The service portion is service in every. single. area. of the federal system.

You can be a desk clerk for all I care.

The point is, is that you had a desire for patriotism, because you wanted to contribute, or to change an injustice through to right means.

Greater good fallacy plus completely arbitrary distinction between who is or isn't allowed to be represented by voting

No it is looking for those who dont want to leech off the system

The problem of democracy is something james madison talked alot about

I fucking hate discord sometimes. I answer the god damned question over 3 comments, and people just move on past yelling at each other.

If you do not have strong individuals the system fails

Just because you aren't "contributing", which is again ***your opinion and based on a sweeping generalizarion***, does not count as an argument for why we should deny rights to millions of people based on ***your*** opinions

@Fitzydog copy paste bro

The strength of the wolf is the pack the strength of thepack is the wolf

Would you like to live in an islamists fantasy ideal state? Why should anyone have to live in your Utopia?

Discrimate again people who serve?
<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

The service portion is service in every. single. area. of the federal system.

You can be a desk clerk for all I care.

The point is, is that you had a desire for patriotism, because you wanted to contribute, or to change an injustice through to right means.

Because absolute democracy will always fail

Which is why we are a representative republic

The stratocratic system limits citizenship rights to individuals ABLE BODIED OR NOT, who have shown a commitment and a desire to participate in the democratic system.

should we implement that?

It'd be easy actually

Which is why land owners started off with the right to vote

^

Let's have you serve a islamic caliphate

that's some duty right there

It's all about 'Skin in the Game'

Why vote to protect social security

That's based on several assumptions, one is that all people who "serve" are doing so out of benevolence or patriotism, two that those people are better qualified than those who don't serve at making the right decisions, and three is that democracy is only for passing ideas that I agree with and not for providing a voice for *all* people

Because its all about being a leech off a system

What you are advocating for is textbook aristocracy

That will drive the US further into debt

I do actually think you hint at a good argument but the conlusion you have come to I disagree with.
you are supposing service (volunteer work was the example you gave) is more beneficial to the community than people engaging in markets.
Consider the fact that anyone who is employed is contributing to the function their society not to mention they are also taxed.

@radeon If they go through to trouble of service, then by all mean try and change the system. you have that right now

It is a voluntary system

And i wrote out how i would make the system above

or just make a authoritarian dictatorship

Again you're assuming everyone who doesn't serve is a leech and you're taking for granted that you'll be denying rights to people because they're doing something you disapprove of and not because of any objective wrongdoing

because muh service

So perfect system state level everyone votes, House of Representatives only tax payers in that district, senate appointed by the state govenors and confirmed by state congress, president only those who have served

That's so stupid

Remove birthright citizenship, and make the Oath of Allegiance voluntary upon the age of 18-21

That is not an argument

There is no reason why someone who hasn't "served" is unqualified

Because they have no skin in the game

Social security is a good example of this