Government of the People is...?

[DBTrek]

And without public sector unions, you'd then get a genuine government of, by and for the people? Because government could then no longer act in conflict with the people?

You’ll have a better system, not a perfect system.

[Speaker to Animals]

In terms of stability and longevity, I think it needs to be limited to a subset of the population, basically a gang that rules over the rest.

In the past, that subset were males who belonged to the correct ethnic group and fought in the wars (paid the costs of the votes). Maybe today that should be amended to those person's who served a term of enlistment or commission, who maintain a net positive tax status, and who own property. Can be any legal citizen, man or woman, though we know statistically not many women would be voters. But that's sort of the problem with what we have now. If we limit it to people who actually sacrifice and pay a cost to this country and the outcomes of the votes, then you'd still mostly end up with what the founders started with..

[Fife]

Worth a few minutes of your time on this topic, McClanahan, 8 Mar 18:

Podcast Episode 151: Democracy?

The recent events in Florida had some members of the media suggesting that 16 year old Americans should be able to vote. This is democratic and fair, they say. Why stop at 16? Why not 12? or 5? The American infatuation with “democracy” has led to several interesting debates in American history, most importantly the division between the State and general government over who can and cannot vote, and the impact of “universal suffrage” on American government. I discuss these issues in this Episode of The Brion McClanahan Show.

[DrYouth]

Good poll Bjorn...

Yes... the government is not the people and should not be the people but should be empowered by the people and answerable to the people.

The better we understand this the better the government will be.

But it will always have this built in paradox and it is fooling itself or others if it claims it doesn't...

[BjornP]

In terms of stability and longevity, I think it needs to be limited to a subset of the population, basically a gang that rules over the rest.

In the past, that subset were males who belonged to the correct ethnic group and fought in the wars (paid the costs of the votes). Maybe today that should be amended to those person's who served a term of enlistment or commission, who maintain a net positive tax status, and who own property. Can be any legal citizen, man or woman, though we know statistically not many women would be voters. But that's sort of the problem with what we have now. If we limit it to people who actually sacrifice and pay a cost to this country and the outcomes of the votes, then you'd still mostly end up with what the founders started with..

So, are those who fullfill the requirements of property ownership, military service and positive tax status among the people, still supposed to govern on behalf of those don't fullfill those requirements? This "gang", or gangs, that rule over the rest, do they IOW hold - or are supposed to hold - any obligations toward the rest of society? Aristocracy has, historically speaking, absolutely a stable and long-lasting institution, and if one deems stability and longevity of primary importance, aristocracy has proven its worth.

[Speaker to Animals]

In terms of stability and longevity, I think it needs to be limited to a subset of the population, basically a gang that rules over the rest.

In the past, that subset were males who belonged to the correct ethnic group and fought in the wars (paid the costs of the votes). Maybe today that should be amended to those person's who served a term of enlistment or commission, who maintain a net positive tax status, and who own property. Can be any legal citizen, man or woman, though we know statistically not many women would be voters. But that's sort of the problem with what we have now. If we limit it to people who actually sacrifice and pay a cost to this country and the outcomes of the votes, then you'd still mostly end up with what the founders started with..

So, are those who fullfill the requirements of property ownership, military service and positive tax status among the people, still supposed to govern on behalf of those don't fullfill those requirements? This "gang", or gangs, that rule over the rest, do they IOW hold - or are supposed to hold - any obligations toward the rest of society? Aristocracy has, historically speaking, absolutely a stable and long-lasting institution, and if one deems stability and longevity of primary importance, aristocracy has proven its worth.

It doesn't govern on behalf of those who do not fulfill those requirements since those who do not fulfill those requirements would otherwise be freeloading.

The fundamental problem that all democracies must grapple with, and which eventually destroys most democracies historically, is freeloading voters. If the number of freeloaders are greater than the number of people paying the costs, guess what happens? The people who pay the costs just keep getting their shit voted away, their asses voted to battlefields to no purpose, their property taxed into oblivion, etc. etc.

Look at DB's situation in Seattle where non-property owners outnumber the property owners, but their votes are just as equal. They vote higher and higher property taxes for more gibs to themselves. They don't pay the costs for anything. Some other guy has to do it.

That's not to say I want to get rid of a welfare system. I actually support having an extensive welfare system, though not like what we have today. My problem is that people on welfare shouldn't be voting.

Likewise, people who don't have any intention of serving should not have any actual say in our foreign policy, especially not matters of war.

It's a much smaller subset of the current electorate who served, pay more in taxes than they receive, and who own their own property, sure. But I think it's the mistake of the freeloaders to project their freeloading nature onto them. I think it would be better than what we have now, though certainly not perfect or utopia by any means.

[BjornP]

Ah, so that Heinleinian thing that you (and Okee?) have been a supporter of for some years now? I thought maybe you'd gone more in a Nergol direction.

[Speaker to Animals]

Furthermore, the entire point of having an electorate is that it mitigates organized violence by the losers. If my set wins an election over the other cliques in the electorate, we have to rule with a mind that the other cliques, if we go too far, could just rise up in violence against us. But most of the people I want to disenfranchise represent zero threat to anybody. They are just freeloaders, Wall Street faggots along with the worst single mother in the ghetto living large by popping out more children from random thugs. They are all freeloaders who don't really contribute but only take, one way or the other.

Then look at the situation with women. Voting is a form of violence. The winners of a vote get their idea or policies enacted through the threat of violence. But women are by themselves threats to nobody. They are only a threat by manipulating men against other men. That's their eternal danger to society. It's written into most religious texts, even. Huge warning sign there. But fuck it. We ignored all that because we thought we knew better. Problem is, when the majority of the electorate (and that's women) are incapable of imposing the outcome of a vote through violence, the system becomes such that men are in a losing voter game in which they are required to use violence against themselves, against their own self-interests, while the class of voters who were never a threat and therefore never really warranted enfranchisement are amassing more and more privileges and gibs for themselves.

Think about how far this has gone. Women hijacked affirmative action from black people almost immediately, even though they are the majority of the population. They hijacked the legal system, especially family courts, and bent it towards their service. As soon as we gave them the vote in America, the nanny state was born with Prohibition and other vice laws. All they want to do is control men, take from men, more for themselves, and when you look at women as a group, they are net tax losses to America. Women as a group, over their lifetimes, don't pay more in taxes than they get out. You have lots of women who can say "I paid more in taxes than I got back!!!", but I am talking about the entire group here.

It really goes back to the fundamentals of what the founders thought about democracy. I suspect they had a point, but over the years later generations thought they must know better and, now look, America ain't long for this Earth. Not as we know it, anyway.

[Speaker to Animals]

Ah, so that Heinleinian thing that you (and Okee?) have been a supporter of for some years now? I thought maybe you'd gone more in a Nergol direction.

What is a gang rape if not a democracy?

[Speaker to Animals]

If you want the equivalent of "universal enfranchisement", then you really want to go back to tribalism.



I do happen to think it's at least theoretically possible to organize a technological society around some form of neotribalism. The guy who made all those John Titor posts essentially described an America that was somewhat predicated upon neotribalism, in which towns have to accept you before you can move there, you will have specific roles and responsibilities in that community, and you will be cast out if you do not fulfill them.

Indeed, that's how much of colonial America actually operated. How interesting, then, to find out that even in a time in which Americans were at least partially tribal, they had a hard time keeping whites from running back to the true tribal societies in wilds once those whites got a taste for it..