Obamacare implosion

Annachie wrote:Thirdly, I think Starship Troopers had it correct vis citizenship.

And that has issues too. The novel never spells out whether there are avenues not related to military service that open the way to full voting citizenship (In fact, it makes it pretty clear that there aren't). And then you'll have to confront the fact that, on the whole, members or ex-members of the military are no more capable of making decisions for society than anyone else; Military service is not designed to make one more aware of political issues. If anything, it's designed to instill an instinctive deference to authority, and that's one of the least useful traits someone voting in a democracy could have. How many leaders have we seen throughout history that got to their exalted positions by displaying personal charisma which is mistaken for leadership ability?

And even if you correct this blatant flaw, what exactly counts as doing "public service"? Who controls that? Why would the people working those jobs get the automatic seal of approval?

I'll repeat what I said the previous times this has come up: Unlimited voting franchise is a feature, not a bug. Taking away the vote is something that should be done only when the prospective voter has demonstrated that they aren't capable of making those decisions, it should not be taken away by such technicalities as "do you work the right job" or "do you pay enough taxes", because all of those things can and WILL be abused.

And of course in correcting your typo as a jest, I make my own.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

If you asserted "health" in the welfare clause as a dig to proggy reasoning, fine. Otherwise, the word health DOES NOT appear in that clause. Both Federalist 23 and Anti Federalist VI by Brutus took that clause to mean defense and general safety.

HB of CJ wrote:Humm. I agreeded with PeterZ because he and I agree on the feeble non legal excuse the politicians /courts used in stating national health care was OK and Constitutional because it applied ONLY to the "general health and welfare" part of the Constitution. What a crock of progressive non thinking. Respectfully.

I respectfully do not agree with PeterZ about non informed dumb voters NOT voting. I believe the problem is that too many dumb non informed non deserving voters do vote and they vote for a free chicken in the pot. They have not earned the right to vote, have not researched the issues and do not pay taxes at all.

My opinion only. Citizenship must be earned. It should not be given cheaply or freely. One must pay taxes for the district within to vote in that district on that issue. If you do not pay taxes, you do not vote. One must be a productive citizen. No welfare cases please. The USA has strayed from this.

How can citizenship be earned? Very simple. Must be smart. Must speak, read and rite the language. (?). Must work for a living and pay taxes within that taxing district. Then you can vote. If not then you do not vote. The way it must be. Anything else is simply mob rule. My opinion only. Respectfully.

There is something to be said for de Tocqueville's cautionary words in Democracy in America. He wondered if Democracy could survive when the voters could vote themselves benefits at the expense of their neighbors.

The jury is still out I fear.

Daryl wrote:So HB of CJ, when you get too old to work and pay taxes you are content to be disfranchised? Just when your life experiences have provided you with the best wisdom you will ever attain? Mind you I'm not saying that your best wisdom is necessarily above or below the average.

As to "must be smart", how is this defined? An engineer and an artist have very different skills, as does everyone.

Generalisations can trip you up, but my experience indicates that progressives can understand where conservatives are coming from in an argument even when they disagree, but conservatives "know" the truth and regard anyone who disagrees with them as being too thick to see what they consider to be obvious. So if conservatives had the sort of power you are advocating they could well relegate any progressives that disagree with them as being "not smart" and thus ineligible to vote.

The E wrote:
And that has issues too. The novel never spells out whether there are avenues not related to military service that open the way to full voting citizenship (In fact, it makes it pretty clear that there aren't). ...snip this error makes the rest an erroneos...

Heinlein makes it abundantly clear that most citizens before the Bug War were not military veterans.

He even points out a deaf, dumb and blind person can qualify for for the franchise. They will find a way for anybody to a franchise, for those who desire it.

Personally Heinlein's system would work about as well as most. Not sure if it would or not based on the casualty rates for the military shown.

Just a clarification.

Have fun,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:
Heinlein makes it abundantly clear that most citizens before the Bug War were not military veterans.

He even points out a deaf, dumb and blind person can qualify for for the franchise. They will find a way for anybody to a franchise, for those who desire it.

Personally Heinlein's system would work about as well as most. Not sure if it would or not based on the casualty rates for the military shown.

Just a clarification.

Have fun,
T2M

Thanks for the correction, I haven't read that book in ages. I stand by my criticism that such a system is ill-suited to producing better voters though. Doing a particular job or having done a particular job is no guarantee that the person doing it is in any way more capable of voting for good politics than anyone else.

The E wrote:Thanks for the correction, I haven't read that book in ages. I stand by my criticism that such a system is ill-suited to producing better voters though. Doing a particular job or having done a particular job is no guarantee that the person doing it is in any way more capable of voting for good politics than anyone else.

You are welcome.

It wasn't about the job. As such.

It was an effort to create/nuture responsible voters. The job was generally a fairly useless, distateful(vast understatement) 2 year stint to earn the right to vote and run for office. We are not talking a career. Just 2 years of misery in search of people who will value what they earn, the franchise.

Like I said not sure if it would work better as I know of no examples of similar systems in history. But it would be interesting to see if it would last the 200+ years of the American system.

Not going to happen in my lifetime!
T2M

HB of CJ wrote:...

How can citizenship be earned? Very simple. Must be smart. Must speak, read and rite the language. (?). Must work for a living and pay taxes within that taxing district. Then you can vote. If not then you do not vote. The way it must be. Anything else is simply mob rule. My opinion only. Respectfully.

Yes, learning to rite is good...

Though I have a feeling that learning to WRITE is a bit more advantageous.

I respectfully do not agree with PeterZ about non informed dumb voters NOT voting. I believe the problem is that too many dumb non informed non deserving voters do vote and they vote for a free chicken in the pot. They have not earned the right to vote, have not researched the issues and do not pay taxes at all.

And obviously you´re not one of those dumb non informed voters.

Despite you being unable to understand your own constitution, or its legal basis.



If anyone shouldn´t be allowed to vote, you´re it. By your own standards.

Ah. When an opponent or opponents revert to petty side show personal attacks and do not stay on track with the disscussion at hand, then they already know they have lost the debate totally and are grasping at straws to prop up their non supportable position. Looks very like you guys have lost this one. Sorry. Respectfully.

Like already said at least twice, I have had a series of small strokes. Words formally OK can now not be sounded out. The phrases all seem alike to me. Also have lost my German, Russian and Spanish. What little I had. Speellling nots impourtant. Intent ist. Please understand that I also pay a lot of taxes today. Respectfully.

Perhaps it is time to delete the entire Political Sub Forum? It appears to serve no useful purpose. We are discussing a regional or nationally point of view and some of the detractors do not even live in the USA. I am sorry some are restricted in their activities of daily living. Time for me to go on my 5 mile walk. Respectfully.

HB of CJ wrote:Perhaps it is time to delete the entire Political Sub Forum? It appears to serve no useful purpose. We are discussing a regional or nationally point of view and some of the detractors do not even live in the USA. I am sorry some are restricted in their activities of daily living. Time for me to go on my 5 mile walk. Respectfully.

Ah. You can't have fun voicing your opinions without pushback, and so noone should be allowed to argue? Is that it?

That's the vibe I'm getting here, anyway. Anytime it seems remotely appropriate, you post your "The real problem is that too many people are allowed to vote" speech, and every single time you are confronted with the issues your particular ideas would cause in the real world, you decide that you'd rather complain about the tone of the people criticizing your idea than actually address those criticisms. All I want to see is something, anything, that shows you've put some thought into this idea of yours. Until you do, until you can make clear that it isn't just some harebrained scheme to keep what you think are the wrong people out of power, I will keep calling this concept of yours bullshit.