The Glade 4.0

At least in regards to to the death of the system?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'll prrobably learn something worthwhile when I get home and look him up. Not going to do it on my iPhone. No idea Elmarnieh, care to summarize the concept rather than tease?

Happy Thanksgiving to you, hugs to Foamy, Oonagh and Sean

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

That was my last post right when I left work. Right now I'm too sleepy to post. He shouldn't be hard to look up what with the internets.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Post shower...
Quick version: He predicted the fall of capitalism would be marked by a rise of corporatism that will cause the election of socialists to construct a welfare state until the primary mechanism within capitalism for innovation is halted.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Dang, not sure if we're to the last phrase yet, but the rest of it sounds way too familiar.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

The harsh irony being that the rise of corporatism has little to nothing to do with laissez faire markets.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

So whats after innovation halting? Do I get a save point before I fight the evil Che/Stalin/Mao-beast? Is another Toad in the castle or finally the Princess? Why did they call the Princess "Peach"? Did you know Castor Troy could eat a peach for hours?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Rand, Marx, Hayek and many other have written about this extensivly. What happens next is the fall of a civilization. Not nessecarilly globally, but atleast domestically. Others will learn by watching our mistakes, and walking a different path.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Its the social reaction ans as I've seen its the realistic result from success - jealousy.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The uneducated social reaction, given that American corporatism itself is a result of forced wealth dedistribution.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

A free country where everyone can vote will always result in socialism. Bill Gates might have $100 billion, but he still only has one vote. Eventually people figure out that they can vote themselves his money. The only way to maintain economic conservatism is to have a highly repressive authoritarian government that enforces it at the point of a gun. This is how China can maintain a conservative economic system. It's also why libertarianism can never work.

Or, you know, to not allow everybody to vote. Like our founders didn't.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Make me dictator - you'd get libertarianism - or else!

I actually think the solution is somewhere near having a Praetorian guard. When the leaders get too far out of bounds they just kill them.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The paradox is you cannot force people to choose freedom.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

And who decides that? And why should they?

Isn't an Electoral Elite just a bigger Government?

And how is it different from the from of Liberalism many main party lawmakers practice? You know the "We know better than you so we have to protect you from yourself" concept.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You mean like, most black people?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that a goodly portion of the founders represented states that really had no interest in equal rights for all or in allowing people to vote based on any sort of actual merit.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I like the idea that if you do not serve in the military.. you get no say in the vote.

Or... every name registered with a drivers license is put in a pot. Come 'election day' a name is drawn at random from the populace... that person now serves a term in the government.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I know some ex-military people (and scores of licensed drivers) I wouldn't trust to take my garbage to the dumpster, let alone vote effectively

Yes the electorate has been asleep at the wheel for the past several years. I believe the answer isn't to change the electorate, but to limit what any one term of government can do and how long people can have their hands in the government.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Repressive regimes that don't allow the entire population to vote do not last. What happens is civil rights movements and popular uprisings until the system is changed. Then, once everyone can vote, socialism sets in. This fails, there are economic hard times, then it swings the other way. All you can do is influence the duration and depth of the swing.

I'd say it's Starship Troopers time. Something earned has value.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Points to the first part of my post a few places above... Like that?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

The representatives of the people set up the government. In the law that sets up the government, you decide who votes and who doesn't. You create a method of change.



Not at all. Having the people exerting influence actually either have something at stake or know what's going on does not simply create a "bigger government" unless total democracy also can be said to simply create a "bigger government."



Because those voting aren't voting to look out for others. They're looking out for themselves.



Strawman?


The merits (or downfalls) of a limited voting group should not be confused with the merits (or downfalls) of legalized slavery. The two issues are entirely separate.

The people who wrote the Constitution, such as Madison, as an example, were against direct or total democracies because they believed it led to tyranny, not because of beliefs on slavery. Furthermore, backlash from ethno/gender/racial voting discrimination is what got us to the point where people believe in a right to vote, imo. A right that doesn't exist.

Voting should be limited, but it should be limited in a way that the obstacle to voting can be overcome by any average person, such as owning property or acquiring a basic education.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I don't believe pointing out something you seem to have overlooked is a strawman.



I don't see that they are, at least insofar as the reasons for the voting structure in 1787 is concerned.. Legalized slavery limits the voting group, but not in any way related to merit, and presumably you favor limited voting based on some sort of meritocratic basis?



The people who wrote the Constitution were not all in favor of or against any one idea about how things ought to be, hence the number of crises and compromises during the process. Moreover, since the Constitution had to be agreed to by a lot more delegates than just those who had a major hand in actually penning it, we cannot limit consideration to their views.



I have no objection to this idea, but that is not what the founders were limiting voting for. They were limiting voting in order to preserve the economic status quo, especially hat in the South. This was an overarching need because the country had to be kept together. If it fragmented, the states would be relatively easily gobbled up by the British or someone else.

In other words, while limited voting on some meritocratic basis has good arguments in its favor, the fact that the Founders didn't allow everyone to vote is not one of them. Aside from the fact that merit was at best a secondary motive for them, they provided a method to amend the Constitution for a reason. There is nothing inherently superior about the Constitution as originally written compared to its current state. Each change should be evalutated on its merits; the mere fact that it is a change is neither positive nor negative.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

For all that Heinlein spins a good yarn, I'd submit that being educated goes much further towards providing good governance than joining the armed services.

I'm not sure.

Education, for instance, does little to instill real, meaningful discipline. It also doesn't require much in the way of sacrifice or personal risk. It's no wonder, then, that the educated understand so little of how the real world works when compared to even your average grunt.

And I say this as somebody who is probably pretty objective, being neither invested in higher Academia nor having any military service.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades