June 12, 20223 yr Author 5 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: And if you pay attention to the people who advocate for it, it's almost always just a thinly veiled argument to lock out minorities and women from voting. The language and terminology used are part-and-parcel to white supremacist rhetoric.
June 12, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: This is just wrong. The last 100 years has seen a huge reduction in state conflicts, at least in the West where something approaching universal suffrage has been in place. Europe was constantly at war with itself when elites could readily send commoners to battle for whatever. Since WWII, also coinciding with stronger representation in government from citizens of ALL economic classes, there have been far fewer conflicts. You cite Germany, but following the Reichstag fire and Hitler's election the opposition was literally outlawed. There was nothing democratic about how he used state power to make his party's control permanent, which resulted in WWII. His and Putin's trajectory have a lot in common .. and it's worth nothing that Trump would have absolutely opted for the same course if our people and system would have allowed it. You show some serious ignorance of history if you think universal suffrage has increased engagement in war. It's a whole lot harder to get support for war when you include government representation among the population most likely to be cannon fodder. The point is that Democracy does no better job of preventing war than any other system. The US is constantly at war. In fact, in our lifetimes we have transitioned to a state of near permanent global war. The west has ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, modern conflicts in Europe from Ukraine to Bosnia, conflicts all over Africa, central and South America like Grenada or The Falklands, etc. The decline in state conflicts between major powers was a result of MAD in the second half of the 20th century and the Cold War. That’s not some wonderful product of democracy, it’s a product of the fact that major state powers can’t engage each other directly. As a thought exercise, let’s say Germany never invaded Russia. They conquer Western Europe. Once you got nuclear proliferation, not much would have been different. The US, third reich and USSR wouldn’t have been engaging each other directly because no one wants nuclear annihilation. But even with MAD, there were massive proxy wars like Korea and Vietnam. Correlation is not causation. It’s exactly why the the two most horrible wars in history could also occur under universal suffrage, and occurred so close to each other. Because universal suffrage doesn’t have much to do with reducing state conflicts. That’s a geopolitical issue, not some wonderful function of democracy. As far as Hitler specifically, he came to power under democracy as you yourself pointed out, from a period eerily similar to what we are seeing today between the inflationary pressures and loosening social standards. The idea that democracy can’t itself be the conduit to a dictator like Hitler is, as you’ve pointed out, false. And I would completely disagree that there was nothing democratic about how he used state power to solidify his hold on power. It’s the inevitable result of broad based democracy because by its nature democracy pits citizens against each other. So of course each side will try to consolidate power once they have their hands on the levers of state authority. The extent they will go to is simply a function of the Overton Window. People’s willingness to agree to these things is influenced by world events. It’s how we gave into the patriot act or how FDR put Japanese in concentration camps. The idea that the NSDAP control of state power is what caused WW2 is false. Even setting aside the entire pacific theater, Germany was put in a situation where there was going to be conflict in Europe one way or another from the punitive terms of peace from WW1. The NSDAPs were a reactionary symptom, not the cause. Trump is literally Hitler… yeah yeah, laughable bullsh**.
June 12, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, TEW said: We still have wars and slavery today. But the slavery issue was resolved without universal suffrage, so the idea that universal suffrage is needed to solve the issues of the lowest rungs of society doesn’t hold. The issue now is accountability. We have none today in our leadership. They simply blame "the other side” and because we have universal suffrage it works with the voter base. In a feudal system/dictatorship, you have extreme ownership. In a limited representative government based on stake holders, at least the voters have an incentive to change ship. lol yeah, prior to universal suffrage, politicians didn't blame "the other side" for society's problems.......
June 12, 20223 yr 51 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: lol yeah, prior to universal suffrage, politicians didn't blame "the other side" for society's problems....... Of course they did. The difference is, again, in ownership of outcomes. A king, for instance, can only blame a third party for so long before there is a revolt and he’s ousted. He’s the king. Everyone knows he’s in charge. He makes all of the decisions and everyone knows it. In a representative form of government with universal suffrage, you have lifetime politicians with zero threat to their job no matter how bad they are. It’s a totally different dynamic.
June 12, 20223 yr 46 minutes ago, TEW said: Of course they did. The difference is, again, in ownership of outcomes. A king, for instance, can only blame a third party for so long before there is a revolt and he’s ousted. He’s the king. Everyone knows he’s in charge. He makes all of the decisions and everyone knows it. In a representative form of government with universal suffrage, you have lifetime politicians with zero threat to their job no matter how bad they are. It’s a totally different dynamic. Well, we shouldn't have lifetime politicians, that's a no-brainer. There should be term limits for representatives just like there are for mayors, governors, and presidents. That's a much easier fix than trying to create a system where voting rights are tied to tax paying status (not to mention, it's not like that sort of system is without flaws). Also, how would you determine who is a net tax payer? What if their income is paid for by taxes? Government employees, would they not be allowed to vote? What about people who work for private entities but whose revenue comes from taxes? I'm a civil engineer for a private company. So while technically my company pays my salary, if you go one step further, my salary is actually paid for out of the Motor License Fund and toll revenues since I work on nothing but projects for the DOT. So would I be allowed to vote? What about everyone who works for defense contractors? And so on and so forth...
June 12, 20223 yr 28 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Well, we shouldn't have lifetime politicians, that's a no-brainer. There should be term limits for representatives just like there are for mayors, governors, and presidents. That's a much easier fix than trying to create a system where voting rights are tied to tax paying status (not to mention, it's not like that sort of system is without flaws). Also, how would you determine who is a net tax payer? What if their income is paid for by taxes? Government employees, would they not be allowed to vote? What about people who work for private entities but whose revenue comes from taxes? I'm a civil engineer for a private company. So while technically my company pays my salary, if you go one step further, my salary is actually paid for out of the Motor License Fund and toll revenues since I work on nothing but projects for the DOT. So would I be allowed to vote? What about everyone who works for defense contractors? And so on and so forth... Why shouldn’t we have lifetime politicians if they’re good? That seems self sabotaging. If we had a modern day Marcus Aurelius, would we really want to get rid of him? If Thomas Jefferson walked through the door, do you think he would be so easily replaced? We want competent people to be in charge as long as they remain competent. What universal suffrage does is place incompetent people in charge for long periods of time because of the incompetent electorate that supports them. Second bolded part, ideally, yes — which is why I specified an exception for military personnel. Government workers and private contractors are taking more than they put in and would not be able to vote. Their incentive structure is to vote themselves more money, which is what we need to get away from.
June 12, 20223 yr 31 minutes ago, TEW said: Why shouldn’t we have lifetime politicians if they’re good? That seems self sabotaging. If we had a modern day Marcus Aurelius, would we really want to get rid of him? If Thomas Jefferson walked through the door, do you think he would be so easily replaced? We want competent people to be in charge as long as they remain competent. What universal suffrage does is place incompetent people in charge for long periods of time because of the incompetent electorate that supports them. Second bolded part, ideally, yes — which is why I specified an exception for military personnel. Government workers and private contractors are taking more than they put in and would not be able to vote. Their incentive structure is to vote themselves more money, which is what we need to get away from. So now what you are describing is a voting system so complex to determine who would be allowed to vote that it’s basically impossible to implement. It would also entail basically an extension of the IRS to create a new "voter eligibility” department where people must submit where their income comes from in order for the government to determine whether or not they are allowed to vote. And you think you’ve created a system that will allow for a more competent electorate, all while banning all federal employees, scientists, the overwhelming majority of physicians, nurses, and pretty much everyone that works in a hospital, teachers, and a whole bunch of civil, aerospace, and mechanical engineers. Great system you have there…. And we shouldn’t have lifetime politicians because it allows for and incentivizes politicians to make policy based on what will keep them in power, and not what’s actually best for the country. Whether or not there is universal suffrage doesn’t change this fundamental fact.
June 12, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: So now what you are describing is a voting system so complex to determine who would be allowed to vote that it’s basically impossible to implement. It would also entail basically an extension of the IRS to create a new "voter eligibility” department where people must submit where their income comes from in order for the government to determine whether or not they are allowed to vote. And you think you’ve created a system that will allow for a more competent electorate, all while banning all federal employees, scientists, the overwhelming majority of physicians, nurses, and pretty much everyone that works in a hospital, teachers, and a whole bunch of civil, aerospace, and mechanical engineers. Great system you have there…. You already have to submit where your income comes from. It’s really not that complex. Do you pay under X in taxes and is your income source from the government or a contractor? No? Then you can vote. Simple. Yes, people feeding off the public treasury including those like doctors and civil engineers are excluded. That’s a feature, not a bug. Incentives matter. If you get your livelihood from the government then you have a conflict of interest in voting. Even if you’re a nurse or scientist.
June 13, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: You already have to submit where your income comes from. It’s really not that complex. Do you pay under X in taxes and is your income source from the government or a contractor? No? Then you can vote. Simple. Yes, people feeding off the public treasury including those like doctors and civil engineers are excluded. That’s a feature, not a bug. Incentives matter. If you get your livelihood from the government then you have a conflict of interest in voting. Even if you’re a nurse or scientist. No, you don't have to submit where the FUNDS for your income comes from. My company does work for the government and for private entities. My work is 100% for the government. But we have other departments that do work for private development, and departments that have a mix of clients between government and private entities. So no, my income tax statement doesn't distinguish whether my salary comes from government funded tax revenues or from private developers. So yes, it actually is very complex. For my co-workers who do work for a mix of clients, they'd literally have to go through their pay stubs for the year and tally up which charges were for government jobs and which charges were for private clients. And then would you treat my colleague's who aren't 100% billable and have charges to "general time" where no client is charged? What have the company's entire revenue stream analyzed to determine the overall gov vs. private revenue and then charge that ratio to the "general time" charges? And then, you'd need to have someone on the government side verify that these charges and claimed splits are accurate. So congratulations TEW, you've just created another layer of bureaucracy at the IRS. And then how many levels does it go TEW? I just paid a landscaper to do some work at our house. But my salary is 100% from doing work for the DOT. So would how would this money count for his formula? Sure to him I'm a "private customer" but I just paid him from salary that was paid for via gas tax revenues and tolls. I just passed it along to him.
June 13, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: No, you don't have to submit where the FUNDS for your income comes from. My company does work for the government and for private entities. My work is 100% for the government. But we have other departments that do work for private development, and departments that have a mix of clients between government and private entities. So no, my income tax statement doesn't distinguish whether my salary comes from government funded tax revenues or from private developers. So yes, it actually is very complex. For my co-workers who do work for a mix of clients, they'd literally have to go through their pay stubs for the year and tally up which charges were for government jobs and which charges were for private clients. And then, you'd need to have someone on the government side verify that these charges and claimed splits are accurate. So congratulations TEW, you've just created another layer of bureaucracy at the IRS. You put your employer, your employer reports their revenue. To keep it simple you could just use your company’s revenue mix as your own since the funds are mostly fungible anyway. Next…
June 13, 20223 yr 19 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Good to see that TEW’s thought through all the details in his dystopian fantasy. We can make it as complicated or simple as we like. You could make it as simple as dividing total government expenditure by the number of US adults and having that as the minimum tax payment for eligibility. You could make it as complicated as reaching out 3 degrees from your own income. In the end, it would all be better than what we have today. Next…
June 13, 20223 yr 30 minutes ago, TEW said: You put your employer, your employer reports their revenue. To keep it simple you could just use your company’s revenue mix as your own since the funds are mostly fungible anyway. Next… Oh so then under your brilliant plan, my co-workers who don’t do any work for the government would get screwed and wouldn’t be allowed to vote since other people at the company do work for the government. Got it…. So now we’ve created a new department at the IRS to verify revenue sources for income statements, and on top of that you’ve just disenfranchised people who get paid by private clients if they happen to work at a company that also does work for the government. You’re on a roll tonight…
June 13, 20223 yr Just now, Phillyterp85 said: Oh so then under your brilliant plan, my co-workers who don’t do any work for the government would get screwed and wouldn’t be allowed to vote since other people at the company do work for the government. Got it…. So now we’ve created a new department at the IRS to verify revenue sources for income statements, and on top of that you’ve just disenfranchised people who get paid by private clients if they happen to work at a company that also does work for the government. You’re on a roll tonight… How did they get screwed? They choose to work at a company that does both private and government work. That’s their choice. This is actually a benefit to dissuade people from associating with government contracting. A fantastic consequence of your hypothetical.
June 13, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, TEW said: How did they get screwed? They choose to work at a company that does both private and government work. That’s their choice. This is actually a benefit to dissuade people from associating with government contracting. A fantastic consequence of your hypothetical. LOL yeah there’s totally not any negative consequences when it comes to economic development that could come from that……. Yes, let’s dissuade people from pursuing careers in engineering and medicine. Just a brilliant idea that definitely will not negatively impact society…
June 13, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: LOL yeah there’s totally not any negative consequences when it comes to economic development that could come from that……. Yes, let’s dissuade people from pursuing careers in engineering and medicine. Just a brilliant idea that definitely will not negatively impact society… No, not engineering and medicine. Government contracting for engineering and medicine. 4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: This just sounds like Feudalism with extra steps. Nah, just a more old school style of electorate with some modern twists.
June 13, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, TEW said: Nah, just a more old school style of electorate with some modern twists. So, neo-feudalism but black people and women can technically be part of the lordship now?
June 13, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, TEW said: No, not engineering and medicine. Government contracting for engineering and medicine. Nah, just a more old school style of electorate with some modern twists. Yes that’s actually exactly what you’d be doing. The overwhelming majority of hospitals and surgery centers in this country accept Medicare. The overwhelming majority of engineers in this country work for firms who do work for the government.
June 13, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Yes that’s actually exactly what you’d be doing. The overwhelming majority of hospitals and surgery centers in this country accept Medicare. The overwhelming majority of engineers in this country work for firms who do work for the government. Oh, wow, another unintended benefit— we can build support to get rid of our entitlement system! You know, this was kind of a hypothetical exercise, but you’re really convincing me of how great my back of the envelope idea is!
June 13, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: So, neo-feudalism but black people and women can technically be part of the lordship now? I mean, neo-feudalism sounds catchy so yeah, why not? Not sure about the women part though. I’m not a biologist.
June 13, 20223 yr 12 minutes ago, TEW said: I mean, neo-feudalism sounds catchy so yeah, why not? Not sure about the women part though. I’m not a biologist. Cool...good luck with that.
June 13, 20223 yr 20 minutes ago, TEW said: Oh, wow, another unintended benefit— we can build support to get rid of our entitlement system! You know, this was kind of a hypothetical exercise, but you’re really convincing me of how great my back of the envelope idea is! Yes, let’s incentivize people who practice medicine to not treat the demographic of people who need the most treatment. You could have quit while you were behind a while ago but you just keep on digging.
June 13, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Yes, let’s incentivize people who practice medicine to not treat the demographic of people who need the most treatment. You could have quit while you were behind a while ago but you just keep on digging. Or we get rid of the largest Ponzi scheme in human history. It’s a great idea and you keep proving it so!
June 13, 20223 yr 11 minutes ago, TEW said: Or we get rid of the largest Ponzi scheme in human history. It’s a great idea and you keep proving it so! I’m all for getting rid of social security. What does that have to do with Medicare?
Create an account or sign in to comment