The Glade 4.0

DE:



this:



because you said this:



1. Are you or are you not saying that property ownership, aka money, is the stake in the system that would ostensibly invoke the desired characteristic of responsible voting?

2. Are you or are you not saying that without property ownership, aka money, that members in society do not have anything else that would be at stake if they do not have the privilege to vote?




So blanket rules would be applied to situations where the system would be patently broken, tough $#!*?



au contraire:



The ability to earn money is the end all and be all of this voting system. Without that ability one will never meet the property ownership criteria. Yes there is the military service route. Commendable, but insufficient IMO.



Not with the arguments presented thus far, which still base participation on money. Am I the only one that paid attention in history class? Systems that base participation on wealth have failed time and time again. Rome fell too, which is the closest example I am aware of to Khross's proposed system. You could argue that the America that the FFs created has already died, the final nail being driven back when State Militias were dissolved in the early 20th century and that we modern citizens only inhabit the bloated corpse of the failed Experiment, but I digress.



Too far is a system that basis participation on wealth.



What part do you not understand? Under the proposed system those with money can vote on matters that will directly affect the disenfranchised. Labor laws, banking laws, investment laws, property laws, personal liberties, public health & safety (FDA, CDC, USDA, et al), etc. Unless, as I said, you remove all such venues from the purview of the federal government and return them back to the States where these non-federal citizens will be still be able to participate in their self-destiny.

Why does everyone keep ignoring the military service option?

Economic and personal stakes in the opperation of our government is not to much to ask for participation in government. What is government other than an economic system, and protection of institutionalized rights through military means?

If you refuse to participate in either, why should you have a say in the lives of those who do participate?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

As I've said in this thread, not everyone is physically able to serve in the military.

To turn the question around, why should you be dictated to from above on the laws you will have to obey? Why should you have no voice in the formulation of laws that may directly effect your liberty?

Because you can participate in the economic system without owning property. You could even be *gasp* a government employee.

I do agree that the tax situation leaves something to be [greatly] desired, but as a left wing nut job I think it would be better to focus on trying to find ways to improve the circumstances of the voting poor so that they can make meaningful contributions[sup]1[/sup] to the federal coffers rather than cutting them out of the system.

Call me crazy.

1 i.e. not welfare or any other such social program that treats the symptom instead of the cause.

Ber:

I would not agree with this system if it were not held secondary to a well written constitution guaranteeing basic unamendable liberty to all citizens regardless of their franchise privileges.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Everyone participates in the economic system of their country by offering nothing more than their continued existance. Existance is way too low a bar to set.



Illustrate how government employment would give you an interested stake in controlling the size and scope of government, outside of growing it to create a stronger union base, making it less transparent in order to hide corruption and waste, and advocating higher taxes in order to procure higher wages?



All of which call for even more spending, which means higher taxes, which means more unemployment, which means fewer tax payers paying even more of the burden. None of which solves the problem. Quite the contrary it exasperates it.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

So you believe a constitution can be written that will foresee every contingency; restrain a majority of voters who have power over a minority of non-voters; that will restrain a corrupt judge or judges from finding within the "penumbra" an ability to abridge the liberty of the disenfranchised, etc, etc, etc? Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, point me to the nearest exit. I would want no part of it. Power corrupts, and you want a system that will give the franchised power over the disenfranchised? I'll pass.

A well-written constitution with certain unamendable provisions outlining exactly what the government has the power to do? Yes. I believe it could, if it were done correctly. The trick is to have the document defined in black and white, leaving no room for the penumbra.

The alternative, Ber, is agreeing that a non-contributing majority have carte blanche over your life and your check book. That you have no say over how much they will spend, or what they will spend it on.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

As I said, good luck with that.

Ok, time for me to go. I have made my opinion known (I hope clearly), and to the end I still believe this to be a VERY BAD IDEA (tm).

You mean like McCain's Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act bill, which states:



But right, this new system of government is only going to be led by good and noble land owners that will never ever find ways to circumvent their founding documents, like we in our bloated corpse of a government are on the verge of allowing here in the twilight era of our decline.



No, I've said that holding a job and paying taxes is one such bar.



Because they care about public safety and wouldn't want to see programs they are passionate about disappear wihtout being able to voice their opinions? I'm pretty sure, contrary to the popular demonization, that the vast majority of police officers don't get into the job for the purpose of beating and tasering innocents for fun. Nor would workers at the CDC want to see disease and pestilence spread across the country unchecked because they lacked the funding to mount a response to the man-bear-pig flu. Like military service, these people are performing jobs necessary for the safety of this nation. Not to say that I don't believe that there aren't cogs, lots of cogs, that shouldn't be cut from the current system...



Fundamentally disagree. No system can guarantee that every last member of its citizenry be educated, but working towards that goal will create the opportunity needed for the demographic you all are complaining about to become [financially] contributing members of society. And yes, I fully believe that an education in this country can mean something again and we should be devoting a lot of our energy into making K-12 classrooms places of learning, not holding pins where diplomas are passed out of Pez dispensers.

And as I have pointed out, what Khross has proposed will not prevent that, anyway. Buy a business license, waive it under the nose of the voter registrar, and vote for whatever you want. The landed class has therefore gained nothing. So when that idea also fails, what will be the next even more radical step that will be proposed?

No, I mean nothing of the sort. In fact, I mean exactly the opposite. This sort of thing would be expressly forbidden.



First of all, our constitution is a lousy example to trot out. Our constitution is a piece of garbage, written with too much ambiguity to hold any real or permanent meaning against the winds of time. However, to a degree, you are correct. There is no way to prevent the slow usurpation of power, only to build better walls to hold it back. The trick is to learn from our mistakes, and to write better documents going forward. The trick is most certainly not, however, to scrap the constitutionally limited government model that despite all of it's flaws made us the greatest nation in the history of the world, and gave common man his first glimpse of freedom.



Holding a job is a bar for minimal personal competence, not for deciding how other peoples money is spent.

Paying taxes is entirely different, and I agree with you that no one without the franchise should pay taxes.



Then they can pay for them in the private sector, vote for them as former or current military or property owners, or make a well reasoned and logical argument to voters about why they should want these things to exist. If voters deem the CDC necessary (I assume land owners don't like dieing of various pestilences any more than crack heads, probably less in fact) then they can have it, and fund it. This assumes that voters feel that the CDC actually does anything justifying perpetuating it's existence.

The police were just a bad example.




How do you fundamentally disagree with this? I've explained how taxation effects private sector spending, which is where wealth and jobs are created.

Ya know what? I wish there was a magic button I could press that would create an unlimited source of wealth and sustenance for everyone in this country. Everyone on Earth, in fact. But here's the problem. That button doesn't exist. At any given moment in time wealth is a finite thing, and the more you try to redistribute in the form of services or actual money, the less is available to reinvest and create new wealth, which creates new jobs and new technology, improving life for everyone.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Which is one reason I would want a better outlined system before I would agree with it.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The McCain bill was posted as sarcasm to illustrate that no matter what the system failsafes are, rights and liberties will always be eroded. It is my belief that a government led by the wealthy is inherently more corruption-prone than a government that allows every member of it's society an equal say in who is elected to represent them.

For the record, when I say hold a job, I also mean that they paying taxes. But again, this is one bar, not THE bar.

For the CDC example - great. Except when for when the wealthy fail to adequately fund disease-fighting initiatives it's probably not them that are going to die of the man-bear-pig flu anyway. They have access to health care, whereas the disenfranchised masses do not. Hopefully the masses writhing in their death throes will guilt-trip the voters to adequately fund man-bugbear-pig research...

Or how about an example of the voters deregulating FDA/USDA standards? Less regulation is better for business! I can't imagine how less regulated food and drug system could be a bad thing! Oh wait, the voters are wealthy, they can afford not to eat contaminated canned foods...

Or de-regulation of labor laws! The bottom line can always improved by eliminating minimum wage!

As for taxation - I've already noted that I disagree with the core tenants of all forms of trickle-down theory. We can talk about that instead if you like, but it should suffice to say that in my worldview this sort of thinking is short-term. Bottom line: where do you think you are going to find your innovators and investors if your population's functional intelligence continues to drop? Import them from India?

Here's the rub. People are generally good, but they are overwhelmingly dumb. So dumb, in fact, that they don't realize that our current system is actually the oligarchy you fear might be established. The wealthy will always be the ones who lead. They lead because wealth affords them time, notoriety, and connections. However, in the system I advocate, their ability to manipulate legislation to their advantage would be greatly diminished, if not completely castrated; which would be more to the benefit of the poor and working classes than to anyone.



So you agree then, that only tax payers should hold the franchise?



Here's something you probably never considered:

Would it be good for business or bad for business if all of your employees and the sizable majority of your customers died?



Labor laws hurt the working class more than anyone else. Just ask anyone who has to try to take on a second job because their employer won't pay for overtime. Without a labor law mandating OT pay, you could likely work as many hours as you wanted at your agreed wage.

In addition, the minimum wage actually hurts more employees than it helps.




No, it isn't short term thinking. It is acknowledging failed models in government structure and federal education mandates. You are insisting on working within a failed model, claiming that you can spend your way out of debt if only you spend on the right things, while at the same time advocating that the right things can be democratically agreed upon by the least bright among us.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No. I've said at least twice now that property or buisness ownership or military service will provide incentive to vote responsibly; i.e. with due consideration to the issues at hand and not just "how can I get the most money". Whether it "invokes the desired characteristic" varies from person to person. No system is perfect; there will be irresponsible voters in any system. "Lack of perfection" is hardly a valid cricticism.



Since military service was another means to gain the vote I think it's obvious even to an untrained observer that I am not saying that.



Since the system wouldn't be "broken" by Silicon Valley, no, and I don't know of any other situation where it would. I can only make it so clear that I don't give a **** how you got rich. I only care that you take some action with that moeny that invests you in the national system.



While I'm sure you think that "Au contraire" somehow makes it appear that you've found a flaw, it does not.

A) The ability to earn money is something even people with fairly severe retardation have. It is not the "end all and be all of the voting sytem". In fact, it really is only peripheral to it. One really does not need to earn any excessive amount of money to own property or a buisness. This complaint is really not about the ability to earn money but the fact that people who are to vote need ot earn a certain amount of money. Well, duh. Property is worth money. Buisnesses are worth money. People in the military earn money.
B) As you pointed out there is military service. The fact that it's insufficient "in your opinion" is irrelevant. A system does not have to meet your personal liking to be viable.
C) Who gives a **** if "the ability to earn money" is the be-all and end-all? It's not an automatically invalid criteria as an a priori. Explain why it shouldn't be a criteria.



Again, duh. Obviously money is a factor.



Time and again, huh? Do tell.



That's nice. Perhaps you could explain how Rome's system is similar and how it cause he fall? Otherwise you just have a cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument



Yes you do digress because there is no reason that we should necessarily have the same America the Founding Fathers created (appeal to tradition) and you engage in predjudicial language to support that.



Circular argument.



You're arguing that the system won't work unless it defeats its own purpose. The idea is that those citizens without a stake in the system shouldn't be able to vote on those matters. You don't seem to get it. The whole purpose of this system is to avoid each person having a say, and really, it isn't "those with money" it's "those with property, buisness, or military sevice". "Those with money" is just a cute way of saying "Those with money of an arbitrary amount I can't quantify but I assume people must have because I'm ignoring how the system actually works in favor of my own preconceived ideas".

As for "their self-destiny", that's a red herring. There is no "self destiny". It's the destiny of the society as a whole they are participating in, and there is no reason everyone should have a say in that unless they meet some minimum qualifier of participating in making it a success.

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

I don't have a particular problem with this,

IF

1) The franchised can not impede in any way the ability of the disenfranchised to live their lives as they see fit.
2) The franchised can not enforce any law upon the disenfranchised. You cannot fine them, or tax them, or arrest them, for any law the franchised passes. If the disenfranchised has no say in the formation of the law, then they are totally exempt from the law.

You want that system, go for it. But if you do not agree with the 2 points above, then you're no better than any other two-bit petty dictator, and you'll fall into the wasteland of history just as they have. America will have traded one king George for another.

You're going to need to be more specific. Obviously the franchised are going to have some ability to impede their ability to live their lvies as they see fit. If they couldn't, there would be no point in having a government.



That's completely absurd and defeats the entire point of the system. There's no good reason why the disenfranchised should be exempt from any law.



Demonstrate why this is the case. The lack of universal adult suffrage does not in any way lead to the conclusion that the government is a dictatorship or monarchy.

All you're really saying is "it'll be that way because.. well, because! Like, the Revolution or something!"

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

Which is why if you implement this system, the N. Ireland troubles will look like a sunday afternoon picnic.

*edit* Having slept on it overnight, I think another likely possibility is a re-play of the '60's. It's sort of an amusing thought: Khross, et al, with water hoses and german shepherds attacking marchers......

Why? Because you don't like it?

It's fairly obvious that you're vastly overestimating the number of people who won't be able to vote, and are totally ignoring the fact that even in a hotly-contested Federal election we're hard pressed to get 70% of elligable voters to come out. People really aren't as interested in voting as you seem to think.

Not only that, but there's nothing stopping people from voting in their state and local elections with this idea. Really, there's no reason to think there'd be massive protests anywhere, and even if there were, so what? This would be by Constitutional Ammendment, how do you think it would get passed in the first place? That's right, by the States.

You're pretty much dead wrong about it being implemented at the point of a gun. The only way this would be implemented is if people finally got sick and **** tired of the Federal budget being one massive vote-buying scheme.

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

Which is why (thankfully) this will never see the light of day, or get beyond the ravings of a few folks on the internet.

This has been an illuminating experience. I never thought I would see the day that the true colors of some folks here would come blazing forth: The champions of civil liberties, arguing for discrimination based on economics. That has to be horse hooves I hear in the distance.

Beryllin:

You really don't know what discrimination is. And, of course, you totally miss the fact that under the current system only wealthy can attain federal office. So, tell me, why haven't you left yet?

_________________

For one reason, because the system you champion will not see the light of day. Not in my lifetime, and not in yours.

There are systematic problems in the current system that need addressing, to be sure, and I don't have any answers. But the best thing I can say about your proposed solution is that it is wrong-headed.

Really? You haven't come up with anything but lies or bare assertions to argue against it. So why is it wrong-headed? Because it doesn't let those who do not contribute to the funding and operation of the current system vote? Because it doesn't make those who are financially responsible beholden to the financially incapable or unwilling? You keep telling me my system is morally wrong, but when confronted with a system that exhibits all the problems you say my system would cause, you refuse to leave. You're just bluff and bluster.

History actually is full of examples of universal suffrage destroying freedom, liberty, and individual responsibility. The entire Twentieth Century is a lesson in the dangers of universal voting "rights". And, yet, you defend the current system which already has a ruling class and aristocracy. You are a defending a system that allowed the uninvested to elect a man who has no regard for the highest law of the land. A system that consolidates policy power among the wealthiest and most influential of the elites ... A system that tells you an equality of outcome is more free than an equality of opportunity. And my solution is wrong headed?

And that said, you don't what discrimination is. You don't get it. You see things that require people pay taxes and actually possess tangible property and go, OMG the poor can't vote. I think limiters that require people earn the privilege to vote. If you think everyone should be allowed to vote just because they're covered by the laws, then we have illegal aliens, resident foreign nationals, etc. who need to vote to ...

Oh, wait, you said they could CHOOSE to leave. Seems to me you just don't like choices that mean you have to work for the privilege of voting.

Dedolito:

Rome fell for a lot of reasons; one of which was expanding the franchise beyond those who paid taxes.

_________________

Won't happen.

_________________