Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Ex-California]

Why bother with any of that bullshit at all.

Just choose leaders based on who was born to the last leader.

+1

Especially if they are anointed by God

Then go off and start a monarchy thread instead of straw-manning around here.

I'm just shit-posting.

While I see where you are going with this, my other point about disenfranchisement stands. We've seen what happens in places with an active-passive citizen distinction

[Okeefenokee]

+1

Especially if they are anointed by God

Then go off and start a monarchy thread instead of straw-manning around here.

I'm just shit-posting.

While I see where you are going with this, my other point about disenfranchisement stands. We've seen what happens in places with an active-passive citizen distinction

We're seeing what happens in places with universal franchise.

[Ex-California]

Then go off and start a monarchy thread instead of straw-manning around here.

I'm just shit-posting.

While I see where you are going with this, my other point about disenfranchisement stands. We've seen what happens in places with an active-passive citizen distinction

We're seeing what happens in places with universal franchise.

And we've seen what happens without universal franchise since the Enlightenment

The problem is at the top, not the bottom.

[Okeefenokee]

I'm just shit-posting.

While I see where you are going with this, my other point about disenfranchisement stands. We've seen what happens in places with an active-passive citizen distinction

We're seeing what happens in places with universal franchise.

And we've seen what happens without universal franchise since the Enlightenment

The problem is at the top, not the bottom.

Negatorry. The problem exists in both places. Uneducated masses voting in their own immediate interests are just as damaging as wealthy contributors lobbying in their own immediate interests.

[Ex-California]

We're seeing what happens in places with universal franchise.

And we've seen what happens without universal franchise since the Enlightenment

The problem is at the top, not the bottom.

Negatorry. The problem exists in both places. Uneducated masses voting in their own immediate interests are just as damaging as wealthy contributors lobbying in their own immediate interests.

You have a duty to vote for your own interests. Otherwise what's the point?

[Ex-California]

We're seeing what happens in places with universal franchise.

And we've seen what happens without universal franchise since the Enlightenment

The problem is at the top, not the bottom.

Negatorry. The problem exists in both places. Uneducated masses voting in their own immediate interests are just as damaging as wealthy contributors lobbying in their own immediate interests.

And I still stand by my assertion that there are no "masses" voting whatsoever. The real uneducated people simply don't vote

[Okeefenokee]

And we've seen what happens without universal franchise since the Enlightenment

The problem is at the top, not the bottom.

Negatorry. The problem exists in both places. Uneducated masses voting in their own immediate interests are just as damaging as wealthy contributors lobbying in their own immediate interests.

You have a duty to vote for your own interests. Otherwise what's the point?

I see that as a copout. It implies that everyone's view of what they need is equal. Similar to the idea that every idea about how society should function is equal. There is such a thing as a bad idea coming from an unqualified voter.

Also, hell yes the uneducated vote. What are you smoking?

[Speaker to Animals]

Voting in your interest is only half of the responsibility.

You also have to pay the costs of your votes. In a perfect republic, when you belong to the electorate, and the electorate votes to go to war, then you muster outside the city wall and go fight that war. If the electorate votes to pay for some big fucking thing to be built, you all went home and took out your share of your wealth to pay for that big fucking thing. Every last one of you.

But when a majority of the people who vote for war don't have to go to war, and neither do their children, then you get lots of wars. When the majority of people who vote don't have to pay for shit, they will vote for lots of shit for themselves. Then the system begins to collapse. It might take a while, but it will happen, and the only thing that historically saves that system is a military coup of some kind.

Imagine if every member of your family had an equal vote in how the household funds were spent. I'd imagine you be buying a shit ton of toys, and the bank would eventually kick you all out on the street by the end of the year. Enfranchisement should work on the same principle. The people who vote and serve in public office should be the people who actually work to maintain the nation with their own blood and capital. Let the children enjoy their lives. Give them as much liberty as they can stand. Just don't let them run the household.

[Okeefenokee]

Everything else works on that system.

It's only when we're talking about other people's money that people think it's great to let everyone get a say.

It's only when we're talking about other people's lives that people think it's great to let everyone get a say.

[heydaralon]

Most of this board is conservative, and they have pointed out that an uneducated electorate can have disastrous consequences. Interestingly though, people who are more Liberal on either side of the Atlantic are saying the same thing. They think that the masses of people who voted for Trump, Brexit, and possibly Le Penn show that the electorate can no longer be trusted.

I lean more to the right, and some of the trends especially ones that attempt to bribe illegals with Democratic votes are alarming to me, but I feel like suffrage restriction could be a double edged sword in the long run. Initially, restricted suffrage might benefit conservatives, but eventually the Democrats would up their game and figure out how to even out the advantage. Once that happens, you might end up with the same conservative liberal stalemate we saw with Congress and Obama, except it might end up being worse for the American people, since most of could no longer vote and would be even more sidelined as we watched our government bicker about inconsequential debt ceiling type theater at the expense of solving bigger problems.