• 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!

Republican vs. Democracy Voting

Republican vs. Democracy Voting

  • Republican

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Democracy

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Precisely what I'm saying.

Time is another, via community service.
Money is the easiest though.

I brought this up in another thread, so I'll do again here.
We require those who earn a lot of money to contribute a higher percentage of their income, as a fee for earning a lot of money in this country.

What do we require of those who do not pay anything but partake in the community safety net?

It smacks of a double standard.
 
works for me and those of us in the top bracket should have more votes than someone in the bottom one

I dont recall the US being incorporated with people being issued voting shares which they could buy to gain more voting power on how to run the US.

That is what bribing congressmen is for
 
Time is another, via community service.
Money is the easiest though.

I brought this up in another thread, so I'll do again here.
We require those who earn a lot of money to contribute a higher percentage of their income, as a fee for earning a lot of money in this country.

What do we require of those who do not pay anything but partake in the community safety net?

It smacks of a double standard.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?
 
Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

Not at all.

For someone to use these services we don't have any expectations, other than an arbitrary standard of poor.
There is no requirement to even lift oneself from the use of these services.

Yet we require those, who do not use public safety nets, to pay more.
 
so you'd have the rich more or less running the country?

You know who got us our freedom from Great Britain? It was the wealthy land owners like James Madison and Patrick Henry. It wasn't the bottom feeders of their day that got us our freedom.
 
Not at all.

For someone to use these services we don't have any expectations, other than an arbitrary standard of poor.
There is no requirement to even lift oneself from the use of these services.

Yet we require those, who do not use public safety nets, to pay more.

Now you are complicating the issue. You are talking about two different folks... those who try to rise about welfare, and those who don't. I'm talking in general. How would you make that distinction? Who would control this? It's interesting that what you folks are talking about is tyranny... something that I thought those of you on your side of the political spectrum are against.
 
Seems to me that our right wing friends... since these are the folks recommending this, are wanting to turn the US into an official plutocracy. Amazing. I thought that you folks were for equal rights and such. You know, people are BORN equal.
 
Using the net contributor method to determine voting

Would this be on a total basis regarding local, state and federal taxes (including those paid indirectly rent used to pay property taxes)

Or would this be based on whether you pay more in local taxes then you get back from local services allowing you to vote locally, and so on up the chain.

What of those that work for the government?

Should tax officials get to vote, what about sanitation engineers, they are leeching off taxpayers
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that our right wing friends... since these are the folks recommending this, are wanting to turn the US into an official plutocracy. Amazing. I thought that you folks were for equal rights and such. You know, people are BORN equal.

Actually, it's a meritocracy I'm advocating. There's nothing prohibiting someone from bettering themselves by becoming a property owner. The government just has to keep its hands out of things it doesn't belong in to get it to work.
 
Now you are complicating the issue. You are talking about two different folks... those who try to rise about welfare, and those who don't. I'm talking in general. How would you make that distinction? Who would control this? It's interesting that what you folks are talking about is tyranny... something that I thought those of you on your side of the political spectrum are against.

I'm of two minds, if we aren't going to be a freedom based society.
I'd rather the fascist approach, there is at least a minimum expectation out of everyone.

It's ridiculous to have such a glaring double standard on the citizenry.
 
Actually, it's a meritocracy I'm advocating. There's nothing prohibiting someone from bettering themselves by becoming a property owner. The government just has to keep its hands out of things it doesn't belong in to get it to work.

Once you start limiting the rights of others, for any reason, you head down the path of tyranny.
 
I'm of two minds, if we aren't going to be a freedom based society.
I'd rather the fascist approach, there is at least a minimum expectation out of everyone.

It's ridiculous to have such a glaring double standard on the citizenry.

You're looking at this in an absolute, all-or-nothing sense. Fascism is probably the most efficient form of government, however, it is also the form of government that has the most potential for abuse.

Now, to me, restricting voting rights is the antithesis of what this country is about. Once you do that, you head towards tyranny, precisely the opposite of what this country was founded upon. I have an alternative. Folks on welfare DO need to demonstrate some effort in getting off welfare. Without this demonstration, do not remove their voting rights. Remove their welfare benefits.
 
Once you start limiting the rights of others, for any reason, you head down the path of tyranny.

Voting has never been a right, but a legislated privilege to be taken away at the whim of Congress. The only voting recognized, originally, in the laws of the United States was based upon the ownership of land (once you move it towards the racial and gender equality of today).
 
You're looking at this in an absolute, all-or-nothing sense. Fascism is probably the most efficient form of government, however, it is also the form of government that has the most potential for abuse.

At this point, for me it makes no difference.
The abuse has reached very high levels.

Now, to me, restricting voting rights is the antithesis of what this country is about. Once you do that, you head towards tyranny, precisely the opposite of what this country was founded upon. I have an alternative. Folks on welfare DO need to demonstrate some effort in getting off welfare. Without this demonstration, do not remove their voting rights. Remove their welfare benefits.

I'm a firm believer in freedom, to succeed and fail unimpeded.
Failure is a shock to the system of what you did wrong, it spurs positive change in many people.

I would be very happy with a proposal like yours but the political will does not exist.
The popular view of both wealth and poverty in this country is disgusting, to me.
 
Voting has never been a right, but a legislated privilege to be taken away at the whim of Congress. The only voting recognized, originally, in the laws of the United States was based upon the ownership of land (once you move it towards the racial and gender equality of today).

I'm not going to get into another "natural rights" debate... since I haven't finished the last one. I reject the concept of natural rights. Voting currently is a right in this country. Removing it from a segment of society will create a type of oligarchy reflecting plutocracy, and places value on citizenship based on money. Ones value goes far beyond one's monetary worth.
 
I'm not going to get into another "natural rights" debate... since I haven't finished the last one. I reject the concept of natural rights. Voting currently is a right in this country. Removing it from a segment of society will create a type of oligarchy reflecting plutocracy, and places value on citizenship based on money. Ones value goes far beyond one's monetary worth.

Are you putting words into my mouth? I ask because I never said anything about money. I did say that only property owners could vote. Property owners can be rich or poor, but the requirement is that they must own land. This reflects the meritocracy ideal.

Your rejection of natural rights is your own business, but under the laws of the United States and the Constitutions thereof it is a recognized fact of life. All rights stem from the ownership of property starting with your body. Do you own your own body?

General voting is defined under the laws of the United States as being a privilege. This is quite evident since the legislature has removed it from certain groups, felons etc..., and gave it to others starting with all white males above 18 in the 1820's. If it was a right then the government cannot remove or restrict it in any way.
 
At this point, for me it makes no difference.
The abuse has reached very high levels.

I'm not of the mindset that the abuse of the system has reached the level that fascism would create. The biggest problem with repairing the system is that there is a major discrepency on how and who.



I'm a firm believer in freedom, to succeed and fail unimpeded.
Failure is a shock to the system of what you did wrong, it spurs positive change in many people.

It's not that simple at all. The problem is that if you have a segment of society that is failing, they will affect the segment of society that is not, regardless of what you do. The task is to minimize this failure, while, at the same time, encouraging success, both through positive and negative reinforcement. One cannot look at this as a "one-size-fits-all" scenario, or a scenario that sees the situation in isolated terms. You cannot seperate out one thing from the other.

I would be very happy with a proposal like yours but the political will does not exist.
The popular view of both wealth and poverty in this country is disgusting, to me.

I think there are two problems with the potential enactment of my proposal. Firstly, who will manage it. Secondly, how will it be done and how are is the motivation to acutally do it going to be created.
 
I'm not going to get into another "natural rights" debate... since I haven't finished the last one. I reject the concept of natural rights. Voting currently is a right in this country. Removing it from a segment of society will create a type of oligarchy reflecting plutocracy, and places value on citizenship based on money. Ones value goes far beyond one's monetary worth.

If one has no natural rights, who determines what that value is?
 
Are you putting words into my mouth? I ask because I never said anything about money. I did say that only property owners could vote. Property owners can be rich or poor, but the requirement is that they must own land. This reflects the meritocracy ideal.

Owning property requires money... to purchase it, to maintain it, to pay taxes on it. It is also a choice as to whether or not you own property. One can be relatively well off and choose to not own property. If you are talking about a system based on merit, owning property does not automatically make you worth more than one who does not. There are MANY issues that create value.

Your rejection of natural rights is your own business, but under the laws of the United States and the Constitutions thereof it is a recognized fact of life. All rights stem from the ownership of property starting with your body. Do you own your own body?

All rights do not stem from ownership. I have no idea where you would get that idea.

General voting is defined under the laws of the United States as being a privilege. This is quite evident since the legislature has removed it from certain groups, felons etc..., and gave it to others starting with all white males above 18 in the 1820's. If it was a right then the government cannot remove or restrict it in any way.

Since the government is created by the people and of the people, rights are created of the people and by the people. This is where rights stem from.
 
If one has no natural rights, who determines what that value is?

The particular society, based on the desires, morality, and mores of that society and the people in it.
 
I'm not of the mindset that the abuse of the system has reached the level that fascism would create. The biggest problem with repairing the system is that there is a major discrepency on how and who.

I think it's pretty bad.
I mean the government is allowed to lie to you, while you're not always allowed to lie to them.


It's not that simple at all. The problem is that if you have a segment of society that is failing, they will affect the segment of society that is not, regardless of what you do. The task is to minimize this failure, while, at the same time, encouraging success, both through positive and negative reinforcement. One cannot look at this as a "one-size-fits-all" scenario, or a scenario that sees the situation in isolated terms. You cannot seperate out one thing from the other.

I understand they affect others but why are we stringing failure along.
It makes no sense.

I think there are two problems with the potential enactment of my proposal. Firstly, who will manage it. Secondly, how will it be done and how are is the motivation to acutally do it going to be created.

The feds or states have the authority and the right, to do so.
Just like a college or state that accepts federal funds, individuals who accept these funds must also follow rules that would normally be unconstitutional because they are actively seeking out support and accepting it.
 
Look guys. I do not want to derail ANOTHER thread towards the natural rights debate. I will continue the debate I am having with Ikari in that particular thread and link to it and invite you all to join.
 
Back
Top Bottom