Message from @Bowman151
Discord ID: 531538475766251531
the article said it's coming out of his personal money
@amlam - 1 vote per net taxpayer is enough or as mentioned elsewhere, votes get too skewed by the rich and powerful
@amlam So, its also kind of a retarded system that we have such poor people in our country with all the wealth we have (just making a point). The problem is how we go about changing these things, you can't just punish the rich for being successful, and reward all of the less fortunate as that will make everything worst. So our system is to give people as much freedom as we can allow (while "trying" to have limited safety systems for the worst off).
So to add this to voting, if you make a persons vote matter more because of their wealth or IQ, you are making an unequal system, which is always flawed as a persons life shouldn't just be valued on money and intelligence.
So what we have is a even playing field (not always), so everyone has an equal CHANCE at being heard. If you take that way, people on the bottom start to make the system unstable. And for the crazy leftist, who thinks this system is also flawed because it just give the rich more power, as they can spend more to be heard, its true. But they are still following the same rules we all do using their freedom. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean he gets to speak more or less (till they start to shut people out of this process).
I’m not opposed to 1-vote-per-net-taxpayer in theory but I feel it’s execution could potentially make things worse. Would you be presented a *voucher* to vote upon completion of your income taxes and/or expand the IRS to have agents at polling stations background checking potential voters. Also, there’s plenty of ‘net positive income taxpayers’ who don’t vote and all net ‘negative income taxpayers’ still pay taxes in one form or another. Would we have to implement a system that takes into account and tabulates ones sales tax, property tax, whatever-the-fuck tax? Do you really want the IRS or some other gov't agency involved in elections at all? Because that’s what we’d be asking for.
Well, people pay their taxes in April and vote in November, right? so yeah, it would get put in their voter registration files and 6-7 months is plenty of time. The alternative would be no votes at all for women
sales is a state tax thing and not all states have it
you can be a renter and be a net tax payer too
stupid college kids won't be able to vote unless their taxes are sufficient too
I've never been a fan of people who want to change something going: You have to agree with these new ideas (or even old ideas) we want, or we will take your vote away.
we'll all lose our vote anyway when the state collapses under it's own weight
Life/society is always at risk, doesn't make giving people poor options, making them better.
those are the only 2 options I can see that won't cause a societal collapse and how much would a vote in a communist state be worth
fair point
I see many more options, but that can always be argued.
then shoot. haven't really heard from you what alternatives there are
I could lay out many different things, but does that mean i know whats best? No.
What i do know, is that proposing people either agree with you, or lose their votes. Is not something enough people will agree with to get passed. It can't include taking away peoples vote, or making a tier voting system (outside of legal and illegal citizens).
Service Guarantees Citizenship = prime system tbh fam
It might be a good system, i'm not sure its the best tho.
I’m sure Shaun King will be updating the writing he has done on the story https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1081967885294006272?s=21
That headline could have done without that quote. It should have just said, "Radical Gay Activist’s Dramatic Turn Towards Christ"
There was also a big story months ago about a lesbian LGBT activist who renounced her ways and became Christian as well. God can reach anyone
I couldn't defend my position, so I moved directly to insults
That guy has the big dumb
good, good. Let the hate flow through you
Twitter is a waste of time and energy
^^^ we should just call it twatter. Lol
@Beemann While i do think most people should understand how important service is, very few of the total population would be able to do it. And its not the best to have free citizens (legal) with no vote for over its governance.
Also, there is a reason we don't just elect high ranking generals to president (rarely), as you don't just want people with just a military mind leading you, only thinking of how to win fights/wars. You need a balance of ideals, and not just people fit to fight holding more power over everyone else in the population without a say.
1. You don't vote while you're in the service, only once you're out
2. Service != military
Military is one of multiple options, but all are meant to be the individual serving the nation/public. The right of voting becomes the right to serve, for anyone of sound mind able to consent to the contract
Do you mean under your idea you can't vote? Because if your in the military now you can vote. And yes i know what you meant by after having served but making a tier system of citizens is not great for any society.
It's not my idea specifically. It's Heinlein
And the tiering is purely by choice. Citizenship is more attainable than wealth, so long as you're willing to endure service
And in the hypothetical society described, you can vote once you leave service
After serving the min required time
Also depending on the state, you already have a worse version of this system in the USA
Ya i know its not your idea, just what you were saying is the best.
And calling something you either join service or you have no vote as a citizen, isn't really what i would call a "choice".
And while i agree in some places it could be worst then citizenship or no vote, its still all apart of peoples freedom playing out.