental way, the big fear of the upcoming election.

Have we reached that magic tipping point where more people have learned to vote themselves benefits than there are people to oppose it?

Redmanfms

10-04-12, 16:40

Here I go hijacking my own thread:

This is, in a fundamental way, the big fear of the upcoming election.

Have we reached that magic tipping point where more people have learned to vote themselves benefits than there are people to oppose it?

That tipping point is an inevitability given the current state of affairs. It might not be this election, but it is coming.

Actually, that could be the metric. If you are currently receiving government largess, you are removed from the rolls and forced to surrender your voter registration card until which time you are no longer "on the dole." Crap, I don't know why that never occurred to me before as I'm sure I've heard it proposed by others.

There ya go a0cake. A "third way" if you like.

lifebreath

10-04-12, 16:43

If I could change ONE thing in this country, it would be to eradicate all traces of the democratic despotism that is arising from our current devolution from a republic to a social democracy. The "despot," in our case, is Majority Rule guided by materialistic self-interest, i.e., what can I get with the least amount of effort, a growing narcissistic entitlement mentality.

Doc Safari

10-04-12, 16:46

That tipping point is an inevitability given the current state of affairs. It might not be this election, but it is coming.

Actually, that could be the metric. If you are currently receiving government largess, you are removed from the rolls and forced to surrender your voter registration card until which time you are no longer "on the dole." Crap, I don't know why that never occurred to me before as I'm sure I've heard it proposed by others.

There ya go a0cake. A "third way" if you like.

"One tax return, one vote." :jester:

We would need a way to justify "taking the vote away" from the tired, the poor, the huddled masses.

I'm thinking the only way is for things to get so bad that the people "paying" are able to elect representatives who agree that the rape of the producers has reached a point where the "haves" are being robbed into being "have-nots." In other words, we have a lot of suffering ahead.

By then, of course, the government will have gone broke anyway; the US will have collapsed like the Soviet Union, and factional tensions will have turned it into Yugoslavia.

Might be cheaper just to move to New Zealand. I understand one of the South American countries enforces either just what we're talking about, or just has such strong private property rights that it should be the envy of property owners in the US.

I can't remember which country it is, but they have a huge expatriate US population IIRC.

RogerinTPA

10-04-12, 16:58

Yes, by definition military service would be limited to those with sound mind and body (as it basically is today), that is precisely the point of using military service as the metric for earning franchise. One, volunteering for service indicates that one is willing to potentially sacrifice one's life for the body politic, theoretically weeding out those whose only interest in the political process is selfish; two, the military selection process weeds out those not of sound mind or body. I really haven't given poll testing much thought. Of the top of my head that actually doesn't seem like a bad idea, though I'd make it something everyone who graduated high school should know, something like balancing an equation or finding the missing length/angle in a triangle.

Sounds like the foundation of the society in "Starship Troopers"...Only one who has served in the military are deemed a "citizen" and has the wherewithal to be able to cast a sound and responsible vote, not that I'm disagreeing or anything.;) (but this is a fantasy thread).

SteyrAUG

10-04-12, 17:36

Here I go hijacking my own thread:

This is, in a fundamental way, the big fear of the upcoming election.

Have we reached that magic tipping point where more people have learned to vote themselves benefits than there are people to oppose it?

I think we got there a LONG time ago, under LBJ. It has simply taken this long for things to get this bad. It took a few generations for people to EXPECT and DEMAND free shit and now it is socially "wrong" to oppose giving certain "protected groups" free shit.

If irresponsible people have a bunch of kids with no realistic means of providing for them, we no longer even attempt to discourage that. We instead provide for them at the expense of more responsible people who are trying to provide for their families by taking away "their means" to do so.

This is what has happened to the middle class.