How to defeat ISIL

[Diogenes]

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.

This actually sounds plausible. A lot of wealthy people are more interested in what is best for them, then what is best for the rest of us.

[Diogenes]

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.

I have suggested this idea for quite a long time. I get immediate and visceral reactions from everyone who thinks it will create a situation in which the rich are buying elections.


My pat response is "Unlike what we have now?"

[Diogenes]

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.

We aren't a Democracy, and we were never intended to be one. The Designers of our government were relying on there being good timber, not worm riddled rotten stuff.


The attitude of the founders towards democracy was summed up by Mather Byles when he said:


"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"



The founders restricted the franchise to land owners and tax payers because they only wanted people with a vested stake in the nation to have a say.

[GIThruster]

Buying votes is plain bad. It is at the root of the US political dysfunction.

Seems to me if we had a problem here, elections would more closely parallel money spent than they do.

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ ... ?display=P

Maybe someone else interprets this differently. The real trouble to my mind is inherent in democracy, which is that image gets elected, not substance. The Independents who decide all our elections, often go with the surface rather than a deeper understanding and this is why the Benghazi coverup was so important. If the public had known what had happened right before the election, OBama would certainly have lost.

[choff]

The founders restricted the franchise to land owners and tax payers because they only wanted people with a vested stake in the nation to have a say.

Until there's a war and the people with a vested stake are called upon to do the dying, that's when they'd rather get someone without a vested stake for the job. Only then they have to persuade them with a vested stake or it doesn't work. Maybe after the robots can replace infantry you'll see a return to the founding father's dream. Until then you will have one man one vote.

[williatw]

The founders restricted the franchise to land owners and tax payers because they only wanted people with a vested stake in the nation to have a say.

You mean white male land owning tax payers...everyone else's imput wasn't really needed, wanted.

Until there's a war and the people with a vested stake are called upon to do the dying, that's when they'd rather get someone without a vested stake for the job. Only then they have to persuade them with a vested stake or it doesn't work.

But those disenfranchised people's blood was good enough for the ruling class; after all even 18-20 year old white males could be drafted for about 200 years before they generally got the right to vote; to say nothing of minority males. They had enough of a "stake" and were considered emotionally mature enough to sacrifice their lives for their country; just not good enough to vote.

[Diogenes]

The founders restricted the franchise to land owners and tax payers because they only wanted people with a vested stake in the nation to have a say.

You mean white male land owning tax payers...everyone else's imput wasn't really needed, wanted.

Are you suggesting that the idea wouldn't work if Blacks and Females were included?


Why must we drag this up? It isn't really relevant to the concept, and only appears to be an effort to tarnish an idea because it wasn't practiced inclusively enough in the past.


As it should happen, there were Black Land Owning voters in various states, just not all.



Now that we've once again addressed past racial inequities, the other merits of the idea still seem relevant. It was a good system. Obviously better than what we have now. In any case, any system without a built in negative feedback component, is doomed to fail.



Financial insolvency destroys more governments than does conquest.

[williatw]

Are you suggesting that the idea wouldn't work if Blacks and Females were included?

I am saying that when the concept was applied in practice, the reality was very exclusionary along race and gender lines...even if theoretically it wasn't.

Why must we drag this up? It isn't really relevant to the concept, and only appears to be an effort to tarnish an idea because it wasn't practiced inclusively enough in the past.

The relevancy of bringing it up is that results in practice (gender/racial disparities) trump theory; whether intentional or not. The poll tax and literacy tests in the South weren't racist in theory; the practice surely was (as was intended).

Now that we've once again addressed past racial inequities, the other merits of the idea still seem relevant.

The 100's of thousands systematically disenfranchised mostly minority males (as a result of your beloved WOD) might disagree about how fairly the current system is working..

It was a good system. Obviously better than what we have now. In any case, any system without a built in negative feedback component, is doomed to fail. Financial insolvency destroys more governments than does conquest

I would probably prefer Robert Heinlein's system...those who want to vote become "citizens" by voluntary government service, i.e. military service. The idea being is that those willing to sacrifice themselves for their society by willingly taking the possible risk of death by military service make better trustees of what is in societies' best interest than merely owning property or paying taxes does. Seems to work somewhat that way in my State; your act of registering for the vote you are registering for Selective Service. A Mexican immigrant who earned citizenship by volunteering to serve in this country's armed forces probably cares more about what is in societies best interest than a rich man's son who pays copious amounts of taxes; the later wouldn't risk his own arse in Iraq or anywhere else. Their the type who shelter their money anyway they can, and couldn't care less what it does as far as our government meeting its obligations, or its long term viability. Most of the current entitlement recipients of Medicare, SS, etc. are tax paying property owners; doesn't stop them from voting to receive more than they put in. A large percentage of those welfare food stamp recipients don't vote anyway; don't really think they are the problem. The current "nanny state" probably owes more to the women's vote than anything else. Women probably are more naturally inclined toward the emotional appeal of socialism than men are; bleeding heart liberalism and the female psyche seem far more compatible than it is with most men.

[hanelyp]

In other news, I can't find the link off hand, but a poll finds 1/3 of likely voters don't know which party controls each house of Congress. I know poll tests for voters got a very bad name for good reason, but results like this seem a reason to bring them back.

[choff]

Once the robots replace human infantry, what if they demand the right to vote, refuse selective service/evade the draft, demand the right to stand as candidates in elections.

They couldn't be any worse than human politicians.

[GIThruster]

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/177538- ... -islamist/

[GIThruster]

Couldn't tell a Pakistani frigate from a US Supercarrier?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/a ... -1.1938411

[zapkitty]

Couldn't tell a Pakistani frigate from a US Supercarrier?

... apparently feel-good misinterpretation ... i.e. more "look at the silly ragheads!" blather from the usual suspects.

Most sources local to that part of the globe indicate that an attack was launched with the aid of both ex- and current Pakistani naval personnel to seize the frigate...

... and use its missiles to launch a surprise attack on a U.S. carrier group.

Not remarking on the probable outcome of such an attack but the MIC-sponsored line in the press seems to be opportunistic bullshit.

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/ ... -men-ours/

... hopefully the U.S. deciding to bomb all the different sides in Syria will calm Wall St. down a bit.

[tomclarke]

The problem about allowing voting only to those with given status (and land-owner is historically what we had in the UK before universal franchise) is that the low-status have no stake in decision-making and become a sub-class. Such systems can be stable and work (consider slaves in Rome) but we don't think they are a good idea because they institutionalise hierarchies.

Making voting contingent upon a sacrifice that is possible and equally onerous for all (those not able to do military service will not do it but can still register) seems much more reasonable. Rights and responsibilities work together.

Are you suggesting that the idea wouldn't work if Blacks and Females were included?

I am saying that when the concept was applied in practice, the reality was very exclusionary along race and gender lines...even if theoretically it wasn't.

Why must we drag this up? It isn't really relevant to the concept, and only appears to be an effort to tarnish an idea because it wasn't practiced inclusively enough in the past.

The relevancy of bringing it up is that results in practice (gender/racial disparities) trump theory; whether intentional or not. The poll tax and literacy tests in the South weren't racist in theory; the practice surely was (as was intended).

Now that we've once again addressed past racial inequities, the other merits of the idea still seem relevant.

The 100's of thousands systematically disenfranchised mostly minority males (as a result of your beloved WOD) might disagree about how fairly the current system is working..

It was a good system. Obviously better than what we have now. In any case, any system without a built in negative feedback component, is doomed to fail. Financial insolvency destroys more governments than does conquest

I would probably prefer Robert Heinlein's system...those who want to vote become "citizens" by voluntary government service, i.e. military service. The idea being is that those willing to sacrifice themselves for their society by willingly taking the possible risk of death by military service make better trustees of what is in societies' best interest than merely owning property or paying taxes does. Seems to work somewhat that way in my State; your act of registering for the vote you are registering for Selective Service. A Mexican immigrant who earned citizenship by volunteering to serve in this country's armed forces probably cares more about what is in societies best interest than a rich man's son who pays copious amounts of taxes; the later wouldn't risk his own arse in Iraq or anywhere else. Their the type who shelter their money anyway they can, and couldn't care less what it does as far as our government meeting its obligations, or its long term viability. Most of the current entitlement recipients of Medicare, SS, etc. are tax paying property owners; doesn't stop them from voting to receive more than they put in. A large percentage of those welfare food stamp recipients don't vote anyway; don't really think they are the problem. The current "nanny state" probably owes more to the women's vote than anything else. Women probably are more naturally inclined toward the emotional appeal of socialism than men are; bleeding heart liberalism and the female psyche seem far more compatible than it is with most men.

[MSimon]

Now that we've once again addressed past racial inequities,....

Ever look at who Prohibition targets?

BTW pot prohibition was instituted in part to target Mexicans. It is why it was called marijuana instead of the name it was more commonly known by at the time --> cannabis.

Prohibition is a race war disguised as a health and safety campaign. Opiates? The original target was Chinese living in America. And cocaine? Negroes raping white women under the influence. BTW when the Harrison Narcotics Act was passed in 1914 Republicans were under the impression that the Federal Government had no such power. We have come a LONG way.

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

http://www.dogonvillage.com/african_ame ... 00901.html

...cocaine began to be associated with blacks in the public mind early in this century. In 1903, the American Pharmaceutical Association said of the cocaine habit: "The negroes, the lower and criminal classes, are naturally most readily influenced." In 1910 the House Ways and Means Committee heard that "the colored people seem to have a weakness for [cocaine]....They would just as leave rape a woman as anything else, and a great many of the southern rape cases have been traced to cocaine." Stories began to circulate about "cocainized negroes" with superhuman strength who were unfazed by police bullets-- stories that resemble more-recent descriptions of criminals under the influence of PCP.

http://reason.com/archives/1994/10/01/v ... ial-policy

From the same link:

...cheap Mexican labor during the Great Depression fed agitation about marijuana in the Southwest. In fact, the drug was then known as "Mexican opium." In 1937, the year that Congress passed the federal ban on marijuana, a Colorado newspaper editor wrote to the Bureau of Narcotics: "I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons." Like opium and cocaine, marijuana was tied to the rape or seduction of white women.