Teahive wrote:If Christianity "puts an end to sexism" why didn't it do so for the better part of two millennia?
Because it was completely unpractical to do so prior to that time. Equality for Women was pretty much a by-product of the Gilded age Prosperity. Before this period, people could not afford such foolish indulgences.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
MSimon wrote:
Well actually it was the rise of power, energy, and electricity that gave the suffragettes what they wanted. And now that women have the vote socialism has a built in constituency. Women no longer have to rely on an unreliable man for sustaining her and her offspring. The government is quite glad to replace him. For the votes.
You will note that the Democrats are the woman's party and the Republican's are the man's. Generally.
I'm glad you think it is a good thing.
I think it is the nature of women to be socialistic. Adding them to the electorate pushed the nation leftward.
I personally favor a system that merely requires voters to be taxpayers without regard to their gender. If you are a contributing member to the upkeep of the government, then you ought to have a say in how that government is constituted. If you are not, you ought not.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Actually there is a quote attributed to a Rockefeller that when women's lib turned up in the sixties he deliberately had the press that he owned build it up, because getting women out of the home and into the work place doubled the tax base, doubling government spending, hence doubling government borrowing from his bank.
"I personally favor a system that merely requires voters to be taxpayers without regard to their gender. If you are a contributing member to the upkeep of the government, then you ought to have a say in how that government is constituted. If you are not, you ought not."
Only with respect to expenditure bills, the criminal laws apply without regard to wealth.
Theoretically anyway.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
TDPerk wrote:"I personally favor a system that merely requires voters to be taxpayers without regard to their gender. If you are a contributing member to the upkeep of the government, then you ought to have a say in how that government is constituted. If you are not, you ought not."
Only with respect to expenditure bills, the criminal laws apply without regard to wealth.
Theoretically anyway.
Actually the poor are a source of revenue. Choff posted this:
Diogenes wrote:
I personally favor a system that merely requires voters to be taxpayers without regard to their gender. If you are a contributing member to the upkeep of the government, then you ought to have a say in how that government is constituted. If you are not, you ought not.
Let's be consistent: make the number of votes proportional to the amount of tax paid.
The US already has buying of votes (effectively). This would mean that your taxes got counted in with voluntary contributions.
Meritocracy isn't based necessarily on what you're calling "consistency". The notion goes back to ancient China and Confucius, and is extremely closely related to Plato's Republic upon which our society is actually based. We call it "Democracy" but we only vote for the voters. Those we find through democratic election to have merit are the ones who vote on the issues, because we know its a full time job just to stay abreast of the issues.
I think restricting votes to those whom pay taxes would likely disenfranchise the poor so badly they'd revolt. As much sense as it might make to remove the stupid votes, you are then removing the stupid people from their place in a democracy and they would not tolerate this, despite they might never have voted in their lives. All it would take is one angry, charismatic leader and the poor would be guillotining the rich again.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:Meritocracy isn't based necessarily on what you're calling "consistency". The notion goes back to ancient China and Confucius, and is extremely closely related to Plato's Republic upon which our society is actually based. We call it "Democracy" but we only vote for the voters. Those we find through democratic election to have merit are the ones who vote on the issues, because we know its a full time job just to stay abreast of the issues.
I think restricting votes to those whom pay taxes would likely disenfranchise the poor so badly they'd revolt. As much sense as it might make to remove the stupid votes, you are then removing the stupid people from their place in a democracy and they would not tolerate this, despite they might never have voted in their lives. All it would take is one angry, charismatic leader and the poor would be guillotining the rich again.
Democracy is pretty stupid. However meritocracy is worse because quis custodiet ipsos custodies applies to whomever decides what is merit.
Buying votes is plain bad. It is at the root of the US political dysfunction.
As for who gets to vote, it used to be only property owners, and they could have more than one vote based on how much they owned, regardless of gender, wealthy women did in fact have the vote. Then they had a big war, which required conscription, that didn't sell well with the landless, that's why we have the one man one vote system right now. Relevant to the discussion, a man can lose the right to vote if he refuses to be drafted, a women has no such restriction on voting rights.
So, if you wish to have a voting system based on how much tax you pay, it probably won't last beyond the next wave of draftee's, plus Warren Buffet should have fewer votes than his secretary who pays more in taxes.
Actually a great many of the people nominally considered wealthy live by the axiom of 'not even owning the shirt they wear on their backs', that is, they merely possess, they do not own property. Tax havens, charitable foundations with interlocking directorships. The wealthiest would be completely disenfranchised from voting, the poor and middle class would vote the most.