No Federal Taxes?

[Speaker to Animals]

Nobody would be prevented from voting. They'd just have to reciprocate some of the work.

A guy working fifty hours per week and paying 20k plus in taxes every year already has "forced work".

A guy working and not paying taxes isn't actually working for any of the shit he votes on.

You shouldn't be able to vote for shit you don't pay for somehow.

Spending a few days off working in your community is not a poll tax. It does not even constitute a modest inhibition against the gang rape dynamic of universal franchise. An upper middle class guy, I guarantee you, is working weeks on end just to pay for these ridiculous social programs. The more the democrats can fill in their electorate with illegals and welfare recipients, the worse it will get. Making people who do not pay anything actually work for the programs they vote on is but one small step in the direction of establishing universal skin in the game.


If you want universal franchise (which is a bad idea on the face of it, but whatever), then you need universal skin in the game. Otherwise, you are just saying you are for electoral gang rape.

[brewster]

A guy working and not paying taxes isn't actually working for any of the shit he votes on.

This is the basic fallacy. Even someone working but not making enough to pay much federal tax is still paying ~25% in total tax load. And BTW, illegals can't vote so that's not an argument.

[Martin Hash]

A guy working and not paying taxes isn't actually working for any of the shit he votes on.

This is the basic fallacy. Even someone working but not making enough to pay much federal tax is still paying ~25% in total tax load. And BTW, illegals can't vote so that's not an argument.

Illegals can vote in anything but federal elections; it's up to the local rules.

[Speaker to Animals]

Asking people who don't pay net taxes to contribute with an alternative labor tax in order to vote is not a poll tax or "forced labor". The people who do pay net taxes are doing "forced work" as it is. That's the whole problem with universal franchise. Once you have a majority of people who don't work for the gibs they vote for, watch out.

[Martin Hash]

Democracy is primarily a means of avoiding violence among people who live together in liberty. Disenfranchising a large group of them defeats the purpose.

[Smitty-48]

Democracy is primarily a means of avoiding violence among people who live together in liberty. Disenfranchising a large group of them defeats the purpose.

It doesn't avoid violence, only armed insurrection, there's still plenty of room for violence below that threshold.

[Martin Hash]

Democracy is primarily a means of avoiding violence among people who live together in liberty. Disenfranchising a large group of them defeats the purpose.

It doesn't avoid violence, only armed insurrection, there's still plenty of room for violence below that threshold.

It’s worked so far to relieve the pressure. A bunch of teenage girls in balaclavas spouting Marxist slogans with the occasional bike lock ain’t nuttin’

[Smitty-48]

Democracy is primarily a means of avoiding violence among people who live together in liberty. Disenfranchising a large group of them defeats the purpose.

It doesn't avoid violence, only armed insurrection, there's still plenty of room for violence below that threshold.

It’s worked so far to relieve the pressure. A bunch of teenage girls in balaclavas spouting Marxist slogans with the occasional bike lock ain’t nuttin’

The democratic state none the less votes to employ a lot of violence, both against foreign and domestic targets.

[Speaker to Animals]

(1) It is true that the ostensible purpose of a democracy is to diffuse violence, but you have to consider the fact that only a small percentage of the population can actually wage that war anyway. Most women cannot fight for shit. They vote, however. Most welfare recipients can't fight. They vote. If we are going to stick with people who can fight, it's going to be a pretty small percentage of the population. That really is a red herring.

The reality is that democracies always start with limitations to that effect, and then expand to include pretty much every mouth breather the Clodians can find.

(2) Democracies result, as far as I can see in history, in more civil wars anyway. So I am not sure if we should keep democracy if our reasons for it are to stop a civil war. We already had a civil war that took half a million lives, and we are facing down the barrel of yet another one. They also start a shit ton of external wars. We are balls-deep in the Forever War right now. A legion of women and neocon dipshits, who don't have to fight, keep voting for Obamas and Bushes and we are at war all over the fucking place. We already have violence.

We have Tulsi trying to stop Forever War, and the mouth-breathing, do-nothing women on the View were just calling her a Russian agent.

(3) You aren't disenfranchising people to ask them to pay for the outcome of their vote.

[brewster]

You aren't disenfranchising people to ask them to pay for the outcome of their vote.

if its disenfranchising result is no different than a Jim Crow era poll tax, tap dancing explanations and rationalizations don't really mean anything. What you'll end up with is one party will cost them 13 days of work and the other will cost them 15 days, so they'll stay away from the polls altogether, which sounds like it's the point.