• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the European Union a good thing?

Is the European Union a good thing?

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
Blackdog said:
So you would restrict someones freedom to have a voice in government based on income? It's frighting to think where that would end.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's not based upon income. It's based upon one's debt to society.
 
Ethereal said:
Nope. It's not based upon income. It's based upon one's debt to society.
Click to expand...

And who is to be the judge of what one's debt to society is? What is it to be based upon?
 
Blackdog said:
And who is to be the judge of what one's debt to society is?
Click to expand...

A calculator.

What is it to be based upon?
Click to expand...

The net amount of pecuniary benefits one receives in the form of government services as a proportion of tax revenue they produce over their lifetime.

Example:

FY 1 - John Smith receives $5,000 in the form of unemployment checks and produces nothing in the form of tax revenue. Mr. Smith is indebted to society in the amount of $5,000, consequently his voting privileges are revoked until such a time as his debt is repaid.

FY 2 - John Smith produces $4,000 in tax revenue. Mr. Smith is indebted to society in the amount of $1,000, consequently his voting privileges are revoked until such a a time as his debt is repaid.

FY 3 - John Smith produces $5,000 in tax revenue. Mr. Smith has created a surplus of revenue in the amount of $4,000, consequently his voting privileges are renewed until such a time when he is indebted to society.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
A calculator.



The net amount of pecuniary benefits one receives in the form of government services as a proportion of tax revenue they produce over their lifetime.

Example:

FY 1 - John Smith receives $5,000 in the form of unemployment checks and produces nothing in the form of tax revenue. Mr. Smith is indebted to society in the amount of $5,000, consequently his voting privileges are revoked until such a time as his debt is repaid.

FY 2 - John Smith produces $4,000 in tax revenue. Mr. Smith is indebted to society in the amount of $1,000, consequently his voting privileges are revoked until such a a time as his debt is repaid.

FY 3 - John Smith produces $5,000 in tax revenue. Mr. Smith has created a surplus of revenue in the amount of $4,000, consequently his voting privileges are renewed until such a time when he is indebted to society.
Click to expand...

I think that is a really bad idea. The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 pretty much agrees.

I don't think voting should be based on anything other than being a citizen and not convicted of a felony.

All that would come of this is tyranny of one group over another.

Taxes used as a weapon against the poor. Again this is a really bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So you would restrict someones freedom to have a voice in government based on income? It's frighting to think where that would end.
Click to expand...
No... based on how much they have taken from society against how much they have given society, in the context of tax dollaers.
 
I can't speak for the EU, but can compare a bit to the USA. We don't just identify ourselves as Americans, we also identify ourselves by our location in the USA, our party identity, religion or lack thereof, etc. so it isn't a nationalism thing for us so much. Most of us really don't spend a lot of time thinking of what we are, or are not, compared to the rest of the world. We just feel that we are already living in a good place and that is it...

The old version of Europe was a hotbed for the generation of wars.
A unified, in purpose, Europe should minimize that. Having a common monetary system and legal system has to be a good thing.

A common language would probably be too much to expect, tho.
 
Goobieman said:
No... based on how much they have taken from society against how much they have given society, in the context of tax dollaers.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It is nothing more than tyranny against the poor.
 
Blackdog said:
Irrelevant. It is nothing more than tyranny against the poor.
Click to expand...
Its completely relevant in that it effectively dissolves your complaint that voting rights would be based on income.
 
One thing that Marx got right was that a society's economy directly affects its social state. In the case of regionalization, money talks and local culture has to take a hike. The people behind the making of the EU are only looking at the money side of things. It will be the rich elites who decide just how far the regionalism is going to go... the common people will have no say. They already don't.

An entire region is going to undergo big sociopolitical changes over time because the rich elites who account for less than 1% of the population want to get richer. That essentially sums up what is happening.
 
Inferno said:
I would have no problem with a one world government based on that constitution either. If the world agreed and we actually lived by what it says then certainly. When leaders as we have and had don't respect the intent it is purposeless and is a dead issue. I would not have a difficulty with that. I would prefer other but if the world could and would agree to that then yes.

Is that constitution thing like having preconditions to meeting with other world leaders trying to say that this is the best in your mind?
Click to expand...

The world is able to agree on very little...We have what 700 languages... Is this number increasing or decreasing ?
Define language.
We have many "religions" and non-religions.
Is this quantity changing ?
I think that it is, ever so slowly, even imperceptibly.
I favor one world government... 10,000 years from now..
And I do like your philosophy, Inferno.
 
Goobieman said:
Its completely relevant in that it effectively dissolves your complaint that voting rights would be based on income.
Click to expand...

No it does not. Just because someone is on welfare you would take away a right?

Sorry that is as I said before nothing but tyranny of the affluent over the poor. You would take away the voice of poor people in government. I wonder what the FF would think of that.

I see voting as one's duty to country. So I cannot nor would I ever support such a fascist plan.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No it does not. Just because someone is on welfare you would take away a right?
Click to expand...
Being on welfare, in and of itself, would not result in taking away anyones' right to vote.

You would take away the voice of poor people in government. I wonder what the FF would think of that.
Click to expand...
Given the voting laws in effect at the time?
Applause.
 
Goobieman said:
Being on welfare, in and of itself, would not result in taking away anyones' right to vote.
Click to expand...

You have put forth conditions you would like to see on a right. Either is is a right or it is not. So which is it?

So you think it would be OK to take away someones right because they are not paying taxes? How fascist of you.

Goobieman said:
Given the voting laws in effect at the time?
Applause.
Click to expand...

Women and slaves are the only difference, so no I doubt any applause would be given. :roll:
 
Goobieman said:
Being on welfare, in and of itself, would not result in taking away anyones' right to vote.


Given the voting laws in effect at the time?
Applause.
Click to expand...

wasn't it adult male landowners only?
 
Blackdog said:
You have put forth conditions you would like to see on a right. Either is is a right or it is not. So which is it?
Click to expand...
Wait...
Since when has a liberal thought there was anything wrong with that?
One condition to the right to vote is that you be an adult.
One condition to the right to vote (in most places) is that you not be a felon.
One contition to the right to vote is that you be a US citizen
One condition to the right to vote (in most places) is that you provide ID
One contition to the rightt to vote (in most places) is that you register.
Given your post, I presume you oppose these conditions...?

So you think it would be OK to take away someones right because they are not paying taxes? How fascist of you.
Click to expand...
Not paying taxes in no way necessarily means that your right to vote would be taken away. You either do not understand the concept before you or you're deliberatly creating straw men that you can beat up.

Women and slaves are the only difference...
Click to expand...
Better look again, sport.
In 1790, only white male adult property-owners had the right to vote.
 
Goobieman said:
Wait...
Since when has a liberal thought there was anything wrong with that?
One condition to the right to vote is that you be an adult.
One condition to the right to vote (in most places) is that you not be a felon.
One contition to the right to vote is that you be a US citizen
One condition to the right to vote (in most places) is that you provide ID
One contition to the rightt to vote (in most places) is that you register.
Given your post, I presume you oppose these conditions...?
Click to expand...

Did you read my previous post? Since when is this a liberal/conservative issue? Rights are rights.

Minors have restricted rights.
Conviction of a felony forfeits your rights in many cases including the 2nd amendment. I don't agree with it, but it is the way it is.
Yes I mentioned the citizen and felony earlier. So what?
Yes providing ID to prevent voter fraud is common sense and reasonable.
Registering to vote is again a common sense issue.
No I don't because they are reasonable, unlike what you suggest.

Goobieman said:
Not paying taxes in no way necessarily means that your right to vote would be taken away. You either do not understand the concept before you or you're deliberatly creating straw men that you can beat up.
Click to expand...

"Implement a new policy which prohibits net tax consumers from voting. If you are living off the largesse of society you've no right to dictate the manner in which it governs." - Ethereal

Not hard to understand at all.

I know fascism when I see it.
 
Blackdog said:
Did you read my previous post? Since when is this a liberal/conservative issue? Rights are rights.
Click to expand...
And so, you -do- agree that rights can be restrcited.
Thanks.

Implement a new policy which prohibits net tax consumers from voting. If you are living off the largesse of society you've no right to dictate the manner in which it governs.
Click to expand...
Not hard to understand at all.
Click to expand...
Then why do you keep making statements that do not reflect that issue or any understanding of it?

Contrary to those statements:
-There is NO minimum income requirement
-Being on welfare does NOT necessarily exclude you
-Not paying taxes does NOT necessarily exclude you

And so, none of your complaints, thus far, have anything to do with the actual issue at hand.

I know fascism when I see it.
Click to expand...
If you think this proposal is fascism -- then no, you don't.

(I also note you dropped the 'applause' thing pretty quick)
 
Goobieman said:
And so, you -do- agree that rights can be restrcited.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

How does this:

"Did you read my previous post? Since when is this a liberal/conservative issue? Rights are rights. - Blackdog

Translate into my agreeing to anything other than it is not a partisan issue. :roll:

Goobieman said:
Then why do you keep making statements that do not reflect that issue or any understanding of it?

Contrary to those statements:
-There is NO minimum income requirement
-Being on welfare does NOT necessarily exclude you
-Not paying taxes does NOT necessarily exclude you

And so, none of your complaints, thus far, have anything to do with the actual issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Necessarily:

1 : of necessity : unavoidably
2 : as a logical result or consequence

Hmmm... looks like necessarily does not mean "can't" so my statements most certainly do.

Goobieman said:
If you think this proposal is fascism -- then no, you don't.
Click to expand...

"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a severe authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology."

If the shoe fits.

Goobieman said:
(I also note you dropped the 'applause' thing pretty quick)
Click to expand...

Now the old stand by fallacy and ad-hom. I guess it had nothing to do with the fact his words are the only thing quoted and not your reply. :roll:

Can we now get back on topic?
 
Blackdog said:
How does this:
"Did you read my previous post? Since when is this a liberal/conservative issue? Rights are rights. - Blackdog
Translate into my agreeing to anything other than it is not a partisan issue. :roll:
Click to expand...
But you DO agree that rights can be restricted - partisan or not.

Necessarily:
1 : of necessity : unavoidably
2 : as a logical result or consequence
Hmmm... looks like necessarily does not mean "can't" so my statements most certainly do.
Click to expand...
No. They dont.

If you added a "could" or "might" to your statements, then you's have somethng -- but your statements, as posted, are absolute declaratives, not condistional declaratives.

And so, none of your complaints, thus far, have anything to do with the actual issue at hand.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a severe authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.
Click to expand...
If the shoe fits.
Click to expand...
Hmm...

The proposal under discussion:
-is not authoritarian
-is not nationalist
-has nothing to do with a corporatist economy
-has nothing to do with the ideologies associated with the above

How does the definition you supplied here in any way coincide with the issue at hand?

Now the old stand by fallacy and ad-hom.
Click to expand...
There's no fallacy or ah hom in my statement.
You dropped the 'applause' issue when you were shown to be wrong.

Can we now get back on topic?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that we have been on-topic, in as much as we could be, with you not having a clear understanding of what was being discussed.
 
Goobieman said:
But you DO agree that rights can be restricted - partisan or not.

No. They dont.

If you added a "could" or "might" to your statements, then you's have somethng -- but your statements, as posted, are absolute declaratives, not condistional declaratives.

And so, none of your complaints, thus far, have anything to do with the actual issue at hand.


Hmm...

The proposal under discussion:
-is not authoritarian
-is not nationalist
-has nothing to do with a corporatist economy
-has nothing to do with the ideologies associated with the above

How does the definition you supplied here in any way coincide with the issue at hand?


There's no fallacy or ah hom in my statement.
You dropped the 'applause' issue when you were shown to be wrong.


Seems to me that we have been on-topic, in as much as we could be, with you not having a clear understanding of what was being discussed.
Click to expand...

It's a fascist ideal to restrict someones voting rights based on the ability of them to pay taxes to make up for welfare or anything like that.

End of story.

In reality what you have here is a system that arbitrarily places the input one can have on government at the mercy of net tax vs unemployment or welfare etc.

Really stupid idea.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
It's a fascist ideal to restrict someones voting rights based on the ability of them to pay taxes to make up for welfare or anything like that.
End of story.
Click to expand...
Not according to the definition of fascism that you supplied.
End of story.

In reality what you have here is a system that arbitrarily places the input one can have on government at the mercy of net tax vs unemployment or welfare etc.
Click to expand...
Its not arbitrary at all -- it is designed to prevent those who get the most from and give the least to the citizenry in general from using their voting power to make sure this will always be the case.

That's a really SMART idea.
 
Goobieman said:
Not according to the definition of fascism that you supplied.
End of story.
Click to expand...

Yes according to my definition.

Goobieman said:
Its not arbitrary at all -- it is designed to prevent those who get the most from and give the least to the citizenry in general from using their voting power to make sure this will always be the case.

That's a really SMART idea.
Click to expand...

Yes it is and would do nothing but disenfranchise a large section of minority voters. It would also disenfranchise a large section of white voters as well, but it would not have nearly the impact.

Good thing they passed the voting rights legislation in 1965 to stop stupid idea's like this one in it's tracks.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes according to my definition.
Click to expand...
Expalin how.

Yes it is and would do nothing but disenfranchise a large section of minority voters. It would also disenfranchise a large section of white voters as well, but it would not have nearly the impact.
Click to expand...
It would disenfranchise anyone that gets the most from and give the least to the citizenry in general from using their voting power to make sure this will always be the case. That's a good thing.

There nothing more arbitrary in that than limiting the age to 18.
 
Goobieman said:
Expalin how.
Click to expand...

I already have...

"It's a fascist ideal to restrict someones voting rights based on the ability of them to pay taxes to make up for welfare or anything like that."

The sole purpose of such a law would be to give one group of people power over another, period. This country would no longer be a Representative Republic. It would put us on the road to a Fascist state.

The US Constitution says that each citizen gets 1 vote, regardless of how much money he or she makes, period.

Now add the voting rights legislation in 1965 and Constitutionally it fails.

Goobieman said:
It would disenfranchise anyone that gets the most from and give the least to the citizenry in general from using their voting power to make sure this will always be the case. That's a good thing.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It is nothing but a power play to silence the poor.

Goobieman said:
There nothing more arbitrary in that than limiting the age to 18.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, so what? You can't have children who have limited rights to begin with voting.

This amounts to nothing more than a red-herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom