Satire on democracy!

[EddieS'04]

These are two brother's writing the notes: Read RG's satire on democracy. Unfortunately in this case satire and truth are in parallel.

Paul's comment at bottom.





On 8/6/2010 8:35 AM, RG White wrote:

Regarding democracy: If it is insanity to do the same thing over and over and each time expect different results, then in general the American people are insane.



Let me define that word democracy as I see it applied in America. It is not full democracy, it is limited, but for citizens it is limited only by trivial meaningless things such as a random choice of age and the status of being a convicted felon. Other than those minor meaningless limits anyone can vote, be he a drooling idiot that can just sign his name, a resident in an Alzheimer's care facility, or even occupying a grave. Why, if the voter desires, organizations such as ACORN can even assure he gets to vote multiple times.



Regardless of where any one of us lands on the political spectrum, we should all be honest and intelligent enough to recognize that the mess we are in is the direct result of democracy. When the USA abandoned the republic and shifted to democracy (and I am not going to argue when that occurred, it did occur) the USA began to slide downhill as all democracies must.



So, democracy brought us to this sorry state.



That being a hard practical truth, I ask any one to explain to me how he rationally expects democracy to get us out of this mess? Republicans, Tea Party, conservatives, Libertarians, please explain?



That is as rational as a hospital emergency room receiving a burn victim and the first line of treatment is using a blowtorch on the poor man, burn him more until he is healed.



The application of more democracy assures the slide downhill will continue.



The founder's version of democracy was limited to voters being people of substance, landowners, business owners, and in general people who owned a boot and could pour water out of it without having to read the instructions printed on the sole. In other words people unlikely to sit on their butt and vote themselves a subsistence from the public treasury.



We need less democracy.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------





"Voting is a function of power, not an exercise of rights." (Paul W. White)



"The majority vote merely establishes who will direct the plundering." (Same philosopher)

 

[Bud Williams]

Maybe we should only let taxpaying citizens vote. That will exclude illegals, and the bottom 43% .....

 

[Les]

I've said before, if you arn't helping to pay for the gas, you don't get to choose the destination.

 

[Mark K 2]

Maybe we should only let taxpaying citizens vote

[Broken External Image]:

 

[Bob McDonald]

Maybe we should only let taxpaying citizens vote

Mmmm. That was 'sort of' tried before when only property owners could vote.

 

[Robert Poole]

I like the idea that if you are receiving public assistance( food stamps, WIC, and general welfare) Your votiong rights are suspended until you are off the gov't dole. this would ensure that people would vote for what is best for the country rather than vote for the politician that promises to keep the largesse coming.



To stir things up even more, we can do what Heinlein suggested in *Starship Trooper* that only citizens vote, and the only way to be a citizen is to have served in the armed forces.



Just chumming the waters





Bob

 

[Robert Thomas]

It makes no difference who is allowed to vote - the smartest the dumbest - the richest or the poorest - etc. If you choice is idiot number 1 or idiot number 2. :cry:

 

[Tom Schindler]

To stir things up even more, we can do what Heinlein suggested in *Starship Trooper* that only citizens vote, and the only way to be a citizen is to have served in the armed forces.

You missed one VERY important freedom in the USA. Freedom of religon and some religons do not allow their followers to join the military.





Tom

 

[Les]

Israel has it figured out...

 

[EddieS'04]

Israel has it figured out...

right on Les

 

[H D]

The original post is almost accurate. I don't believe it is inherent in democracy for this mess to occur, though. Everyone do yourself a service and research the only candidate in the last presidential election who pointed out these very things.



Does anyone really think mandatory military service would be a good idea in America? Or even constitutional? What would be the penalty for refusal? What if the states followed suit and mandated a period of public service? I can't believe any of you would actually entertain this idea. And don't be fooled by Israel's use of it. Israel's strength is in the country that props them up from behind.



Redfish makes a good point.



There should be no stipulation on who can vote, other than citizenship and age.

 

[H D]

Oops. My first comments were directed toward Eddie's other post "Food for thought" and without actually having read the first post on this one assumed "democracy" in reference to our "republic". Still think this post is accurate as well, though.

 

[Bill Barber]

military service may not be constititutional? Were my rights violated when I got drafted in 1966?

 

[Robert Thomas]

Bill



Don't see the complaint. They paid us $98.00 a month. The drill sergeant was real concerned about not violating our rights. Free food (horse meat) :btddhorse: Learned to shoot a gun :fire::fire:. We appreciated life was much more in 68 when we got out. :haveabeer:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I am now a member of a Mennonite church. Our pastor served his country during Vietnam. He worked in a VA hospital, state-side. There are programs in place, especially during times of war, that allow conscientious objectors to still serve their country, and to perform their duties.



P.S. Re. not letting illegals vote...do illegals really want to vote? Aren't they already barred from voting (can't register, for example)? As for the 43% that don't pay taxes not being able to vote, I think that number is inflated. There are few if any in this country that don't pay any kind of tax.



Also, the converse of taxation without representation was never really something our founders wanted. In other words, we are NOT a country that is meant to be have representation through taxation.



TJR

 

[Les]

As for the 43% that don't pay taxes not being able to vote, I think that number is inflated. There are few if any in this country that don't pay any kind of tax.

This in not an inflated number.

An astonishing 43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. The number of single or jointly-filing "taxpayers" - the word must be applied sparingly - who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million, out of a total of 151 million. Those numbers come from an analysis published yesterday by the Tax Policy Center...

 

[Bud Williams]

Thank you Les for the clarification...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les, thanks for clarifying. It wasn't clear to me when the 43% don't pay taxes that we were exclusively talking about income taxes.



Still, I stand behind what I said. Even if 43% don't pay income taxes, they surely pay other types of taxes. Likewise, it seems to me ours isn't meant to be a country in which those that pay taxes get to make the rules or have the loudest voice in estabilishing those rules. If it were, then it would logically stand that those that pay MORE taxes would be entitled to more representation and have a greater vote in how this country is run than those that pay LESS. Is that the kind of country we want?



If it is, then the top 5% would essentially run the country and define its laws and our government...and I thought that's essentially what most on this board have rallied against all their lives.



If you live here, and are a citizen in good standing, you get a vote. Period. If the countries tax laws are set up such that you pay little, or nothing, well, I guess someone wants it that way.



Would be nice if we could reset the clock to back when we had debtors prisons, and no welfare or medicare, but I don't have a time machine.



TJR

 

[TrainTrac]

The founder's version of democracy was limited to voters being people of substance, landowners, business owners, and in general people who owned a boot and could pour water out of it without having to read the instructions printed on the sole. In other words people unlikely to sit on their butt and vote themselves a subsistence from the public treasury.

The Founding Fathers acutally despised and feared democracy, and sought to establish a Constitutional Republic.

"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." --John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814



"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787



"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."--Frederic Bastiat



"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Read the Federalist Papers, or other examples of the Founders' writings for more on this.

 

[Bill V]

I like the idea that if you are receiving public assistance( food stamps, WIC, and general welfare) Your votiong rights are suspended until you are off the gov't dole. this would ensure that people would vote for what is best for the country rather than vote for the politician that promises to keep the largesse coming.

No it wouldn't. The majority of people vote for whom they believe will most likely increase their standing (financial or otherwise) by the greatest amount--regardless of whether they're officially "on the gov't dole" (food stamps, WIC, welfare, etc.) or unofficially "on the gov't dole" (this is very broad-ranging, but can include government employment, government contracts, or even simply receiving the benefits of deficit spending). It's all about "keeping the largesse coming", regardless of whether you are currently financially contributing to that largesse as a taxpayer or not.