Political Crossfire Forums

[VMAN]

I will concede that I misread the post. But I tend to view communism as an economic system and the foundation of Plato's republic wasn't economic. Now back up ok you still contend that most amendments to the constitution were written by communists clarify, were there marches outside of the capitol lead by congressman against capitalism, or did they have secret societies, or are you a freudian and claim that they were subconcsiously communists. Communist is not just a name to be thrown around like me calling the president "Hitler"
P.S. don't get me started on the U.S. school system,I educated myself as I assume you did unless you went to a private school.

[LostSoul3412]

VMAN wrote: But I tend to view communism as an economic system and the foundation of Plato's republic wasn't economic.

Commumism is an economic, social, and political system all rolled into one.

Socialism is an economic system.

[VMAN]

I concede to not being an expert in communism or socialism, I will soon remedy this. But how did this debate become about communism or socialism.

[psholtz]

VMAN wrote: I concede to not being an expert in communism or socialism, I will soon remedy this. But how did this debate become about communism or socialism.
Because the Law is that only people who own landed property get to vote.

Now the Communists come along and tell you that "everyone" has the "right" to vote just b/c they're Black, woman, 18 years old etc.. You have a "right" to vote, you have an "obligation" to vote, and oh btw, we're stealing your property away from you..

Don't mind us.. nothing to see here.. just move along..

You cannot talk about modern American misperceptions concerning suffrage w/o bringing Communism into the explanation.

[bigstick61]

In fact, universal suffrage promotes socialistic tendencies, since that's how most who don't own land tend to vote when they do.

[Vexed Veteran]

I like the fact that this is still being discussed!

perdidochas wrote: Well, based on your earlier posts, I think no amount of rest will help you think clearly. :twisted:
Lol, your reply should be translated to read: perdidochas wrote: Well, based on your earlier posts, I think no amount of rest will help you think THE WAY I DO!:twisted:
Had you said that, i would have too agree with you! :-D

VMAN wrote: What gives you the right to decide that a person who can't generate enough income to support themselves loses the vote.
Not sure if you were addressing this to me or not. :?

VMAN wrote: Life is not black and white and you aren't going to start bringing people out of poverty by treating them as second class citizens.
True, but your not going to 'bring them out of poverty' by allowing them to suffer no negative reinforcement for ABUSING the welfare system. Instead, you will be perpetually keeping them and their kids on welfare, at the expense of everyone else!

psholtz wrote: Vexed Veteran wrote: Welfare abusers pay 0% of their share of taxes, 0% of the cost of living, and 0% of their kids needs. So where does the money come from? The regular working couples! In effect, they are paying 100% of their taxes AND 100% of the welfare abusers taxes, plus 100% of the cost of living, plus 100% for the welfare abusers kids needs.
Welfare recipients pay an enormous tax in the form of inflation.

If the welfare ABUSER doesn't work, they pay NOTHING in taxes! Inflation doesn't matter when they are spending MY tax dollars to buy their stuff!

[psholtz]

Vexed Veteran wrote: If the welfare ABUSER doesn't work, they pay NOTHING in taxes! Inflation doesn't matter when they are spending MY tax dollars to buy their stuff!
There is not one single welfare recipient in America who is financed in any manner whatsoever by your "tax" dollars.

Your tax dollars are used exclusively to finance the national debt.

Not one penny has ever gone towards the provision of a single government service.. welfare or otherwise.

More info:

http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/list-gra.htm
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

[Vexed Veteran]

psholtz wrote: Your tax dollars are used exclusively to finance the national debt. Not one penny has ever gone towards the provision of a single government service.. welfare or otherwise.

Thanks for the reply!

In reply, I would like too point out:

I am paying taxes, and they are not.
They ARE getting their money from the gov.
Weather the gov is wasting my tax dollars on either the welfare abuser or on usurious interest on the so-called 'national debt' is irrelevant, as it's the same gov wasting my money either way. :evil:

I followed your links(to the first pages only), and while they were VERY interesting reading, they are off-topic for this thread. If you would post this information in a new thread(not on the third page of this one), you probably will get allot more people to respond.

Gov waste/wrong doing is also one of my pet peeves, and i will be taking the time tonight to read the rest of the info on your links! :-D Please re-post this info in a new thread, so we can discuss it properly there! Thanks!

On the topic of voting being withheld from both welfare abusers(and their kids) and from foreigners(and their kids) that got 'tax deferments'(and thus fall into the same category as those who 'didn't pay their fair share'), how do you feel?

[b.scheller]

Any type of restriction, promotes elitism. If the voting restriction or citizenship is based on a knowledge test, than you limit and sanction against all potential candidates of citizenship who are illiterate or do not have the capacity to think for themselves.

If you restrict citizenship as something that is given to all service members than you trump on the rights of all citizens, by enforcing the fact that every person has to vote. What about people who are knowledgable about politics but are physically incapable of serving?

Restriction by any means is discriminatory. It goes against the principals of liberalism, by stating that their is no equality, there never was; there are groups of individuals who are better than the rest of society, whether its because they have been given physical capabilities of serving in the armed forces or are given the mental capacity to understand political institutions.

Who is to say that giving the right to vote to all servicemembers will make a democracy better? How will they be more knowledgable than members of society who spend their time in a university, educating themselves about civil society and political institutions of a state? Let's not even bother asserting the fact that on average members of the armed forces in Western States that have an armed forces completely based on voluntary services are likely to not have attended post-secondary schooling.

Public schooling in all Western societies are funded by the government through the taxes of the people, any civic education is government sanctioned, which means that no independant education exists. It is purely upto the teachers and education boards to set the syllabus and course. Thus, it is possible for teachers to preach one type of agenda over another.

Thus, how is restricting this any better than lets say allowing for free independant individuals to study political institutions and civil society in more or less an independant unbiased view?

Perhaps with the restriction of voting, one could have a rise in voter turnout and voting, however that would only mean that the actual credibility of the vote goes down, since people are forced against their will to join something just to practice their rights as citizens.

It does not even focus on the fact that if servicemembers or those capable of rationalizing and understanding political society are citizens, than what about all the non citizens, what about their rights as individuals?

Personal belief only, but people who would propogate such a policy support totalitarianism over democracy. They believe they know what democracy is, yet they fail to see the real picture.

No political system is easy to comprehand or be a part of. Voter turn out, credibility of vote will not be raised just by restricting voting potential.

Nothing states that just because voter turnout was higher during the previous decades, that people were more educated about their political institutions or the policies of the party. They voted, because it was something that society imposed on them. Now that society is opening up, and perhaps a better understanding of democracy is being spread (although it is still a far off thing) citizens understand more, and chose to reject the vote.

They don't see the difference, because they prefer stability over real political issues and credibility. As long as both parties ensure economic stability and do not restrict the majority of the population, people will chose any leader even when they do not understand half of the things these leaders advocate.

[bigstick61]

Quote: Any type of restriction, promotes elitism. If the voting restriction or citizenship is based on a knowledge test, than you limit and sanction against all potential candidates of citizenship who are illiterate or do not have the capacity to think for themselves.

If you restrict citizenship as something that is given to all service members than you trump on the rights of all citizens, by enforcing the fact that every person has to vote. What about people who are knowledgable about politics but are physically incapable of serving?

Restriction by any means is discriminatory. It goes against the principals of liberalism, by stating that their is no equality, there never was; there are groups of individuals who are better than the rest of society, whether its because they have been given physical capabilities of serving in the armed forces or are given the mental capacity to understand political institutions.

Who is to say that giving the right to vote to all servicemembers will make a democracy better? How will they be more knowledgable than members of society who spend their time in a university, educating themselves about civil society and political institutions of a state? Let's not even bother asserting the fact that on average members of the armed forces in Western States that have an armed forces completely based on voluntary services are likely to not have attended post-secondary schooling.

Public schooling in all Western societies are funded by the government through the taxes of the people, any civic education is government sanctioned, which means that no independant education exists. It is purely upto the teachers and education boards to set the syllabus and course. Thus, it is possible for teachers to preach one type of agenda over another.

Thus, how is restricting this any better than lets say allowing for free independant individuals to study political institutions and civil society in more or less an independant unbiased view?

Perhaps with the restriction of voting, one could have a rise in voter turnout and voting, however that would only mean that the actual credibility of the vote goes down, since people are forced against their will to join something just to practice their rights as citizens.

It does not even focus on the fact that if servicemembers or those capable of rationalizing and understanding political society are citizens, than what about all the non citizens, what about their rights as individuals?

Personal belief only, but people who would propogate such a policy support totalitarianism over democracy. They believe they know what democracy is, yet they fail to see the real picture.

No political system is easy to comprehand or be a part of. Voter turn out, credibility of vote will not be raised just by restricting voting potential.

Nothing states that just because voter turnout was higher during the previous decades, that people were more educated about their political institutions or the policies of the party. They voted, because it was something that society imposed on them. Now that society is opening up, and perhaps a better understanding of democracy is being spread (although it is still a far off thing) citizens understand more, and chose to reject the vote.

They don't see the difference, because they prefer stability over real political issues and credibility. As long as both parties ensure economic stability and do not restrict the majority of the population, people will chose any leader even when they do not understand half of the things these leaders advocate.

First off, we are not all equal. We should only be equal before the law, and in opportunity. To say that we could really be equal in any other way is to go against the nature of things. Second of all, we are not trying to make democracy better; the only way to make it better is to turn it into a republic; limited suffrage is a key institution of a republic, one of the many checks and balances, as there are not only checks on the government, but on the people/majority as well.

By restricting the vote to law-abiding citizen landowners, the very well educated, and active servicemembers, all who must know how our government works and functions, what the law is, basic economics, history, etc. via a test and are 21 or older, you ensure that the electorate has a higher stake in society, actually knows the laws and will not press for the government to break it, and understand how a republic works and why, you ensure they will not covet the property of others and also cannot be bribed by promised government handouts, preventing socialist tendencies, and you also ensure a higher degree of virtue among the electorate, which is key to having less corrupt and more virtuous leaders. You also ensure that leaders cannot simply pander to the stupid, ignorant, and needy and thus get massive amount of votes that way. It is an excellent way to limit suffrage, in my opinion, as it is equal opportunity, as anyone can potentially vote; however, they must meet that potential in order to do so. As it stands now, at least in my State, the majority of active voters (20% of eligible and registered electorate) would qualify to vote, especially in regards to land ownership, as these people, having a higher stake in government, tend to vote more often and make more informed votes.

Also, this does not make any sort of "elite," as you mentioned, any more so than having citizens have certain privileges that non-citizens don't. It must be remembered that voting is a privilege, not a right, otherwise there would be no qualifications you have to meet. By restricting it to citizens, as it rightfully should be, you already admit this fact, whether you see it or not, as rights are universal and held by all, regardless of citizenship status. Universal suffrage may be "good" for democracy, i.e. by making it more democratic, but this is not necessarily good for the people, society, or the country as a whole, and neither is that form of government.

[b.scheller]

First off, voting is a right and not a priveledge. It is asserted under the constitution of most Western states. As a citizen, you have a right to vote. The American constitution asserts that same right, and calls upon for the citizens of the state to strike down any government that would attempt at denying your rights.

Second off, you attempt to create qualifications of who can be citizen, but than you limit the qualification by creating a test? So your creating more of an elite, by having a smaller group of individuals out of a smaller group who will qualify for the right to become a citizen.

How is it than a democracy, if only a handful of citizens have a right to vote for a smaller amount of citizens who are running for government? Will these congressmen or sentators really represent anyone but the small amount of citizens already?

Third off, if your not attempting to make democracy better, than what is the point of restricting the right to vote? Other than to create elitist classes within society.

[pyrophasma]

b.scheller wrote: First off, voting is a right and not a priveledge. It is asserted under the constitution of most Western states. As a citizen, you have a right to vote. The American constitution asserts that same right, and calls upon for the citizens of the state to strike down any government that would attempt at denying your rights.

I'm pretty sure it says something like 'the right to vote shall not be infringed'. It didn't say anything about who had that right. I'm pretty sure it didn't say 'the people's right'.

Suffrage needs to be limited severely. You let the F**K** circus vote, and your government becomes a circus.

The idea that the vote would be limited is anathema to some people. They accept that our input into legislation is limited by the fact that our reprsentatives are drafting it and not ourselves, and are fine with this dilution of our input.

But if the the majority's ability to affect legislation is hindered a bit more by limiting suffrage, many people cry that their freedoms are being destroyed.

So why don't these same people feel their freedom is destroyed or in jeopardy when they are not allowed to craft and vote on legislation themselves?

A person who has no vote still has a voice in government, just like those of us who can't legislate still have a voice in government.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

bigstick61 wrote: In fact, universal suffrage promotes socialistic tendencies, since that's how most who don't own land tend to vote when they do.

Democracy filled with universal suffrage is just a soft variant of communism.

[bigstick61]

Quote: First off, voting is a right and not a priveledge. It is asserted under the constitution of most Western states. As a citizen, you have a right to vote. The American constitution asserts that same right, and calls upon for the citizens of the state to strike down any government that would attempt at denying your rights.

Second off, you attempt to create qualifications of who can be citizen, but than you limit the qualification by creating a test? So your creating more of an elite, by having a smaller group of individuals out of a smaller group who will qualify for the right to become a citizen.

How is it than a democracy, if only a handful of citizens have a right to vote for a smaller amount of citizens who are running for government? Will these congressmen or sentators really represent anyone but the small amount of citizens already?

Third off, if your not attempting to make democracy better, than what is the point of restricting the right to vote? Other than to create elitist classes within society.


In America, suffrage has never been considered a right. The rights to keep and bear arms and freedom of speech are rights. Suffrage is not. Suffrage has throughout history been considered a privilege.

You're not really creating an elite. The limitation of suffrage is necessary to protect your rights. I sure as hell don't want any fool to just go down and vote; this is part of why I don't support movements to try to get the apathetic to vote. Plato and Aristotle said that to the extent possible, government should be of the virtuous. While a prefectly irtuous government is impossible, it is possible to at least make it more so. The best and easiest way is to limit suffrage through proper methods that do not go against republican principles, and by limiting who can run for the various offices. I've already mentioned why the form of limited suffrage I descfribed is good. The merits far outweigh the bad.

How is it democracy? It's not. Democracy is not my aim, and it was not the aim of the founders of this country, or of the majority of the populace at the time. My aim is to have a republican form of government, where no single entity reigns supreme; only the law rules in a republic. The people are not absolute, and neither is the government or any elite. This is achieved through an extensive series of checks and balances. To further such a form of government and to create a free and just society is the point of restricting the vote in such a way. It is not to make democracy better; democracy is a terrible form of government which hopefully will never be fully implemented in the U.S.

[psholtz]

bigstick61 wrote: Quote: First off, voting is a right and not a priveledge. It is asserted under the constitution of most Western states. As a citizen, you have a right to vote. The American constitution asserts that same right, and calls upon for the citizens of the state to strike down any government that would attempt at denying your rights.

Second off, you attempt to create qualifications of who can be citizen, but than you limit the qualification by creating a test? So your creating more of an elite, by having a smaller group of individuals out of a smaller group who will qualify for the right to become a citizen.

How is it than a democracy, if only a handful of citizens have a right to vote for a smaller amount of citizens who are running for government? Will these congressmen or sentators really represent anyone but the small amount of citizens already?

Third off, if your not attempting to make democracy better, than what is the point of restricting the right to vote? Other than to create elitist classes within society.


In America, suffrage has never been considered a right. The rights to keep and bear arms and freedom of speech are rights. Suffrage is not. Suffrage has throughout history been considered a privilege.

You're not really creating an elite. The limitation of suffrage is necessary to protect your rights. I sure as hell don't want any fool to just go down and vote; this is part of why I don't support movements to try to get the apathetic to vote. Plato and Aristotle said that to the extent possible, government should be of the virtuous. While a prefectly irtuous government is impossible, it is possible to at least make it more so. The best and easiest way is to limit suffrage through proper methods that do not go against republican principles, and by limiting who can run for the various offices. I've already mentioned why the form of limited suffrage I descfribed is good. The merits far outweigh the bad.

How is it democracy? It's not. Democracy is not my aim, and it was not the aim of the founders of this country, or of the majority of the populace at the time. My aim is to have a republican form of government, where no single entity reigns supreme; only the law rules in a republic. The people are not absolute, and neither is the government or any elite. This is achieved through an extensive series of checks and balances. To further such a form of government and to create a free and just society is the point of restricting the vote in such a way. It is not to make democracy better; democracy is a terrible form of government which hopefully will never be fully implemented in the U.S.
Nice post.. :clap: