View Full Version : 5 Basic Questions For Non Libertarians...
1. Do you believe the government has your best interest in mind when they regulate banks and Wall Street?
2. Do you agree that the government should be able to seize private property from citizens because they failed to pay for mandated government services in the form of property taxes?
3. Do you think a person who is not incarcerated should be allowed to vote Republican in an election, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
4. Given that horses and buggies are generally more difficult to operate and control than modern vehicles, why should the government be able to dictate who can operate one when they never did for the other?
5. Why should we spend money on countries that never truly help us in times of war when that money could be much better spent here?
1. Do you believe the government has your best interest in mind when they regulate banks and Wall Street?
No
2. Do you agree that the government should be able to seize private property from citizens because they failed to pay for mandated government services in the form of property taxes?
No
3. Do you think a person who is not incarcerated should be allowed to vote Republican in an election, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
No, there are those that are on parole or other partial release status where they have not paid their entire debt to society. Aslo others may owe fines not fully paid. Debt must be paid 100% at which point they become "created equal" again so to speak
4. Given that horses and buggies are generally more difficult to operate and control than modern vehicles, why should the government be able to dictate who can operate one when they never did for the other?
C. Because it's difficult to get a horse and buggy up to a 140mph? ( they say always pick C )
5. Why should we spend money on countries that never truly help us in times of war when that money could be much better spent here?
I'll go with the "much better spent here" option
.........
.........
So if you take out a loan for school, a car, or a house, you cannot vote? There goes like 99% of America.
So if you take out a loan for school, a car, or a house, you cannot vote? There goes like 99% of America.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about fines and debt that are imposed as a result of sentence for criminal activity.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about fines and debt that are imposed as a result of sentence for criminal activity.
Oh ok. In that case I also pretty much agree with everything he said.
Especially 4. Stick 5 people in a 100 mph 3 ton brick of metal with flammable liquids and you can do a lot more damage than a guy on a horse.
1... I actually think they do have my best interests in mind. But are they going about it the right way? Maybe.
Especially 4. Stick 5 people in a 100 mph 3 ton brick of metal with flammable liquids and you can do a lot more damage than a guy on a horse.
Wasn't a horse, but a horse (often as many as 4) and carriage. Which do you think the average person can better control?
And I'm really not trying to argue any of these points, just offering some alternative perspective to ponder.
Yes, I meant someone previously convicted and I assume he meant a felony type situation.
Also agree on the best interest but that goes hand in hand with any implementation.
I could tell you I am going to plant a money tree in your back yard but I really can't make it happen.
Which do you think the average person can better control?
That doesn't remove the disparity in the danger aspect nor teh sheer number of units. There are few regulations for boats for that reason. They are not exactly easy to operate and they can be dangerous. Cars, trucks, roads are just a different realm.
Wasn't a horse, but a horse (often as many as 4) and carriage. Which do you think the average person can better control?
And I'm really not trying to argue any of these points, just offering some alternative perspective to ponder.
Cars are easier to control than motorcycles, but motorcycles have lower insurance. Again it's because the damage they can cause, not necessarily the chance of damage happening. Even if you put an equally priced bike and car, the car will have higher insurance if the drivers are relatively the same (gender, location, age, accident history, etc).
I find it odd that foreign aid accounts for only around 1% of the budget -- yep, that's right, ONE PERCENT -- and people take such huge issue with it.
Do you have any idea what we get in return? The ROI is massive. Stopping foreign aid, or even significantly curtailing it, would be a disaster in the mid to long term.
I find it odd that foreign aid accounts for only around 1% of the budget -- yep, that's right, ONE PERCENT -- and people take such huge issue with it.
Do you have any idea what we get in return? The ROI is massive. Stopping foreign aid, or even significantly curtailing it, would be a disaster in the mid to long term.
For a second there I read that as "Do you have any idea what we get in rectum?"
I find it odd that foreign aid accounts for only around 1% of the budget -- yep, that's right, ONE PERCENT -- and people take such huge issue with it.
Do you have any idea what we get in return? The ROI is massive. Stopping foreign aid, or even significantly curtailing it, would be a disaster in the mid to long term.
Not all foreign aid is equal. There are some things we could stop and no one would be the wiser (except the recipient) and there would be no mid or long term disasters, or short term ones. Other aid is probably more in line with what you say.
--
I find it odd that foreign aid accounts for only around 1% of the budget -- yep, that's right, ONE PERCENT -- and people take such huge issue with it.
Do you have any idea what we get in return? The ROI is massive. Stopping foreign aid, or even significantly curtailing it, would be a disaster in the mid to long term.
But that's not how the question was worded. "much better spent".
Sort of like continuing to repair an old car that nickle and dimes you to death, or paying an IT guy $100hr to replace a $250 motherboard when you can just go buy a new $300 computer. If the money can be "much better spent" the possibility exists that a situation might come about where the needed aide might come from another source.
If the ROI is massive then maybe the money can't be spent much better. I know it's a small percentage but no, I don't know what we get in return.
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 21:46
I find it odd that foreign aid accounts for only around 1% of the budget -- yep, that's right, ONE PERCENT -- and people take such huge issue with it.
Do you have any idea what we get in return? The ROI is massive. Stopping foreign aid, or even significantly curtailing it, would be a disaster in the mid to long term.
Everybody says this or variations of it...like it's only a drop in the bucket. Yet the unwillingness to act on all these drops makes for an overflowing bucket.
1% is still is 36 billion a year....putting it into context.
Everybody says this or variations of it...like it's only a drop in the bucket. Yet the unwillingness to act on all these drops makes for an overflowing bucket.
1% is still is 36 billion a year....putting it into context.
Don't strawman me. I explicitly said that foreign-aid provides a return and doesn't just disappear into an abyss. I'll give you one example:
Recently, for the first time ever, Africa became the recipient of more foreign investment than assistance, with many of these investors being US firms. Something like 6 or 7 of the world's top 10 fastest growing economies are African countries.
How did we get here?
Well, US foreign aid has directly put 40-50 million African children in school over the past few decades. 8 Million HIV/AIDS patients receive treatment compared to less than 500,000 10 years ago. Many parts of Africa are now functioning and able to participate in the world-economy as a direct result of US foreign aid.
This is the sort of hard to quantify but very real benefit that comes from foreign-assistance. The program is not perfect, but the fact that it is so often singled out and criticized when the initial investment is so small and the return so large, is ridiculous.
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 22:04
Investment? Whats their stock name?
I don't care about Africa.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=china+becomes+africa%27s+biggest+trading+partner
Let China invest in Africa. :)
Investment? Whats their stock name?
I don't care about Africa.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=china+becomes+africa%27s+biggest+trading+partner
Let China invest in Africa. :)
China is doing more trade precisely because of their foreign-assistance programs. They're working on various infrastructure programs like building bridges and roads, as well as providing scholarships for thousands of Africans to get a university education. In return, they get access to national resources, mainly rare minerals for microchip production.
China's winning the scramble for African resources because of the projects they're funding in Africa, and you want to use this as evidence that the US is providing too much funding to Africa? And you're simultaneously claiming not to care about the African market? How does any of this make sense? Do you think the US can just pull in behind its borders and prosper?
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 22:41
No I am saying with deficits here at home being well over a trillion dollars every little bit counts, and although it would be great to increase our trade relations with other countries we are going to do more long term harm to the US than it's worth spending money on.
China can invest in Africa because they aren't paying almost 500 billion a year just on debt interest, and don't have trillion dollar yearly deficits.
Alright, well what I'm saying is that there is plenty to cut without focusing, as so many do, on a program with potential to provide long-term returns, as well as strategic advantage and geopolitical power. The foreign-assistance program is far from useless. With so much positively useless spending, it's simply not prudent to focus on a program that constitutes 1% of the budget and benefits the country over the long-term.
If foreign-aid provided us nothing in return, I might be inclined to accept your "every drop counts" argument.
PS. The italic investment in my original reply was accidentally left in after rewording the post, so you can stop being a smartass any time now.
Alright, well what I'm saying is that there is plenty to cut without focusing, as so many do, on a program with potential to provide long-term returns, as well as strategic advantage and geopolitical power. The foreign-assistance program is far from useless. With so much positively useless spending, it's simply not prudent to focus on a program that constitutes 1% of the budget and benefits the country over the long-term.
If foreign-aid provided us nothing in return, I might be inclined to accept your "every drop counts" argument.
PS. The italic investment in my original reply was accidentally left in after rewording the post, so you can stop being a smartass any time now.
Do you think we need as many oconus bases as we currently do, ignoring Afghanistan for now since those are mostly going away soonish.
Do you think we need as many oconus bases as we currently do, ignoring Afghanistan for now since those are mostly going away soonish.
Hell f***ing no, I sure don't. But as you know, that's something else entirely than the foreign-aid we're talking about. And it's one of the areas that desperately needs to get cut.
Belmont31R
11-13-12, 23:00
WASHINGTON, May 30 — President Bush called Wednesday for Congress to spend $30 billion to fight global AIDS over the next five years, a near doubling of financing that is part of a White House effort to burnish Mr. Bush’s humanitarian credentials before he meets leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized nations next week.
The initiative, if approved, would build on a program that grew out of the president’s 2003 State of the Union address, when he asked for $15 billion over five years for prevention, treatment and care of AIDS patients in developing countries. Congress approved more than $18 billion, but the program is set to expire next year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/washington/31prexy.html
Kinda depends on what type of foreign aid you are talking about... Stuff that directly leads to our benefit is ok. Stuff to send tax dollars over there because they are disease ridden is not.
Hell f***ing no, I sure don't. But as you know, that's something else entirely than the foreign-aid we're talking about. And it's one of the areas that desperately needs to get cut.
What about military aid for Pakistan?
For Egypt?
For Israel?
----
Hell f***ing no, I sure don't. But as you know, that's something else entirely than the foreign-aid we're talking about. And it's one of the areas that desperately needs to get cut.
I concur! Unsurprisingly.
What about military aid for Pakistan?
For Egypt?
For Israel?
----
I don't have the time to write in depth (the Middle East is my field of study), but any military-aid at all to these three countries in particular (never mind even discussing dollar amounts) needs to be contingent on certain behaviors and based on quantifiable metrics.
The basic parameters would be as follows:
Pakistan - End ISI support for Lashkar-e-Taiba. Stop lending support to the Haqqani's and Taliban. Assert authority via military action in the FATA in order to reduce cross-border attacks on CF in eastern Afghanistan.
Israel - Settlement freeze and initiation of phased withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, leading to the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
Egypt - Conditional on improved human rights situation under Morsi government. Even then, they would need to show how they will increase efficiency. Our USAID program for the import of US goods and $151 million dollar package for modernization of their real-estate finance market have been largely ineffective. Egypt is the most complicated case. It's tempting to say cut off aid altogether, but anyone who studies the middle east knows that "so goes Egypt, so goes the Arab world." They unfortunately need to be worked with, even if it requires more compromise than we'd like.
I find it odd that foreign aid accounts for only around 1% of the budget -- yep, that's right, ONE PERCENT -- and people take such huge issue with it.
Do you have any idea what we get in return? The ROI is massive. Stopping foreign aid, or even significantly curtailing it, would be a disaster in the mid to long term.
Yet that 1% translates into a lot of money that could be put to better use in most cases. And it isn't that we give foreign aid, it's we give a LOT of foreign aid to people we shouldn't.
And in more than a few cases it amounts to "protection money" to pay bad people to not cause problems and we shouldn't do that.
Don't strawman me. I explicitly said that foreign-aid provides a return and doesn't just disappear into an abyss.
Not in every case.
Quite often it is wasted. Quite often it is used in ways we never intended. And sometimes it is actually used against us.
I don't have the time to write in depth (the Middle East is my field of study), but any military-aid at all to these three countries in particular (never mind even discussing dollar amounts) needs to be contingent on certain behaviors and based on quantifiable metrics.
The basic parameters would be as follows:
Pakistan - End ISI support for Lashkar-e-Taiba. Stop lending support to the Haqqani's and Taliban. Assert authority via military action in the FATA in order to reduce cross-border attacks on CF in eastern Afghanistan.
Israel - Settlement freeze and initiation of phased withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, leading to the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
Egypt - Conditional on improved human rights situation under Morsi government. Even then, they would need to show how they will increase efficiency. Our USAID program for the import of US goods and $151 million dollar package for modernization of their real-estate finance market have been largely ineffective. Egypt is the most complicated case. It's tempting to say cut off aid altogether, but anyone who studies the middle east knows that "so goes Egypt, so goes the Arab world." They unfortunately need to be worked with, even if it requires more compromise than we'd like.
Funny, that's almost exactly what I was talking about with the OP.
Yet that 1% translates into a lot of money that could be put to better use in most cases. And it isn't that we give foreign aid, it's we give a LOT of foreign aid to people we shouldn't.
And in more than a few cases it amounts to "protection money" to pay bad people to not cause problems and we shouldn't do that.
Not in every case.
Quite often it is wasted. Quite often it is used in ways we never intended. And sometimes it is actually used against us.
Funny, that's almost exactly what I was talking about with the OP.
Yeah, I'm mostly criticizing the, in my opinion, highly-reactionary "no foreign-aid whatsoever" crowd. There are plenty of them out there, and most of them, when asked, overestimate the amount of foreign-aid the US provides by a factor of 15-20.
Yeah, I'm mostly criticizing the, in my opinion, highly-reactionary "no foreign-aid whatsoever" crowd. There are plenty of them out there, and most of them, when asked, overestimate the amount of foreign-aid the US provides by a factor of 15-20.
I'm all for aid in the form of...
1. Helping friends in need. Certain countries, like the UK, are there every damn time we need help with anything serious. We should always reciprocate in kind.
2. When it is more practical to spend money than spill blood to solve a problem that must be addressed. If we can help the "good people" in a "bad place with bad people" solve their own problems so we don't have to, I can get behind that.
3. If it is to help a country that normally solves their own problems but has a significant emergency, like the tsunami with Japan. But it would have to be a country we are on good terms with, not sure how I'd feel if France got hit by a tsunami.
But again, I think we are mostly on the same general page.
Raven Armament
11-14-12, 00:10
1. Do you believe the government has your best interest in mind when they regulate banks and Wall Street?
Not entirely, no. Regulation is necessary to a point.
2. Do you agree that the government should be able to seize private property from citizens because they failed to pay for mandated government services in the form of property taxes?
Seize title or enforce liens, yes. Evict, no. Eminent domain says ultimately it's the government's property and "ownership" of it is essentially sold as a right of use. I don't like the history of property tax (think 40 acres and a mule) but it's a reasonable method for paying for public services in that jurisdiction. It could be replaced with a sales or value added tax that goes to that entity (police, fire, EMS, local government staff, etc). Revenue to pay for those services has to come from somewhere. I think it's fine for the government to place a lien on a property for unpaid taxes until they are paid. I do not think people should be jailed for not paying taxes unless it's a last resort. I would be in favor of having ED overruled and the revenue made through a VAT.
3. Do you think a person who is not incarcerated should be allowed to vote Republican in an election, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
WTF kind of question is this? Doesn't parallel with the other thread. I think only property owners should be able to vote, like when America was founded. If they are free from incarceration and a property owner, they can vote. It doesn't matter what party they vote for.
4. Given that horses and buggies are generally more difficult to operate and control than modern vehicles, why should the government be able to dictate who can operate one when they never did for the other?
Other than a picture ID, I don't think DLs serve any practical purpose. People whose license is suspended will continue to drive if they want. The authority to hold a citizen for that has helped with the arrest of McVay, if I correctly called. Hindsight is 20/20.
5. Why should we spend money on countries that never truly help us in times of war when that money could be much better spent here?
The point is we shouldn't. No UN and a country better have a damn good cause for American investment in their country.
I followed the Libertarian politics for a few years, voted Libertarian, and was a registered Libertarian. Started to fall away in 2008 and for sure gave up on them in this past election. They have some good ideals that mirror the old guard Republican party (not the RINOs) with minimal government and maximum personal freedom, but several things really made me give up on them as any chance of being a viable political party in my lifetime. I'm 31yo and have never seen them get 5% of the vote for their presidential candidate. That's more of a joke than a political party. The focus of the party this election was nothing short of asinine.
3. If it is to help a country that normally solves their own problems but has a significant emergency, like the tsunami with Japan. But it would have to be a country we are on good terms with, not sure how I'd feel if France got hit by a tsunami.
But again, I think we are mostly on the same general page.
I think so also. I guess the only point I'd make (not to you necessarily, just in general) is in reference to Japan. The reason we're able to count them as a friend in 2012 is because of massive post-WW2 aid through the GARIOA and EROA programs, which allowed > $700,000,000 to be granted to the Japanese between 1946 and 1948.
We had just nuked them, and the possibility / fear of a resurgent Japanese militarism was still palpable. How many people do you think, in the 1940's, didn't want to give aid to Japan? How much money would not giving them aid have cost us in the long run, given the massive symbiotic relationship enjoyed by our two economies in 2012?
It was expensive in the short-term, but payed dividends in the long-term. That's the nature of foreign-assistance, and I think it's important to keep in mind.
WTF kind of question is this? Doesn't parallel with the other thread. I think only property owners should be able to vote, like when America was founded. If they are free from incarceration and a property owner, they can vote. It doesn't matter what party they vote for.
Voting is a basic right in a representative government just as firearm ownership is a basic right. That is the parallel.
I was just wondering if the same people who would deny Person A the right to own a gun would also deny them the right to vote Republican in an election for the same reason. And I chose Republican on purpose because I'm confident that certain people would have no problems if they were preventing a vote for a Democratic candidate.
But again, this topic is mostly an exercise in perspective.
I think so also. I guess the only point I'd make (not to you necessarily, just in general) is in reference to Japan. The reason we're able to count them as a friend in 2012 is because of massive post-WW2 aid through the GARIOA and EROA programs, which allowed > $700,000,000 to be granted to the Japanese between 1946 and 1948.
We had just nuked them, and the possibility / fear of a resurgent Japanese militarism was still palpable. How many people do you think, in the 1940's, didn't want to give aid to Japan? How much money would not giving them aid have cost us in the long run, given the massive symbiotic relationship enjoyed by our two economies in 2012?
It was expensive in the short-term, but payed dividends in the long-term. That's the nature of foreign-assistance, and I think it's important to keep in mind.
Actually that money was spent mostly to prevent Japan from falling within the communist influence of the Soviet Union. And I don't think there was any legitimate fear of a resurgence of Japanese militarism as Yukio Mushima discovered. Japan was for more concerned with Stalin paying a visit to Hokkaido, not getting nuked or firebombed any more and trying to see if they still had relatives living.
And by 1947 I'm certain the average American knew why we were giving money to both Japan and Germany. Berlin was a hell of a wake up call. By the time the Korean War got going there was no questions.
1. Do you believe the government has your best interest in mind when they regulate banks and Wall Street?
Not necessarily, but that doesn't mean I want banks free to monopolize, scam and place investments at risk.
2. Do you agree that the government should be able to seize private property from citizens because they failed to pay for mandated government services in the form of property taxes?
This is much more tricky, as the current system does leave room for improvement. Maybe extend the timelines and if necessary only after full due diligence seize only a portion of one's property if possible. If we're just talking an acre or less, I really don't know because without this threat many just won't pay anything at all.
3. Do you think a person who is not incarcerated should be allowed to vote Republican in an election, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
Right. Next...
4. Given that horses and buggies are generally more difficult to operate and control than modern vehicles, why should the government be able to dictate who can operate one when they never did for the other?
I thought these were serious questions, but some humor works I guess.
5. Why should we spend money on countries that never truly help us in times of war when that money could be much better spent here?
Countries that "never truly help us"? Well if you mean non-allies I'd say cut every dime. If not I say we stand together simply because between the muslims and the Chinese there are billions of people who one fine day a decade or two from now could become capable of overtaking everything around us until we become disadvantaged and also because you help friends who would not only help you but because you have a common enemy. And no, the Chinese aren't our friends despite the business arrangement.
They were easy except for the property tax one. Try harder next time. :p
They were easy except for the property tax one. Try harder next time. :p
If they were so easy, how come you had to punt on so many?
---
If they were so easy, how come you had to punt on so many?
Don't recall doing so. If you mean the horse and buggy one and I have to explain why it isn't a good analogy then...well nevermind.
Don't recall doing so. If you mean the horse and buggy one and I have to explain why it isn't a good analogy then...well nevermind.
You punted on #3 and #4.
The questions were asked in the form they were to make you think. Think hard. About your assumptions.
You punted.
-
You punted on #3 and #4.
The questions were asked in the form they were to make you think. Think hard. About your assumptions.
You punted.
If 3 was a serious question I must have missed it. Never heard of one's mental state being an imminent threat to anyone via a vote.
As far as 4, we all must know that the amount of danger proposed to the general public by an out of control vehicle is drastically higher that that of an out of control stagecoach. Especially when you factor in weight, the solidity and hardness of a car/truck and it's speed.
Think you are nitpicking here, but maybe not. Happy to clear it up either way.
If 3 was a serious question I must have missed it. Never heard of one's mental state being an imminent threat to anyone via a vote.
As far as 4, we all must know that the amount of danger proposed to the general public by an out of control vehicle is drastically higher that that of an out of control stagecoach. Especially when you factor in weight, the solidity and hardness of a car/truck and it's speed.
Think you are nitpicking here, but maybe not. Happy to clear it up either way.
You did not clear up anything. You just continue to punt. Maybe because you don't understand the questions? Think a little deeper. Think what each one represents.
Hint: SteyrAUG gave some clues in some followup; at least on #3
-
You did not clear up anything. Hint: SteyrAUG gave some clues in some followup; at least on #3
Appreciate the hint but I'm not looking to play mysterious word games. I answered the questions, no punting allowed on my team.
Appreciate the hint but I'm not looking to play mysterious word games.
No mysterious word games intended. Read his followups to get some background on the questions you questioned (at least the voting one).
I answered the questions, no punting allowed on my team.
I must have missed your answer to #3, and #4 is not really an answer.
I find it interesting that non-Libertarians don't have good replies to some of these so they just ridicule them and blow them off.
--
Raven Armament
11-14-12, 10:37
Voting is a basic right in a representative government just as firearm ownership is a basic right. That is the parallel.
When this country was founded, the right to vote was qualified. White males who owned land. They did that for a reason, that reason being so the people that had no skin in the game and didn't have a vested interest in the country, ie land, couldn't vote themselves benefits they didn't pay for. The result of not respecting that is a lot of the reason we have a welfare state today. Modernize that to include men and women and all races that own land/homes.
Hint: SteyrAUG gave some clues in some followup; at least on #3
-
That question was especially poorly worded to achieve his desired result.
Some of the others had hypothetical situations. ex. the "money better spent" issue.
The horse and buggy were his opinion and not necessarily based in fact.
Why not just ask questions you want the answers to?
Regarding the rights of a felon that has been fully released and has paid their entire debt to society in accordance with the laws by which their peers sentenced them do you believe.....
A. All rights get restored
B. Voting, Gun ownership, etc are up to State/Governor decision as they are now.
C. Other - explain
I say give them all their rights back but if they are nuts then that falls under the gun restriction laws. I also don't care who they vote for. Crazy, uneducated people voting is part of the system now.
Now the only issue I have is this... I am not familiar with the "rights taken away" aspect. If it turns out that the "rights taken away" is in fact part of the sentence that by law never really expires then I would vote B. IOW, if that rights issue is really intended to be a never ending sentence then so be it. If not, if it's simply applied by default, which I believe it is, without consideration toward the actual crime, then that's a different issue. Like Michael Vick, he can't have dogs, so he can never pay that debt. He's stuck with that one.
As I understand it now, it is applied as a blanket by default and should be removed as such. .. which would probably lead to the need to restructure sentencing. Pete Rose can't play baseball, Vick can't have a dog, someone guilty of voter fraud probably should never be allowed to vote, but they can all have guns. Maybe someone guilty of a gun crime can vote but never have a gun again.
That question was especially poorly worded to achieve his desired result.
It was to cause you to think.
And probably to catch the hypocrites out there who don't.
-
If 3 was a serious question I must have missed it. Never heard of one's mental state being an imminent threat to anyone via a vote.
I think people in this country have done far more damage with reckless voting than reckless gun handling.
When this country was founded, the right to vote was qualified. White males who owned land. They did that for a reason, that reason being so the people that had no skin in the game and didn't have a vested interest in the country, ie land, couldn't vote themselves benefits they didn't pay for. The result of not respecting that is a lot of the reason we have a welfare state today. Modernize that to include men and women and all races that own land/homes.
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
Property ownership was eliminated in 1850. We don't have a welfare state as a result of that 1850 decision. We have a welfare state as a result of legislation passed by LBJ more than 100 years later.
It was to cause you to think.
And probably to catch the hypocrites out there who don't.
-
Glad a few got it.
I only stated it was an exercise in perspective plainly a few times.
As for criminally violent and/or dangerous people voting or having guns. I think the real question is why are they out walking around with the rest of us in the first place?
Raven Armament
11-14-12, 12:36
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
Property ownership was eliminated in 1850. We don't have a welfare state as a result of that 1850 decision. We have a welfare state as a result of legislation passed by LBJ more than 100 years later.
I contend if the property ownership wasn't eliminated, the representatives that got elected by votes from people that didn't own property wouldn't have passed the legislation signed by FDR nor LBJ.
I contend if the property ownership wasn't eliminated, the representatives that got elected by votes from people that didn't own property wouldn't have passed the legislation signed by FDR nor LBJ.
And if it wasn't eliminated, there would be a property monopoly and you and I probably wouldn't be able to own property. This would also mean that a lot of guys who lived in rented apartments in cities but were also very decorated WWII veterans could not vote.
And if it wasn't eliminated, there would be a property monopoly and you and I probably wouldn't be able to own property. This would also mean that a lot of guys who lived in rented apartments in cities but were also very decorated WWII veterans could not vote.
I am not sure I follow. How would restricting voting to property owners lead to a property monopoly?
-
I am not sure I follow. How would restricting voting to property owners lead to a property monopoly?
-
Property wouldn't be as freely sold, nor as affordable as property owners could dictate the course of the nation. In short order power brokers like banks and large businesses would eventually own most of the property.
Prior to 1850 it wasn't uncommon to be able to homestead land and acquire new property without having to be wealthy.
Raven Armament
11-14-12, 13:22
And if it wasn't eliminated, there would be a property monopoly and you and I probably wouldn't be able to own property. This would also mean that a lot of guys who lived in rented apartments in cities but were also very decorated WWII veterans could not vote.
I don't think there would be a monopoly on property ownership caused by it. Not sure how it would lead down that path.
I think veterans would be the exception for property ownership for voting.
I don't think there would be a monopoly on property ownership caused by it. Not sure how it would lead down that path.
In order to simply gain an advantage power brokers are willing to allow illegals to vote, register homeless people, register dead people, coerce unions and buy the votes of dependable voting blocks.
If it was simply a matter of acquire sufficient property to have a majority vote I can't imagine why anyone would think it wouldn't be done.
The problem is not the fact that people who are voting are not property owners. The problem is they vote for things that should not be permissible due to Constitutional protections but those protections are being undermined by a SCOTUS that "interprets" the Constitution according to their needs.
Now, given that the majority of property is IN private hands today, you could actually RETURN to that requirement and it would correct a lot of things. It would be difficult at this stage in the game for banks and businesses to create a property monopoly. But the government and the powers that be would never permit such a thing. David Duke would have a better chance of winning the next election.
Investment? Whats their stock name?
I don't care about Africa.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=china+becomes+africa%27s+biggest+trading+partner
Let China invest in Africa. :)
U don't care... Or so you say.
"Al Qaeda in Sudan; in Somalia; in Libya in Nigeria".
"Gotta go get 'em so 'we don't have to fight the bastards here!'"
Really?
What does this REALLY mean?
I'll tell you.
China is INVESTING in those nations to gain access to (oh, gasp; the horror...) CRUDE OIL.
Poof! If you support the WOT then you cannot state what you stated with a straight face.
U don't care... Or so you say.
"Al Qaeda in Sudan; in Somalia; in Libya in Nigeria".
"Gotta go get 'em so 'we don't have to fight the bastards here!'"
Really?
What does this REALLY mean?
I'll tell you.
China is INVESTING in those nations to gain access to (oh, gasp; the horror...) CRUDE OIL.
Poof! If you support the WOT then you cannot state what you stated with a straight face.
Are you sure you're legally allowed to own a firearm?
Don't ask me how, but I somehow understand the point Mjolnir is trying to make here...I think.
The US is definitely making a play for African resources. Some are calling the current situation "the second scramble for Africa," as the rush for east African resources continues.
The US is absolutely using the GWOT as an excuse to establish a military presence in Africa, to this end. The war against the LRA, the drones in Djibouti, the new bases in Ethiopia, the Ugandan presence in Somalia suppressing Al-Shabaab for us (which they're threatening to withdraw at this moment, by the way) --- it's all part of the quid-pro-quo modus-operandi.
The US has chosen the military presence option, while China has invested in African infrastructure. The Chinese are playing it smarter long-term, IMO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.