Those Who Take Government Money Should Not Vote

Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 1 month, 3 weeks ago to Philosophy
138 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Elected officials, appointed officials, employees of agencies and departments, soldiers, police, teachers, people on welfare...

You might think that if people on welfare could not vote, the Democrat party would be hurt (and it would) but the Republican Party would suffer more. People on welfare, as we usually think of it, as aid to families with children, already tend not to vote. The habitual turn-out at the polls comes from old people, Republicans on social security.

For myself, serving in the Texas Military Department, I decided not to vote in state elections.
(See my blog post here: https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2... )

What about people who work for Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, ArmaLite, or Wornick?

Where do you draw the line? By what standard do you decide?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I'd be happy to draw the line at Welfare, no voting in elections following a period when Welfare of any kind was offered. This is quite simply "money for nothing".

    While I see the logic on Federal Employees, theoretically they are providing a service for what they do. Certainly the military employees are.

    A simple standard of services or products in a competitive environment Is where the standard should start.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Politically demanding that is senseless in a system based on welfare statism for the same reason that we have welfare statism at all. If that isn't changed in the popular beliefs then indignantly demanding some changes around that edges that are contrary to widely accepted altruist premises is irrelevant.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Can't argue with you logic, but it seems like it would sell better than to argue that we should stop help the poor.
        We have to turn the ship, not just take strong (and correct) positions and hope to stop it and reverse it. This is just like the underhanded gun control advocates starting with magazine capacity, bayonet lugs, registration and licensing, with an eventual intent of eliminating firearms.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          The ship can't be turned by avoiding the basic principles. A society that sees welfare as a "right" is not going to stop welfare recipients from voting.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            So, you are bailing out?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              "Turning the ship" requires changing fundamental ideas popularly accepted. Attempting to remove the right to vote by welfare recipients without that is hopeless. It is not a practical "sell" when most people think welfare is a "right". It only plays into the hands of those promoting class warfare and promote the notion that political disputes are class warfare, not differences in principles.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                I'll have to say, that an appeal to fairness in:
                1) Changing Welfare from a charity donation to a get off welfare program
                2) Appeal to fairness, which clearly works. We are paying for these people, why are we having them decide our future.
                This will work if the government INCREASES welfare funding, with an act to institute a privately run program to take people off it, and then as the welfare roles drop, appeal to fairness.
                Getting people to agree welfare is inappropriate will NOT happen as a next step from where we are.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  Welfare statism will not be replaced by private charity without reversing the altruist-collectivist mentality. "Compromises" will continue in the same trend to mean increased statism. Their "compromises" always mean taking what they can get and coming back for the rest later.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    Well, good luck changing 150 million people's mind with that diatribe.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      What "diatribe"? The country got into this state from the spread of false ideas over a period of more than a century. It won't get out of it without changing the ideas widely accepted. Proper basic principles of reason and individualism must be articulated and defended.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                        I agree with everything except the messaging and path pack to where we started. Just taking a boyscout's position will fail.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                          What messaging to whom? It's a statement here of the essence. What is a "boy scout's position"?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                            Messaging to public, that needs to be turned around. Anyone else (like this forum) is a circle jerk!

                            Taking a Boy Scout's position that "This is the right way" is L O N G lost.

                            The proletariat masses are willing, but we need to turn them back, against the messages of the totalitarians , who have already grabbed the wheel. "Eat your spinach" is a dead loser.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                              What does any of that have to do with what we are talking about? Changing the culture requires rational education over time, not "messaging to public" assuming "willing proletarian masses", whatever that means.

                              Whatever "messaging" is involved in the short term would have to be principled rational appeals to individualism and what is left of the American sense of life in commentary and in politics (not waiting for the eve of an election) to the extent feasible at this stage of the culture, not manipulative demagoguery pandering to the opposite.

                              What is a "circle jerk" and what does "like this forum" mean?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Yes, but, again, those in the government - including the military - would not be able to vote while they are serving. Heinlein's theory is that you earn the right to vote. Until you complete your term of service, you have not earned that right.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        No one has to "earn" a right by being in the military.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          How do you earn the right to vote?

          We use the word "right" ambiguously. When you lease a car, you buy the right to drive it. But you have no natural right to a car. I know that we are on the same page with that. In another post here, you differentiated true natural rights (LIfe, Liberty, Property, Happiness) from politcal contract rights such as voting and trial by jury.

          We grant non-citizens the right to a jury trial (in most cases), 4th Amendment rights, etc., etc., But they have no right to vote.

          Do you have a Citizenship Test that objectively determines who gets to be naturalized? What makes a 50-question multiple guess the objective standard?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            There is no such thing as " political contract rights". Civil rights are codified into government as the means of implementing natural rights. A proper government represents all citizens in a nation. Neither that nor natural rights established philosophically require "service in the military or other duties requiring some degree of personal sacrifice" -- which is an arbitrary, irrelevant criterion counting on altruism and collectivism for plausibility and which completely avoids the nature and basis of rights of the individual.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        I hear what you are saying, but that is not where to start. One can take your position, and simply be painted as a zealot, ignored and angry, or one can make an attempt to influence.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mshupe 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I thought about this today in the sense the federal employees should not vote for federal office. But we live in the Age of Complexity wherein government has intentionally complicated life and positioned themselves as our overseers because us poor dumb slobs can't handle the complexity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    It seems I part company here with most in the Gulch. I spent 20 years in the Air Force, and I maintain that anyone who is willing to risk his or her life (military, first responders) for the sake of others should have the right to exercise those freedoms (including the right to vote) we fought for. I avoided political discussions when on duty, and did not engage in political promotion, but felt a personal concern when I saw government officials making bad decisions. In fact, I share the principle expressed by Robert Heinlein in "Starship Troopers," where the right to vote had to be earned through service in the military or other duties requiring some degree of personal sacrifice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      With respect, DrZ, I recognize your point of view and Heinlein's, but I can't agree that military service is enough on its own to earn the right to vote on policy that includes funding the military. Some members of the military have an inherent conflict of interest toward a larger military that should be taken into account in determining who in the military should be able to vote. The military fights at the order of politicians, not the people. Current military and veterans should also be subject to the same knowledge tests as civilians - testing that doesn't yet exist but is sorely needed.
      Just my opinion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Like other groups who get painted with a preconceived notion of what others assume is their behavior, the military is actually politically diverse. I gained a reputation as a "hardass" when I was in the business of procuring space assets. I fought with superiors whom I felt were unconcerned with wasting taxpayer dollars; I made it a point to make it clear we should not waste money on questionable technologies; I pushed contractors to be very accurate in proposals, and let them know I would accept no overruns; I forced logistics and operations people to present fully justifiable budgets, letting them know I would be independently verifying every dollar. I killed several major programs that were technologically unrealistic, and helped create less costly alternatives to several others. I never busted a budget, and had a widespread reputation as a technical expert (which, as I later found, put me on a KGB hit list).

        My votes reflected a concern for smaller government (when I could find a politician who I felt at least wanted to concede government control over non-constitutionally authorized activities), fiscal responsibility, and sane foreign policy. I voted for Trump as a badly needed disruptive force, recognizing that big government people would fight him all the way. Just fleshing out the picture of my background as an individual, and not part of a monolithic interpretation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          "Some members of the military have an inherent conflict "
          I think it wise to determine who has a bias against the constitution's limitations on government, not to assume that all in a group have the same bias.
          "I can't agree that military service is enough on its own to earn the right to vote"
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Representative government does not morally require "sacrifice" and "duty" as payment for a right to vote. You chose to stay in the Air Force for 20 years just as others choose their own careers. The military has no monopoly on value to the citizenry, nor is collectivist service the basis of the concept of representative government at all in an individualist, free society based on the rights of every individual..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Dr. Z is not a good Objectivist, so his language is often loose even as his heart is in the right place. His ideas are not integrated, but neither are they wholly falacious.

        Change "sacrifice" to "investment."

        He followed the right course of action, not engaging in electoral politics while being a member of the government. That appears be the one idea that everyone here agrees on. It is why Washington DC never had a vote in Congress.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Extolling "sacrifice" and "duty" is "from the heart" but not the "right place". Washington DC was not given a representative in Congress because Congressmen lived in states where they vote, not because people in government should not be allowed to vote. There is no justification for denying people the right to vote just because they are in government. That is an entirely different matter than mixing government actions with partisan politics.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I served in the Navy for 21 years. I voted before I went in and that was when Carter was elected. I did NOT vote while I was in because of military duties but also, I felt like the quote from Patton. I was either for my C-I-C or against. So while I was in the military, I was apolitical. Now when I got out is different, I was raised in a Democratic family, so by that definition, I was a Democrat. By the time I got out, I was a Conservative. I saw the corruption of both parties, heck, politicians in general are corrupt. Very few are not, look at how many Senators and Representatives go into office in debt or average income but come out of office as multimillionaires. All this on a government salary of $174,000. I know many who voted while in the military but to me it was a non issue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      There is no reason why you should not have exercised your right to vote. Being for the President while in the military means for the country in contrast to enemies you may be fighting, not that you can't take part in choosing who the president is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
        What woiuld stop a "fifth columnist" party from running for elected offices? That was the fear behind the Red Scares. I assure you that if 18-year olds could have voted, a lot of men in unifiorm in 1968 would have cast ballots for the peace candidates, such as Eugene McCarthy. No one is more opposed to war than the peoiple who have to fight it.

        And if you look at World War II, is that not exactly what happened, that the collectivist parties entered America into a collectivist war? What was the outcome, the final outcome? The Marshall Plan and the Cold War. We did not defeat collectivism, we embraced it -- or at least the vast majority did. Was that not a betrayal?

        When you serve in uniform, you swear an oath to obey the civilian government. That may be another error in philosophy, but the solution is much deeper than deciding who can vote and how.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          What would stop anyone from running for office? It has nothing to do with the right to vote. No one surrenders the right to vote by being in the military.

          Alger Hiss, Owen Lattimore, Harry Dexter White and the rest of them infiltrating government to influence actions on behalf of the Communists had nothing to do with the right to vote.

          If 18-year olds could have voted in the late 60s a lot of them certainly would have voted against the war and should have. They were being forced into the military by conscription. The "old enough to fight - old enough to vote" movement began in WWII even though almost everyone supported the war after Pearl Harbor.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Several errors in this, Mike. I was part of that military in 1968, and I assure you McCarthy made most of us very nervous, as he seemed childishly naive about Marxist states. The later people who were conscripted under the draft would have had a high percentage that would vote for anyone to get them out of the Vietnam mess, but the volunteer military usually took a long view of possible outcomes.

          Assume the US had stayed out of the WW II conflict. What would have been the outcome? We would have had three major hegemonies (Nazi empire of all Western Europe, including Britain; the Greater Southeast Asia Japanese Empire including Australia and New Zealand; the Soviet empire, consisting of the USSR and Eastern Europe), all opposed to our form of government. South American countries probably would have fallen under an Argentinian version of Nazism, supported by Germany. How long would we have lasted, with all the world against the surviving North American countries? We have a very lucrative market for our goods, thanks to the Marshall plan, and we outlasted the USSR, essentially "winning" the Cold War.

          The military does not swear an oath to obey the government. It swears allegience to the Constitution. One of the mainstays of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the duty to refuse to obey an order from any level of authority that may be unconstitutional, so obedience is not automatic, and in theory gives the military the responsibility to restrain government abuse of authority it deems as endangering the republic.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JuliBMe 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Social Security is a forced tax, supposedly for retirement. Recipients paid for this system and are not getting value for this tax due to the incompetence of government to manage and TRULY INVEST money not their own. They should not be included in this vote restriction idea to my mind.

    I do agree that Welfare recipients and non-essential (and EXTRA-Constitutional) government employees should not be allowed to vote for raises for themselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    With things as they are currently, my vote means nothing. I have been outvoted by millions of people receiving benefits and being paid with government fiat in every election. I think I am owed about 20 elections where all of the bureaucrats, and government contractor employees, and people who receive benefits without paying it in first are not allowed to vote.
    People on social security should be able to vote until they have received in benefits all the money they were forced to pay into the socialist system. Then they should have the option to either keep receiving benefits or to be able to vote. I also think that the social security system should be ended now and taxes stopped for those no longer in the system. Everyone over 50 can stay in at current levels of taxes and benefits. Only those over 60 will still get a COLA to benefits. Everyone under 51 is out. We, the people, have to eat the future excess cost (over taxes paid in) of those who stay in. Medicare should be privatized with no guarantees to current recipients.

    Government employees and employees of contractors and lobbyists should not be allowed to vote until 5 years after they are no longer pigging out at the government trough. Medicare recipients should be given the same option: vote or get benefits, not both.
    I don't care what party gets hurt. The 2 major parties both reek of wallowing in the public trough and violating their oaths to the constitution.
    I'd also put other restrictions on voting, requiring understanding of the original constitution and bill of rights with emphasis on government having no power to do anything unless it is specifically written overtly in the constitution. The "commerce clause" should be dead. The "necessary and proper" clause should be dead. Anything done with those in mind are invalid and must be overtly allowed only by constitutional amendment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      None of that will happen as long the predominant ideas accepted by the public are welfare-statist. That is why they vote the way they do.

      You are not personally outvoted anymore than anyone else. The election system is based on the total of those who vote and everyone knows it. It makes no sense to complain that your one vote is meaningless and doesn't count for more than it does. Elections cannot be held in which every one person demands that his vote determine the outcome. If you want a different outcome then spread the proper philosophical ideas that cause the majority of votes to be what they are. That includes the interpretation of the Constitution required to limit government. It is ignored because the people voting don't want that and the politicians they elect know it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Yes, it is about ideas. Arguing politics is pointless until the implicitly-accepted epistemology and metaphysics change. That said, though, among those who accept reason and reality, sooner or later, we have to understand the correct application of a proper political theory.

        The idea that only "property" owners should viote is a hold-over from feudalism,. The idea offered here, that service to the state (military, etc.) should be a qualifier is also flawed. But like the idea of land-holding it is a way to approach the problem.

        In The Secret of the League by Ernest Bramah, the defeat of socialism was sealed (not begun) with the sale of voting shares in the govenrment. As with.a corporation, you could buy more shares and have more votes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Service is to the state as the requirement for voting is not just flawed, it is wrong and unjust. It's not a valid way to approach the problem at all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    People working for the government or welfare recipients should NOT vote. There is an obvious conflict of interest which cannot be refuted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      It is not a "conflict of interest" to collectivists. You are a conflict of their interest. If the ideas on which popular votes are based are not changed it makes to sense whatsoever to complain that the other side should not be able to vote. They are not going to do that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Strictly speaking there shouldn’t be voting at all. Particularly when voting today just determines whose ox is to be gored. I don’t vote today to get stuff from the government, but to prevent it from getting my stuff. Not voting just allows the collectivists to collect more from ne
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Voting is required to have a representative government. Do you want a dictator whose successor is determined by a coup? Voting is not what distinguishes a properly limited government from a welfare state democracy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
            But what do we need to VOTE on really. Anything really important is going to involve taking from one and giving to another, hence my opinion on voting .

            We dont have any intellectually consistent objectivist-thinking politicians running, so I have to pick the least damaging to ME.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              Voting for representatives serving in a proper government is not "taking from one and giving to another".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                I think the problem I have is that what exactly would a government do that it needed to collect votes on. If the money coming into it was determined by freely given donations, the lack of donations in itself would determine if it was approved of by the populace.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  The problem you have is not accounting for how the people who run the government are selected.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    If the government doesn’t violate my rights, don’t I vote by freely supporting it or not supporting it?

                    I suppose if you are proposing the government was acting like a corporation where I am a stockholder, I suppose voting for the board of directions would be appropriate.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      Government is not an anarcho-capitalist self-perpetuating corporation that is either 'contracted' with or ignored. It represents the people of the nation under a Constitution. Who runs it is selected by those people.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                        So what we have now supposedly represents the people of the USA under a constitution and is run basically by the majority of the people

                        It certainly makes me uneasy that despite that constitution , this country has become fascist and run by a leftist mob

                        Just makes me very uneasy that I can’t not support this government when it violates my rughts
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                          "So what we have now supposedly represents..." is not a conclusion from what I wrote and changes the subject from the sweeping claim that "strictly speaking there shouldn’t be voting at all". There cannot be a government representing the people without the people being able to select who runs it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                            I agree that theoretically the people have to have a say in something that “represents them”. I am having trouble accepting the idea that a government can represent me if I am one of the voting block that loses the election.

                            I feel today that I am being subjected to the government that I do not approve of. Perhaps the solution is to move somewhere which has a government I do approve of. Not an easy solution though.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                              Changing representatives and policies were supposed to be within Constitutional limits, with variations and options resulting from elections only supposed to be what most people thought was the best way. Voting was not supposed to (and could not possibly) result in each individual getting what he wanted, but the government still represented his interests in the form of his rights under Constitutional limits on government power and obligations, with the particular implementation representing the majority of the public.

                              Today it is the opposite, with every election and bureaucratic decision putting your rights up for grabs as a matter of principle. That is the result of Pragmatism and Progressivism operating on a political premise of collectivism. That is why the government resulting from an election you lose does not in many important ways represent you. Voting was not originally intended to put your rights up for grabs in accordance with desires of pressure groups.

                              Wishing or demanding that political enemies not vote or not be permitted to vote is not the answer. All that can correct it is restoring (and improving) the foundations of government in accordance with reason and individualism, and that requires changing the philosophic ideas and premises that are broadly accepted across the culture.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                                So what would you suggest we do now.

                                Half the citizens are definite collectivists, and the other half are intellectually compromised people leaning more towards individualism.

                                The election is two weeks away. I can vote for the definite collectivists guaranteeing I will get taken advantage of and Trump will be stopped in his tracks for the next two years, vote against them and get less of my rights violated and perhaps get some of the things that violate my rights get repealed, or I can not vote at all and most likely let the collectivists convert Trump into a lame duck.

                                There are no intellectually consistent individualists running in any significant races, so thats not an option.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                                  "What would you suggest we do now"? This has been discussed many times here and you know what I advocate. There are no shortcuts, and the battle for ideas cannot be won starting two weeks before an election.

                                  If there isn't anyone left you can vote for within the choices available on the ballot in front of your nose right now then there isn't anything you can do "now". If there is someone, at least enough to stop the latest surge from the new New Left, then help to get him elected by whoever is still open to it and willing to vote, at least with prodding. But whatever last minute backlash may be possible, it does nothing to stop the trend without advocating for better ideas.

                                  If the Democrats do not this time take over the House because of a backlash against a new extreme as part of the trend, don't just sit and do nothing then come back two weeks before the next election wringing your hands and asking "what do we do now"?

                                  This is like not keeping up a nation's defenses and otherwise not preparing for an impending war, then two weeks before the assault demanding "what do we do now"? "What is the shortcut I can employ here now in defiance of reality as a substitute for my failure to prepare?" There isn't one. You can fight with whatever you have and desperately try to hold them back, hoping that you can, and that it may be enough to buy time to do it right. But it doesn't substitute for having the necessary defenses to win the war through countless future battles that require knowledge, effort, and preparation.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • term2 replied 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                                • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
                                  See the blog post that started this:
                                  I am proud of my voting record. I show up for primaries. I never cast a vote without an opinion: if I do not know anything about the candidates, then I do not choose among them. I always vote for the candidate, never for the party. (I also contribute money to campaigns, but that is another topic.
                                  https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2...

                                  That said, you vote for your own purposes. Unless you are in a village of 30, your vote hardly counts at all. The outcome is the same whether you vote or not. Back in 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon by one vote per precinct and it was just about that: evenly distributed across the nation. But now, Red and Blue are ensconsed by neighborhoods, cities, and states.

                                  At the local level, perhaps, yes, during a primary, even in a metropolitan city, your vote might count beyond how good it makes you feel. When the mobs arrive on Election Day, though, your vote is a waste of your time. It is a matter of selfishness. Do what makes you feel good, if you want, but you are not improving your life by voting.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • term2 replied 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
            I am not sure that that is true. For all of their flaws, the moth-eaten monarchies of Europe did demonstrate that a constitutionally limited monarchy is practicable. Given that the correct philosophy is implicitly accepted across a cutlure, It would be no worse and in many ways better. Monarchies take a long-term view because they have a generations-long investment in the outcome. Democracies are givent to range-of-the-moment decisions.

            The problem is not how you chose the leaders, but the political philosophy that builds the framework of government.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
              A government in principle cannot represent the people without the people playing a role in selecting who is in government and how it acts. The standard is not the Pragmatist "practical".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Most native born Americans could not pass a citizenship test. I have often felt there should be a test one must pass in order to attain the right to vote. Just think about how stupid those who elected and reelected the likes of Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Dick Dumass and a bunch of others really are.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rainman0720 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Well, according to the Wicket Witch of the West, if I get a tax refund, I'm taking money from the government, since she and her ilk think that everything I earn belongs to the government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I have seen somewhere the figure of 42% (from memory) as being the US population proportion dependent on government money. Clearly, the more socialism, the less true democracy in that voters must withdraw, or vote for/against their employer.

    It is a good sounding concept on the surface. Very hard (impossible?) to define well enough for a workable rule.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      You have to be careful of how they define "dependent". Someone being paid for a government job may or may not be acting legitimately, and he may or may not be in a field that has been improperly taken over by government. A person with a legitimate government job or an otherwise legitimate job that happens to be run by government is earning his salary. And someone getting his own money back from Social Security has been forced to be "dependent" on getting his own money back. But the total number of people being paid for some reason by government is a relevant indicator of the collectivization.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I, heartily, disagree. Government employees, like myself, are taxpayers and many are landowners. Therefore, we should have a voice in how our taxes are squand...spent. Many of us are conservatives and vote, constitutionally, as well. If government employees are taken out of the equation, who's next? Christians who might vote for Mike Pence for President?

    I've been operating a one man letter writing campaign to get our agency to relax their firearms policy, for years. I've also been a strong advocate against unions collecting dues from unwilling participants. Finally, I spent some years in this nation's military and unquestionably, earned my right to vote.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      You disagree because of your personal point of view, but you are not being objective. Government employees are not taxpayers, certainly not to the government that employs them. Federal employees do pay local taxes and vice versa. So, we might say that you should not vote in elections for the government you serve in, though you might be allowed to vote in other elections. But overall, you are just saying that you should vote even though you are a government employee because you promise to vote for candidates you think we might approve of.

      Prohibiting Christians from voting would be against the Constitution ("no religious test" clause). However, that was never the problem. Rather, for about 200 years atheists were prohibited from voting, serving on juries, being witnesses in court, or running for public office. About a dozen states had such laws until about 1991.

      The discssion here is theoretical, based on objective considerations, not the actual Constitution. By Heinlein's Theory, you get to vote after you serve your term in the military, not while.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        I agree that I don't pay income tax in Washington state (I'm a state employee), but I do pay Federal income taxes and the Feds don't employee me. I'm not sure I understand how can suggest that I don't pay taxes. Additionally, I am a land owner and it is my understanding that, once upon a time, they were the ONLY people who were allowed to vote (a situation I likely would've agreed with).

        I don't know Heinlein's Theory (though I'm a fan of his writing), but since it IS a theory, I will maintain my position and disagree with it. So far as I am aware, my copy of the U.S. Constitution doesn't have any wording that precludes U.S. servicemen from voting, though there may be some interpretation of that document I haven't been led to understand.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        He didn't say what his job is. Someone earning his pay in a legitimate job run by government, whether or not it should be, is paying taxes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    You are right that this war isn’t won in a few weeks. I do think as a matter of observation that whether or not AR INTENDED AS as a work of fiction, it is turning out to be more of a documentary

    As you know from earlier discussions, I think that the most effective way to get people to think is to point out the failures of the collectivists. A philosophy of individualism , based in reality, will actually work better than one based on collectivism
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Appealing to what is claimed to "work" without regard to fundamental principles providing the criterion of what it means to "work" is Pragmatism and is hopeless as a refutation of altruism and collectivism. As has been said many times here and ignored, collectivism has demonstrated its failures over and over for more than a century which has made no difference to those with an altruistic premise.

      Ayn Rand knew very well that the logic of the plot in Atlas Shrugged was playing out in this country. She gave the reasons why, which is how she knew how to write the plot. Ignoring the philosophy that made that possible while aping the plot in calling for nihilistic 'strikes', ant-intellectual appeals to "emotion", and resorting to Pragmatism will lead you to run out of last ditch attempts two weeks before an election as you wonder "what can we do now" one last time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        But aren’t you missing my point that promoting individualism philosophy to people has failed to stem the tide of collectivism- you don’t even get the attention of the vast majority of people. My point is in order to get their attention, drastic things like economic collapse are needed. Once you get their attention, the speech of John Galt has a shot at being understood and accepted.

        In the meantime each person can adopt and live by rational principles, which I try to do. But we live in fascist societies that take what I can make every day to support their collectivism. If they didn’t take my freedom, I wouldn’t care what idiotic philosophies they adopted. The characters of Francisco, Ragnar, and John Galt withdrew their support from collectivism and forced the people to see how collectivism failed- and got their attention. Only then were they at least open to listening to Galt

        You can stand on a soapbox and preach objectivism while the country turns openly socialist, but So few people are listening that it’s not going to prevent a collapse in our lifetimes.

        Hiding in plain sight seems a better approach. At least you get a better life now while u are alive.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          You have no idea what I do. It doesn't include soapboxes.

          If you can't rationally communicate your ideas to people, one mind at a time, you will not succeed by trying to force them with a nihilistic "collapse" making a mess with a global food-fight to "get their attention". Collapse and death are not an argument for correct ideas.

          Those who take your freedom are motivated by what you call
          "idiotic philosophies" that you don't want to care about. Ignoring that is thoroughly anti-intellectual; it will not change the ideas people base their decisions on.

          There are no shortcuts to changing prevailing ideas across a culture, including global food fights deliberately causing destruction that would most likely destroy you -- especially if the people you hurt find out you urged and caused it to "get their attention", in which case they would most likely cannibalize you on the spot rather than suddenly decide to read "Galt's speech", let alone instantly absorb it and understand it in the middle of a panic in a crisis.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            You do have some good arguments which are borne out so far in Venezuela. The collapse there hasn’t sparked much positive philosophical change either there or here for that matter.

            The prevalent philosophy in the USA is very irrational and getting worse. AS. Didn’t do very much at all to affect the dominant cultural philosophy so far

            I suspect that real change will take generations far beyond the lifetimes of people alive today.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Venezuela isn't the only example. It didn't work in the Dark Ages either. Or, in more modern times, in the Soviet Union, and countless other examples. Knowing you don't like something doesn't tell you how to get out of it or what is right. And finding out what is right takes an enormous amount of thought and time-consuming understanding, which delay can be lessened by eventually learning and understanding better ideas spread by others who do know more.

              Ayn Rand has had an impact on the culture, but it is only the beginning and not yet in the establishment intellectuals. Positive change is possible, but a full flowering of reason and individualism is likely a long way off.

              Meanwhile, if you fear an irrational mob that you can't reason with, then deliberately provoking it by hitting them over the head with a deliberate crash to "get their attention" is probably not a good idea.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                I agree that experiencing a crash does not impart the knowledge about what would work better. Especially true if you never thought about the philosophy in place that resulted in the crash

                I think most people today just bumble along in some emotional fog . When there is nothing to eat, they know something is wrong, but don’t know what or why. If they had thought about things in the first place they would never have let things get that bad.
                I remember an interview with AR in which she hoped AS would get people thinking enough to stop the spread of collectivism

                What is obvious is what a monumental task that is and how little impact writing a few books has.-Not zero impact, but a small impact on a country overall.

                The beginnings of the USA was influenced far more by the very negative experience of being subjected to the collectivist English both in England and in the harsh new land. I think it did spark some intellectuals like Jefferson and the other founding fathers to produce our constitution as an alternative to the hated British rule. I wasn’t around then , but I suspect the average colonist st the time in 1776 just went along with the alternative to British rule because they hated British rule so much not because they were convinced objectivist principles were correct intellectually

                Maybe what’s required today is emotional upset with the practicalities of the way the country is going, mixed with a leader or leaders who offer an alternative, just like happened in 1776.

                I agree with you about it taking a long time for that emotional upset to get to the breaking point. I see the election of trump as an indication that upset is growing among the 5o% who were labeled deplorable. They don’t automatically have an intellectual basis , but I don’t think the settlers in 1776 did either

                We are seeing the beginnings of the American revolution V2.0. The other 50% see the danger to their corrupt system and are fighting i to preserve it as the English did.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    The primary problem is not about who can vote. It’s about what people can vote for.
    This kind of voting should never be allowed in a moral society,
    “Let’s all vote to loot the earnings of this weathy individual so we can redistribute what they’ve earned to all of us. Who votes yes?”
    (Repeat over and over and over)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    The line is when you are on public assistance. I cant in good concience take away the right to vote from any member of the military, and if you started doing this to "Government Workers" they would become ensnared. As to SS recipients.....Supposedly they earned that...again, you cant take from these people.

    The solution....give one vote per $1,000 in taxes paid. Every working person then would get to vote. If you made too little income and got the earned income tax credit...IE pay no taxes....you are incompetent and SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ANYWAY until you can structure your affairs in such a manner that you do pay taxes!

    The founders did not let you vote unless you were a property owner and therefore paid taxes, so there is precedent for this. The liberals should be happy with this because they claim the rich pay no taxes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Vote buying is properly illegal and should not be entrenched in the voting system itself. Allowing billionaires to swamp everyone else with their votes is not representative government and has nothing to do with rational selection of government representation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Would it not depend on how they got those billions? In a laissez-faire economy, they would have earned their wealth objectively. So, their zillions of votes in the hustings would be no less their right than their votes in the corporations they invest in and therefore own.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          Rights do not depend on wealth, let alone taxes paid, no matter what one's career and means of earning. There is no right to "zillions of votes", which rationalization sounds like a parody of Marxist economic determinism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        What I'm proposing is not vote-buying. It is apportioning voting power based on actual contribution to the society. You liberals always think that the rich people don't pay any taxes well you should be happy with a system like this. Of course you wouldn't be because you know darn well that are relatively narrow portion of the population pays all the taxes. The lower end, that only take from society, should not be getting to decide how the money is spent. All they're going to do is vote for a greater sinecure for themselves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          You are advocating elevating the mentality of vote buying into the root of they system. That is not the basis of a free society. Our rights do not depend on "contributing to society", let alone paying taxes, which is a thoroughly collectivist premise adopted as a conservative mantra. Nor is paying taxes the measure of "contributing to society" at all. Conservatism is a false alternative to modern liberalism.

          Wishing and demanding that opponents not be allowed to vote is a concession that you have lost the battle and offers nothing as a solution. Not only is it hopelessly futile, the vote-buying scheme fantasizes about who is voting for what: The intellectual establishment and wealthy "blue states" are dominating support for the welfare state and more extreme versions of socialism without regard to the small portion who are on welfare. Do you want the wealthy likes of George Sorros, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Gates deciding who runs the country?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
            Ayn Rand only attempted a sketch at how to fund a government without coercion. Selling voting shares would provide voluntary payments in return for a tanglible benefit and give the votes to those who have earned them -- in a free society. In our welfare-statist halfway house, yes, you are right, many wealthy people got their money from "rent seeking" through various government interactions. But that does not change the essential fact that selling voting shares would provide a voluntary payments to the government to fund its necessarily limited functions.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            In a pure democracy the mob votes themselves largess from the government paid for by the minority of producers. That is why the founders set up a Republic and only allowed taxpayers to vote. One man one vote is nothing but a return to mob rule.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              "One man one vote" is not "mob rule". Voting is a method of selecting representation; it does not mean that government is unlimited or a mob can do anything it wants to. A moral society must have a limited government protecting the rights of the individual. The right to vote is in inherent in a government that represents the people, but it does not mean that a mob can properly vote for anything it wants regardless of the rights of the individual and regardless of limits on governmental actions and prescribed procedures. Voting to determine representation does not mean pure democracy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                I disagree one-man-one-vote is Mob rule particularly if there's not equality among the group of people you're talking about and we most certainly do not have equal citizens in this country some of us contribute and some of us are deadbeats. The deadbeats do not need to be voting. All they are going to do is vote themselves Representatives who will continue to rob the rich and give to the poor.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                  You continue to equate voting within a representative government with welfare statism. It isn't true. Voting for representation does not mean robbery, and welfare "deadbeats" are not the only ones voting for statism and collectivism.

                  Equality before the law does not mean equal ability, effort, or income. Individuals have rights because of their nature as rational beings, not by how much government they can afford to buy, which itself implements statism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                    You equate equity before the law with voting power. Rights to property and to freedom from imprisonment in courts have nothing to do with voting. Assigning voting power to individuals based on the volume of taxes extracted from them is not selling votes. People almost never pay taxes voluntarily. It is extracted under threat of force.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                      I do not "equate equity before the law with voting power". Laws specifying voting procedures are one part of the law. A government representing the people who live under does require voting rights. The government represent represents everyone and is supposed to adopt procedures protecting eveyone's rights, not large bank accounts and tax payments. There is no "right" to determine how a government functions based on amount of income with the wealthy disenfranchising everyone else..
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                        My proposition never said anything about income....just taxes extracted.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                          You have to have an income to pay income taxes. You are not addressing the principles. We have a right to vote for a representative government; rights do not depend on paying taxes; 'one man one vote' does not mean pure democracy and "mob rule" under a proper, representative government that is the opposite of that, having more of a "say" in how we are looted is not a principle of moral government, and wishing and demanding that your dedicated opponents not vote is not a solution to anything..
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                            You forget that when the founders set the government up you only voted if you were a property owner. All I am suggesting is that you have to have skin in the game if you are going to be in the class that gets to call the shots.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                              This isn't a game with skin and there shouldn't be a "class" that "calls the shots" at all. That is not representative government. Even the original system of voting by property owners was uniform, not an oligarchy of high income earners paying the highest taxes.

                              If you want to stop a system based on looting then denounce the looting on principle and advocate a limited government that prohibits it. Jumping into the middle of a welfare state and conceding the looting premise, while advocating an impossible 'reform' consisting of victims having a "say" in their own torment, while giving more "say" to wealthy liberals, is typical Pragmatist avoiding of principles. Even if this bizarre, contradictory and immoral scheme could be imagined to "work" to get what you seem to want, your enemies are not going to allow you to disenfranchise them in the name of reform. That is a consequence of their premise that the looting is moral, which you won't challenge. How do you expect to put over such a blatant political end-run around their fundamental purpose without denouncing it on principle? Demanding that your dedicated enemies give up their power is not a strategy to convince anyone.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Noting, also, that very many very non-mobish but snobbish people also get stuff from the government. Right now, I am reading The Wise Men by Isaacson and Thomas. It is about Avrill Harriman, George Kennan, Dean Acheson and others who moved easily from Wall Street to the State Department. I do not condemn them for that prima facie but I do underscore ewv's point that political change depends on a philosophical shift across our common culture ("society"). The government has such favors to grant. The solution is to create a truly limited government. But that depends on a change in perceptions by mlllions of other people. It requires a philosophical revoiution in the implict metaphysics and epistemology of the broader culture. In other words, it requires a new Renaissance.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          OK, +1, but you do realize that "contribuitions to society" is not the way to express that. First of all "society" is a floating abstraction. Then, does one heart surgeon contribute more or less than 100 janitors or 6 engineers or 1/2 of a brain surgeon?

          But, yes, the idea of voting shares is market-based and therefore just.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            There is no rational basis for "voting shares" based on contributions of anything. Government is not a corporation "owned" by those who pay taxes or otherwise "sacrifice".

            "Society" is not a "floating abstraction", it is a valid abstraction referring to a number of individuals associated with, in this context, a common culture in a nation. It is misused as a floating abstraction by those claiming to represent interests or 'rights' of a society as if it were an entity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I appreciate that you are interested in considering my outlook. Your question....."Then, does one heart surgeon contribute more or less than 100 janitors or 6 engineers or 1/2 of a brain surgeon?" Supports my idea. Because the surgeon earns more and therefore generally pays more in taxes ....yes he does contribute more......Also ....the fact that he earns more in a market based economy proves that he has more value than a janitor.
            We are all "Created equal" but we diverge after birth. Society then assigns a value to us based on our particular skill set, this results in earnings and then ...under our current system.,...taxes.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              This is not a matter of utilitarianism. No such calculations are required to know that individuals have rights, including the right to vote, regardless of career or income. 100 or 1000 janitors or 6 engineers may very well be worth in income more than a doctor, but economic "market valuation" has nothing to do with their rights.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                Whoa...hang on a minute......felons can't vote. Not everyone has the same rights. If government is going to extract taxes from citizens there needs to equity in the ability to decide where the money goes and those from whom is extracted the most, should have the most say. There is absolutely no way some non working deadbeat should have the same vote as the earners who pay taxes.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                  Felons also lose their freedom when they are sent to jail. Punishment for crime does not mean we don't all have the same natural rights.

                  You continue to confuse collectivism with a proper government. Everyone has a right to vote in a representative government. No one has a right to vote to loot others. Arbitrarily giving "the most say" to those who "have the most extracted" does not address the problem. Giving more "say" to wealthy leftist like Sorros, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Barach Obama, and the beneficiaries of the Clinton Foundation is not a solution to anything and evades the principles on which proper government is based. The rights of the individual come from his nature as a rational being, not his income taxes.

                  Nor does it make sense to even propose such a scheme. The looters are getting away with their looting because it is ingrained in the popularly accepted notions of altruism and collectivism. Telling them they can't vote (despite the high incomes of many of them) because their victims want more of a "say" evades their false premises and does nothing to counter them. They are not going to stop voting just because you don't want them to and won't refute their false premises. If, in fantasy, you think you can stop them by telling them they shouldn't have so much "say" in how much they take, then why not challenge their basic premises to begin with?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                    Because challenging the basic premises never seems to work the mob always ends up extracting the money from their betters.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
                      What people think is right depends on the prevailing ideas accepted in a society. If challenging basic premises did not work we never would have had the Enlightenment and would still be in the Dark Ages. When a mob is descending on you with pitch forks it is too late; there is no mind in that to appeal to. Changing minds takes time, knowing what is right, and knowing how to communicate it. There is no substitute, including futile attempts at a "solution" demanding that your opponents not be allowed to vote unless they have an income, as most liberals do, and insisting that having a "say" in your own demise is a principle of proper government.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              I may trigger some, but objectively, we are NOT all created equal. We are ALL created different with a very different set of genes. We do all have individual rights, which should be respected by all.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      It is an idea. See my comments here about THE SECRET OF THE LEAGUE by Ernst Bramah. There, shares in the government were 500 UKP each. Each share was a vote. Buy as many as you want.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        It's a very bad idea that evades the source of the problem. Like most of the other "don't let them vote" schemes presented here it ignores the proper nature of government as it hopelessly wishes for political enemies to not be able to vote.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Beatlemicah 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I believe some of the founding fathers argued that only property owners should be allowed to vote. Just sayin'. I don't mean nuthin by it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Other founders were against that. Property owners were farmers. Many founders were merchants. Merchants typically hold very little property of any kind and seldom any "real" property (land). They tend to rent their homes in the city.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnJMulhall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I would support 'DrZarkov99' with the comment from Robert Heinlein... only those who put their lives on the line would be allowed to vote, or seek elected office. Not just the military, but those who also put their lives on the line locally (Police, Fire, etc.). BHO spoke of having 'skin in the game - these are the people who really did put their 'skin in the game'. In my adult life I have missed two elections. While in service, I voted for the people who had the power to send me in harms way, and did not doubt that my voice mattered. Most of those up-chain election-wise did not have the experience of putting their life on the line (many avoided it) so my experiences countered their ignorance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Our rights as individuals to be represented by government is not dependent on risking one's life.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Voting is not a right.

        Ayn Rand identified or at least suggested that the Constitution was betrayed by its own internal contradictions. And as it was written, voting - which is controlled LOCALLY not by the federal government - is not a right.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          “The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system—and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters’ power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny.”
          -Ayn Rand
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            That quote is from The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. III, No. 24 August 26, 1974 "The Lessons Of Vietnam".

            Another one pertaining to what she called the "right to vote" is, "Voting is a derivative, not a fundamental, right; it is derived from the right to life, as a political implementation of the requirements of a rational being's survival", from The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. 1, No. 21 July 17, 1972 "Representation Without Authorization".

            The principle was stated in the context of discussing the limits on proper voting based on the philosophical basis of a right to vote for proper purposes.

            Both essays are also in her anthology The Voice of Reason.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          Errors (not betrayal) in the Constitution do not mean there is no right to vote, nor is it true that "as it was written voting is not a right", nor do rights, including those exercised locally, come from the Federal government at all. Rights in the Constitution were codifications of natural rights in the form of objective acknowledgments of procedures and requirements limiting government power. The Bill of Rights included "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". None of that means that voting is not a right, either natural or civil encoded in law, or that the Constitution says it is not a right.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
      But, again, Heinlein's theory is that you can vote after you have served not while serving. And that, too, is the course adopted by the generals I cited. They did not vote while serving.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Heinlein's bizarre theory, stated here as the right to vote must be earned by "service in the military or other duties requiring some degree of personal sacrifice", is irrelevant altruistic sacrifice and collectivism. Arguing whether one can vote during or only after a completion of sacrifice is like the rationalistic, meaningless arguments from false premises of Middle Ages Scholastics.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Your examples of those who put their lives on line are not even in the top 10 of dangerous jobs where one puts his life on line daily. So why not add non-government workers to those who put their lives on line locally?

      https://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnJMulhall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        Easy answer: those that I cited are going into 'harms way' dealing with criminals, fires, diseases, and things that are 'out of the ordinary' and not in controlled situations (similar to a war). 'Driving a truck' (in my opinion) does not rate the same consideration and going into a burning building, or dealing with the deranged (although I just saw where the accident rates are up 6%+ in the states with legalized marijuana).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  eckert16 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Who knows, maybe somewhere in the vast regulations of the Federal Register there is buried something that actually says persons receiving a check from the federal go are ineligible to vote in federal elections. .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    There shouldnt be mob vote when it comes to whose rights will be taken away, like happens today.

    I vote when its a matter of having MY PERSONAL rights being perhaps taken away. Otherwise, I agree with you tht the vote of an individual citizen doesnt matter much. But, that said, in 2016, the deplorable ones did make a difference, as it does in this mid term. Without winning this election and retaining the congress, Trump will be a lame duck president and he might as well resign.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I would correct this slightly: those who take money from others should not be allowed to vote. If you are receiving a welfare check, you forfeit your right to vote yourself more money from my pocket. If you are engaged in meaningful employ as a civil servant, you are still entitled to vote, but I would suggest that such not be allowed to vote on monetary matters such as tax policy. Those in the armed forces (or veterans) earn their right to vote on anything and everything.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Those who take money from others should be in jail. That's not a matter of voting or forfeiting future voting.

      As government makes more and more people dependent on it, taking away the right to vote would be massive and result in dictatorship, but it can't done that way. The welfare state mentality will not allow removing voting rights for receiving government subsidies, but it has other ideas of how to rationalize disenfranchisement.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    If voting allows the use of the collective force of the state to steal from anyone then only those who would not vote for such should be allowed to vote. This would narrow the field to almost no one but it might work. Voting does not secure liberty, it gives the takers justification for what they do. Thieves will always vote to legitimize theft. That way they have the government back up of violence to ensure the builders will not resist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Me dino worked for the Alabama Department of Corrections for 21 years.
    Most of my coworkers were libs.
    So my being denied the vote along with the rest of my prisoin officer peers during that time woulda been me dino coming out on top.
    Tee-hee!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
    Secretary of Defense James Mattis said:
    "You know, we're all built on our formative experiences," Mattis said. "When I was 18, I joined the Marine Corps, and in the U.S. military, we are proudly apolitical. By that, I mean that in our duties, we were brought up to obey the elected commander in chief, whoever that is. And we've seen, over those -- since I was in the military longer than some of you have been alive, I have seen Republicans and Democrats come and go."
    "(Mattis Hit Back at Trump's Claim" - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/matt... )
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      In the military he had to obey the commander in his performance of his job, but he package deals that with don't have an opinion on the competence and goals of the president. Military operations are not subject to vote and not "political" in that sense, but it doesn't mean the commander in chief can tell anyone not to vote for his opponent in an election or those in the military have to be "apolitical" and not vote, and it doesn't mean the Trump can't fire his own political appointees.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month, 3 weeks ago
    I have always thought: Those that do not produce nor create value, those that are a drain upon the system, should not vote.
    But as you point out, that could include many in government, those with special interests...maybe we should re-enact the 3/5ths clause on the outlying categories...

    I am laughing but, first, I think, we need to vanquish the false idea that we are a demonocracy...that's Not going to go over very well...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo