[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
If there is no government, you don’t vote.
My kids vote on what we have for dinner Friday night. I hope it is Chinese this week.
Voting is a very natural act.
We do the same thing.
But, to show them how the real world works, I completely ignore their vote and get what I want anyway.
[/quote]
I just manipulate them into getting what want and if they still vote on garbage food I eat something else.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just manipulate them into getting what want and if they still vote on garbage food I eat something else.[/quote]
I feel it’s important that they learn the Golden Rule:
“He who has the gold, makes the rules.”
Nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or so far as I know in any article, book, or document of any kind written by any of the Founding Fathers does it say there is a right to vote for President or for Senator.
In fact they had no intent whatsoever that there would be direct vote for these offices.
So if arguing God-given right to vote for these offices, then that’s a fairly new concept anyway.
One can have a representative republic – which our government was intended to be – without direct public voting for those offices, just as we don’t have to and should not have direct public voting on each bill being considered for passage. Rather, we can elect a representative that we know, that we entrust for a time to make such decisions.
The original concept was that people can and will know their local candidates and leaders, such as candidates for Congressional districts and State Senate or State House races, and such people will be directly accountable to the rather limited number of local people they serve; but when it comes to national or state-wide elections, then “the machine” tends to control what happens.
Of course, “the machine” LIKES controlling what happens, and so election of President and Senators was changed away out of the hands of local representatives – Congressmen and state legislators – and “to the public.” Who is more easily bamboozled and led by the nose, and tricked into accepting “Well it has to be either this guy OR that guy, eithe Stalin or Lenin, gotta vote for one of them!” every election cycle.
As to the concept that those who draw benefits from the government and pay nothing into it ought to be able to vote for these offices, let alone have a “right” to do so, that has obvious problems.
De Tocqueville said long ago regarding America: When 51% of the people come to realize that they can use the ballot box to steal from the other 49%, the end will come.
In 2004 – I don’t have the figure for today – the first 60% of income earners (in other words, low income to middle income to somewhat past median income) received over one trillion dollars more from the government than they paid in taxes.
Gee, you think they’re going to vote to stop taking money from the other 40% to have for themselves? There appears to be no trend in that direction, so long as those that draw more than they pay can vote for President and Senator. Tax cuts? Who needs that! High income taxes are good because we don’t pay them and they enable us to get yet more money from the government! (Saith the 60%.)
In 2007, the higher 50% (I don’t have the value for the higher 49%) of income earners – that is to say, those who provided enough value in goods and services valued by others that others wanted to pay for to get them to median income or better – paid 97% of the income taxes. The lower 50%, while obviously still getting as much or more benefit from government, carried 3% of the load, with the vast majority of them (I don’t have the figure though) receiving much more in benefit that what they paid.
Meanwhile, the media bleats incessantly that these upper 50% – whom they like to call “the fortunate” rather than hard workers who took the trouble to get educated and learn more valued skills and made some good decisions – who pay 97% of the income taxes, “aren’t paying their fair share.”
What do you think the 51% are going to do with their “right” to vote for politicians who will change the tax code to yet further satisfy those constituents, as 51% is all that’s needed to win?
Are the 51% going to vote to carry some reasonable and affordable share of the load, or will they tend to use the ballot box to steal more from the 49% that earn more income by, generally, doing more that others because of valuing what they do voluntarily choose to pay them?
Something to think about when claiming “right” to vote for every federal office, in particular if it’s regardless of whether one pays in or is a taker.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
If there is no government, you don’t vote.
My kids vote on what we have for dinner Friday night. I hope it is Chinese this week.
Voting is a very natural act.
We do the same thing.
But, to show them how the real world works, I completely ignore their vote and get what I want anyway.
I just manipulate them into getting what want and if they still vote on garbage food I eat something else.[/quote]
Get Diebold Home Edition.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Yes Lifticus, but when you vote with your wallet, you have earned your “vote.”[/quote]
True. I think people generally only vote once a candidate has “earned” their trust – however one goes about doing that is beside the point. It is not such a different concept in the market except for the fact that one provides more choice than the other.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Get Diebold Home Edition.[/quote]
You mean this: Register To Vote On Your Xbox 360?!
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Get Diebold Home Edition.
You mean this: Register To Vote On Your Xbox 360?!
[/quote]
If it can be manipulated so the kids never get what they want for dinner…absolutely.
[quote]Gael wrote:
But voting is not an inalienable right. It is one provided by democratic government.[/quote]
Our government is a republic.
[quote]Gael wrote:
But voting is not an inalienable right. It is one provided by democratic government.[/quote]
It is exactly the other way around.
There is no democratic government without voting.
[quote]pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
But voting is not an inalienable right. It is one provided by democratic government.
Our government is a republic.[/quote]
A democratic one.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or so far as I know in any article, book, or document of any kind written by any of the Founding Fathers does it say there is a right to vote for President or for Senator.
In fact they had no intent whatsoever that there would be direct vote for these offices.
So if arguing God-given right to vote for these offices, then that’s a fairly new concept anyway.
One can have a representative republic – which our government was intended to be – without direct public voting for those offices, just as we don’t have to and should not have direct public voting on each bill being considered for passage. Rather, we can elect a representative that we know, that we entrust for a time to make such decisions.
The original concept was that people can and will know their local candidates and leaders, such as candidates for Congressional districts and State Senate or State House races, and such people will be directly accountable to the rather limited number of local people they serve; but when it comes to national or state-wide elections, then “the machine” tends to control what happens.
Of course, “the machine” LIKES controlling what happens, and so election of President and Senators was changed away out of the hands of local representatives – Congressmen and state legislators – and “to the public.” Who is more easily bamboozled and led by the nose, and tricked into accepting “Well it has to be either this guy OR that guy, eithe Stalin or Lenin, gotta vote for one of them!” every election cycle.
As to the concept that those who draw benefits from the government and pay nothing into it ought to be able to vote for these offices, let alone have a “right” to do so, that has obvious problems.
De Tocqueville said long ago regarding America: When 51% of the people come to realize that they can use the ballot box to steal from the other 49%, the end will come.
In 2004 – I don’t have the figure for today – the first 60% of income earners (in other words, low income to middle income to somewhat past median income) received over one trillion dollars more from the government than they paid in taxes.
Gee, you think they’re going to vote to stop taking money from the other 40% to have for themselves? There appears to be no trend in that direction, so long as those that draw more than they pay can vote for President and Senator. Tax cuts? Who needs that! High income taxes are good because we don’t pay them and they enable us to get yet more money from the government! (Saith the 60%.)
In 2007, the higher 50% (I don’t have the value for the higher 49%) of income earners – that is to say, those who provided enough value in goods and services valued by others that others wanted to pay for to get them to median income or better – paid 97% of the income taxes. The lower 50%, while obviously still getting as much or more benefit from government, carried 3% of the load, with the vast majority of them (I don’t have the figure though) receiving much more in benefit that what they paid.
Meanwhile, the media bleats incessantly that these upper 50% – whom they like to call “the fortunate” rather than hard workers who took the trouble to get educated and learn more valued skills and made some good decisions – who pay 97% of the income taxes, “aren’t paying their fair share.”
What do you think the 51% are going to do with their “right” to vote for politicians who will change the tax code to yet further satisfy those constituents, as 51% is all that’s needed to win?
Are the 51% going to vote to carry some reasonable and affordable share of the load, or will they tend to use the ballot box to steal more from the 49% that earn more income by, generally, doing more that others because of valuing what they do voluntarily choose to pay them?
Something to think about when claiming “right” to vote for every federal office, in particular if it’s regardless of whether one pays in or is a taker.[/quote]
Damn! You’re on a roll doc!. I agree wit Dr. Roberts this speaks for me as well.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or so far as I know in any article, book, or document of any kind written by any of the Founding Fathers does it say there is a right to vote for President or for Senator.
In fact they had no intent whatsoever that there would be direct vote for these offices.
So if arguing God-given right to vote for these offices, then that’s a fairly new concept anyway.
One can have a representative republic – which our government was intended to be – without direct public voting for those offices, just as we don’t have to and should not have direct public voting on each bill being considered for passage. Rather, we can elect a representative that we know, that we entrust for a time to make such decisions.
The original concept was that people can and will know their local candidates and leaders, such as candidates for Congressional districts and State Senate or State House races, and such people will be directly accountable to the rather limited number of local people they serve; but when it comes to national or state-wide elections, then “the machine” tends to control what happens.
Of course, “the machine” LIKES controlling what happens, and so election of President and Senators was changed away out of the hands of local representatives – Congressmen and state legislators – and “to the public.” Who is more easily bamboozled and led by the nose, and tricked into accepting “Well it has to be either this guy OR that guy, eithe Stalin or Lenin, gotta vote for one of them!” every election cycle.
As to the concept that those who draw benefits from the government and pay nothing into it ought to be able to vote for these offices, let alone have a “right” to do so, that has obvious problems.
De Tocqueville said long ago regarding America: When 51% of the people come to realize that they can use the ballot box to steal from the other 49%, the end will come.
In 2004 – I don’t have the figure for today – the first 60% of income earners (in other words, low income to middle income to somewhat past median income) received over one trillion dollars more from the government than they paid in taxes.
Gee, you think they’re going to vote to stop taking money from the other 40% to have for themselves? There appears to be no trend in that direction, so long as those that draw more than they pay can vote for President and Senator. Tax cuts? Who needs that! High income taxes are good because we don’t pay them and they enable us to get yet more money from the government! (Saith the 60%.)
In 2007, the higher 50% (I don’t have the value for the higher 49%) of income earners – that is to say, those who provided enough value in goods and services valued by others that others wanted to pay for to get them to median income or better – paid 97% of the income taxes. The lower 50%, while obviously still getting as much or more benefit from government, carried 3% of the load, with the vast majority of them (I don’t have the figure though) receiving much more in benefit that what they paid.
Meanwhile, the media bleats incessantly that these upper 50% – whom they like to call “the fortunate” rather than hard workers who took the trouble to get educated and learn more valued skills and made some good decisions – who pay 97% of the income taxes, “aren’t paying their fair share.”
What do you think the 51% are going to do with their “right” to vote for politicians who will change the tax code to yet further satisfy those constituents, as 51% is all that’s needed to win?
Are the 51% going to vote to carry some reasonable and affordable share of the load, or will they tend to use the ballot box to steal more from the 49% that earn more income by, generally, doing more that others because of valuing what they do voluntarily choose to pay them?
Something to think about when claiming “right” to vote for every federal office, in particular if it’s regardless of whether one pays in or is a taker.[/quote]
Two things:
First, while everyone has a right to vote it was understood that some things simply were off limits. Like Life, Liberty and Private Property.
That changed, to what extent one can blame that on Democracy is an interesting question.
Second, Popper´s point still stands, Democracy answers an important question. Not “Who should rule us?” but " OMG how do we get rid of these Mofos?". As long as a Democracy at least provides an answer for that question that is still a lot.
[quote]orion wrote:
First, while everyone has a right to vote…[/quote]
Where in the US Constitution or other documents of the Founding Fathers do you find the right to vote for President or US Senator?
Does a felon have a right to vote? (Of course, those of one particular end of the spectrum tend to say yes to this.)
Does an illegal alien? (Of course those of one particular end of the spectrum tend to say yes to this also.)
If we can say not so in those cases, then this is clearly not exactly a human right but a privilege granted by society. If society can decide that felons and/or illegal aliens cannot vote, why must it decide that those that do not support themselves, for example, can cast votes towards the purpose of having money taken from others and given to themselves?
Why can’t it say no to that? Why can’t it say, If you don’t carry any share of the cost then you don’t get any say in how it’s spent.
Earlier in this country’s history indeed that was how it was done, though the method was imperfect in that owning property was taken as the evidence of having a responsible place in society.
Clearly, a person can be a contributor instead of a taker while a renter, or while serving in the military and not owning property, and so forth so that is not the way to go and was not ideal then either. But the fact that this was done means clearly the Founding Fathers did not agree with you that voting was a right.
To say that a people have the right to choose and replace their leaders is one thing. To say that an exact mechanism is a “right” and every person over some named age has the right to vote via that mechanism, doesn’t necessarily follow.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
First, while everyone has a right to vote…
Where in the US Constitution or other documents of the Founding Fathers do you find the right to vote for President or US Senator?
Does a felon have a right to vote? (Of course, those of one particular end of the spectrum tend to say yes to this.)
Does an illegal alien? (Of course those of one particular end of the spectrum tend to say yes to this also.)
If we can say not so in those cases, then this is clearly not exactly a human right but a privilege granted by society. If society can decide that felons and/or illegal aliens cannot vote, why must it decide that those that do not support themselves, for example, can cast votes towards the purpose of having money taken from others and given to themselves?
Why can’t it say no to that? Why can’t it say, If you don’t carry any share of the cost then you don’t get any say in how it’s spent.
Earlier in this country’s history indeed that was how it was done, though the method was imperfect in that owning property was taken as the evidence of having a responsible place in society.
Clearly, a person can be a contributor instead of a taker while a renter, or while serving in the military and not owning property, and so forth so that is not the way to go and was not ideal then either. But the fact that this was done means clearly the Founding Fathers did not agree with you that voting was a right.
To say that a people have the right to choose and replace their leaders is one thing. To say that an exact mechanism is a “right” and every person over some named age has the right to vote via that mechanism, doesn’t necessarily follow.
[/quote]
I did not want to argue that voting is in any way a “right”, just that it was understood that some things could not be subject to a vote or else a democracy would turn into a tyranny of the majority.
A lot of the problems you address would simply not exist if it was understood that other peoples property is indeed off limits.
I also do not think that you understand what I mean by property as a natural right. It was never meant to mean that anyone has a right to be given something or that property bestows any political rights on someone.
But granted, voting is a civic right right, not a human right and can be taken away.
edited: I would be careful though how many people you exclude from voting, because that creates people who need to attack the system as a whole in order to pursue their interests.
Oh, for sure, if voting is thought to enable taking of property, denial of liberty, denial of life etc then “democracy” becomes an extremely undesirable mob-ocracy. In short, if one doesn’t have a nation operating by rule of law but rather “whatever-the-majority-says,” then this is asking for disaster.
Nowhere was I discussing any statement you made on property rights, only the specific points I was saying.
But on your topic, unfortunately, in fact today a wide segment of the population DOES believe that their vote entitles them to your property.
And the extent to which we operate by rule of law is becoming more and more dubious every day, as judges who take the law to mean what it says are called “out of touch” and some wish to deny them confirmation, while those who legislate from the bench are much desired by some.
And when was the last time the “highest law in the land” had the slightest trace of actual application when it comes to, say, the 10th Amendment? “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.”
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A very long excellent post that also invoked Alexis de Tocqueville, a very brilliant and wise (albeit French =] ) thinker that we would do well to listen to today.[/quote]
You may be heartened to learn that I have not been able to rise into that 49%, but have held no one but myself responsible for that regrettable state of affairs.
I have uniformly voted against those who would coerce them to subsidize my irresponsibility during the first half of my life because, among other reasons, I have witnessed first hand the dehumanizing effect of publicly funded aid on others and I will not have that example for my children. Not all of us underachievers are leeches.
And nowhere, I hope, did I suggest that there’s any universal application. If it appeared that way then I wrote badly. Rather it’s a discussion of how things tend to work in the aggregate, the overall net effect when millions of people are being considered.
We still don’t have the right to vote for the President. We elect members to the electoral college, who then elects a president.
Just sayin’.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And nowhere, I hope, did I suggest that there’s any universal application. If it appeared that way then I wrote badly. Rather it’s a discussion of how things tend to work in the aggregate, the overall net effect when millions of people are being considered.[/quote]
Oh no, not at all.
I just thought it might be encouraging to be reminded that not everybody with financial issues feels the rest of society owes them remedial aid. It is deleterious to the human spirit.
BTW, I read Democracy in America years ago and was stunned by De Tocqueville’s surgical analysis of what made us tick and what would threaten to stop us ticking.
Rainjack makes a good point too. I go back and forth on the electoral college as a concept, but think I’d prefer a straight up vote. I don’t like the tendency for the liberal corners of the country in our case to force their “progress” on the rest of us.
Of course some will argue that the major population centers should carry that influence and maybe so, but I don’t like it.
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
But voting is not an inalienable right. It is one provided by democratic government.
Our government is a republic.
A democratic one.
[/quote]
We are a representative republican democracy. How quaint is that?