• 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
works for me and those of us in the top bracket should have more votes than someone in the bottom one

Not everyone's American dream is to make millions. Why should someone making a million a year get more votes then someone who makes 200,000? If you really think this way then maybe you should take tax reform out of the voting issue.
 
His rent contributes to the upkeep and taxation of the property where he resides. Without that money, the landlord would no longer be able to afford that property, and, without that added income that it generates, he might have to sell his property, and also become a renter. You are overlooking the contribution that he makes to society on many levels, and the impact that what he does has on others. Your proposal is doing precisely what I said. Creating a plutocracy. It's a ridiculous and short-sighted proposal that would result in tyranny.

His rent is a business arrangement for the benefit of both parties, but it should not grant privileges that he would not otherwise be eligible for. The landlord doesn't have to rent the property out and could leave it empty if he so desires. The renter has no choice if the landlord decides to rent or not to since it is not his property to dictate to. This gives the renter incentive to purchase instead of rent which improves and betters his life. It is a meritocracy not a plutocracy. Wealth plays no role in the determination of voting since the poorest person can own property. For reference here is the definition of meritocracy compliments of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
 
Is his shirt classified as real property under the law? Nope, but condos sure are.

Whre did this "real" property concept come from? that was not a part of your attempted condo equivocation and you are now tryng to redefine the terms after the fact.. you said property ownership, not "real" property.

and since your equivocation revolved around wanting to make this point clear:

I said property owners not land owners.

and override these sentences that launched the thread where you presented a variation of the term land owner not once, but (3) times

When the 13 independent colonies were freed from the grip of Great Britain, the standard voting practice was done with public votes by land owners. The thinking was that those that actually owned land had a stake in the welfare of the city/county/state/country they resided in and to prevent masses of people from voting themselves largesse from the land owners.

It would have behooved you to actually specify "real" property.

it would have not only clarified your revised position, it would have made my joining in on the equivocation game a bit harder.

So your revised revised position is now "real" property holders.. gotcha, We have already established quite a few reasons why that is flawed and we have wasted a few posts on your attempts to redefine your position, and are back where we left off with you holding a very leaky bucket.
 
Last edited:
Wealth plays no role in the determination of voting since the poorest person can own property.

property is a form of wealth, even moreso if ones voting rights hinged upon it.

Plutocracy is absolutely correct.
 
His rent is a business arrangement for the benefit of both parties, but it should not grant privileges that he would not otherwise be eligible for. The landlord doesn't have to rent the property out and could leave it empty if he so desires. The renter has no choice if the landlord decides to rent or not to since it is not his property to dictate to. This gives the renter incentive to purchase instead of rent which improves and betters his life. It is a meritocracy not a plutocracy. Wealth plays no role in the determination of voting since the poorest person can own property. For reference here is the definition of meritocracy compliments of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.

No, it's a plutocracy. You are basing achievement on a very narrow set of standards, mostly that adhere to monetary gains. Historically, property owners have been the wealthy. There are plenty of ways to contribute to society, to add to society, and to achieve... most of which have zero to do with property or money. Your position does not reward achievement. It rewards ownership and monetary gain. That is why it is a plutocracy, something that always leads to tyranny. You are proposing a tyrannical system.
 
Whre did this "real" property concept come from? that was not a part of your attempted condo equivocation and you are now tryng to redefine the terms after the fact.. you said property ownership, not "real" property.

and since your equivocation revolved around wanting to make this point clear:


and override these sentences that launched the thread where you presented a variation of the term land owner not once, but (3) times



It would have behooved you to actually specify "real" property.

it would have not only clarified your revised position, it would have made my joining in on the equivocation game a bit harder.

So your revised revised position is now "real" property holders.. gotcha, We have already established quite a few reasons why that is flawed and we have wasted a few posts on your attempts to redefine your position, and are back where we left off with you holding a very leaky bucket.

Land and buildings, like homes and condos, are classified under law as being real property in reference to real estate, which is non-moveable. Owning real estate is being a property owner and is a commonly accepted useage of the term property owner by such organizations as the government and the media. It doesn't take a lot to figure out exactly what I meant when I referenced property owners. Thus, no equivocation on my part in your little silly game.
 
No, it's a plutocracy. You are basing achievement on a very narrow set of standards, mostly that adhere to monetary gains. Historically, property owners have been the wealthy. There are plenty of ways to contribute to society, to add to society, and to achieve... most of which have zero to do with property or money. Your position does not reward achievement. It rewards ownership and monetary gain. That is why it is a plutocracy, something that always leads to tyranny. You are proposing a tyrannical system.

Yet, history proves you wrong since under a republican system the country was freer and the people could do what they wanted with the gains of their industry as they saw fit. While under a democracy we have fallen into a tyranny of the majority. Under the current democracy system, acheivers and those that make wealth are punished for the simple act of succeeding which makes this a mobracy. Under the republican system it is a meritocracy since anyone can acheive anything they wanted to and are not penalized for succeeding. In the republican system there are both wealthy and poor property owners and history is replete with examples of this being the case. If you want an example of a poor land owner I give you none other Thomas Jefferson. He was poor and his estate had huge debts to pay when he died. His creditors did not come after him while he was alive out of respect for his contribution to the independence of the United States. He earned his positions in life on his own merit and acheived great things when he was alive. However, he was a poor land owner.
 
Yet, history proves you wrong since under a republican system the country was freer and the people could do what they wanted with the gains of their industry as they saw fit. While under a democracy we have fallen into a tyranny of the majority. Under the current democracy system, acheivers and those that make wealth are punished for the simple act of succeeding which makes this a mobracy. Under the republican system it is a meritocracy since anyone can acheive anything they wanted to and are not penalized for succeeding. In the republican system there are both wealthy and poor property owners and history is replete with examples of this being the case. If you want an example of a poor land owner I give you none other Thomas Jefferson. He was poor and his estate had huge debts to pay when he died. His creditors did not come after him while he was alive out of respect for his contribution to the independence of the United States. He earned his positions in life on his own merit and acheived great things when he was alive. However, he was a poor land owner.

You are talking about a completely different time in history. Today, if someone has huge debts, no creditor is going to "not come after than out of respect". If they did, they lose their land. Today, there is far more freedom, to contribute, to achieve, or to be. You equate achievement with being a landowner. This is the basic flaw in your argument. People who do not own land can be just as successful, contributory, and achieve things as those who do. Perhaps then, this was not the case, but today, we have far more freedom of choice of where and how to live, and to achieve, anyway. This is why your system is NOT a meritocracy, but a plutocracy. It does NOT reward merit; it rewards wealth, land, and a specific tyrannical choice. Merit is based on many things.

By the way, here is evidence that you are NOT talking about a meritocracy, but something else. From wikipedia:

Meritocracy is a system of a aristocratic or oligarchical government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit), evaluated using (frequent) institutionalised examination.

This is opposed to other value systems, where reward and legitimacy is based upon possession of wealth (plutocracy), origin (aristocracy), family connections (oligarchy), property, friendship (cronyism), technical expertise (technocracy), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (representative democracy), or other historical determinants of social position and political power.

Read the first paragraph. Nothing about property. In fact, in the second paragraph, it defines a value system based on property as being OPPOSED to a meritocracy. That and a plutocracy meet your system's definition, best. You are talking about a tyrannical government. A meritocracy is NOT based on property ownership.
 
You are talking about a completely different time in history. Today, if someone has huge debts, no creditor is going to "not come after than out of respect". If they did, they lose their land. Today, there is far more freedom, to contribute, to achieve, or to be. You equate achievement with being a landowner. This is the basic flaw in your argument. People who do not own land can be just as successful, contributory, and achieve things as those who do. Perhaps then, this was not the case, but today, we have far more freedom of choice of where and how to live, and to achieve, anyway. This is why your system is NOT a meritocracy, but a plutocracy. It does NOT reward merit; it rewards wealth, land, and a specific tyrannical choice. Merit is based on many things.

It is up to the creditor to not pursue or to pursue a debt. It is up to the company. I provided an example of a poor property owner that acheived great things under the republican system. If you are saying that requiring to have proper licenses and identification issued by the government is being more freer then you would be correct, but you aren't. Not everyone can contribute because we are not a meritocracy, but a mobracy/plutocracy that is a corporatist system. If by having a Bachelor's degree to drive a garbage truck an example of being an achievement then I feel sorry for you thinking that. I am referencing the American Dream, which has always been the ownership of land. You earn it through your hard work and your merits. This is why the system I stated is historically known as a meritocracy. If you have a problem with this classification then take it up with the historians and the political scientists as well as the founding fathers themselves.

By the way, here is evidence that you are NOT talking about a meritocracy, but something else. From wikipedia:

Read the first paragraph. Nothing about property. In fact, in the second paragraph, it defines a value system based on property as being OPPOSED to a meritocracy. That and a plutocracy meet your system's definition, best. You are talking about a tyrannical government. A meritocracy is NOT based on property ownership.

I'll disregard Wikipedia since anyone can edit it and there isn't a scholarly review of it. I presented up the definition from a scholarly reviewed source which definitively states what is a meritocracy.

One does not need a vast sum of wealth to own property. Yes, it does require some wealth to get, but then not everyone is barred from advancing themselves to owning it as they would under a plutocracy. For a plutocracy see England since that is what a plutocracy is. You also have no concept of what a tyranny is when you state that currently there is more freedom than there was under a meritocracy. The government was rarely involved in a person's life prior to 1916 and most definitely when we were still a republican system. Are you free when the government is involved in every single aspect of your life?
 
It is up to the creditor to not pursue or to pursue a debt. It is up to the company. I provided an example of a poor property owner that acheived great things under the republican system. If you are saying that requiring to have proper licenses and identification issued by the government is being more freer then you would be correct, but you aren't. Not everyone can contribute because we are not a meritocracy, but a mobracy/plutocracy that is a corporatist system. If by having a Bachelor's degree to drive a garbage truck an example of being an achievement then I feel sorry for you thinking that. I am referencing the American Dream, which has always been the ownership of land. You earn it through your hard work and your merits. This is why the system I stated is historically known as a meritocracy. If you have a problem with this classification then take it up with the historians and the political scientists as well as the founding fathers themselves.

Again, you are basing your perception of achievement on both a very narrow view... and on a position from 1790, one that no longer applies. You fail to understand that, today is not 1790. Society has changed, significantly. Achievement and success are individual perceptions and cannot be quantified. You are dictating what they mean and demanding what merit equals. This is not freedom, but tyranny. When you do this you eliminate choice, and you qualify what "achievement" equals in the image of certain folks. It's a system based on controls. It is also not a system based on achievement, but based on the accumulation of property. You keep failing to understand that merit is not the static term that you claim it is. This, along with you not recognizing that society is far different today than it was in 1790 are the main flaws to your position. It's tyrannical.



I'll disregard Wikipedia since anyone can edit it and there isn't a scholarly review of it. I presented up the definition from a scholarly reviewed source which definitively states what is a meritocracy.

From the American Heritage Dictionary Online:
mer·i·toc·ra·cy (měr'ĭ-tŏk'rə-sē)
n. pl. mer·i·toc·ra·cies
A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.

A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement.

Leadership by such a group.

mer'it·o·crat' (-ĭ-tə-krāt') n. , mer'it·o·crat'ic adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Nothing about land ownership. You are completely wrong, as prove by your own source. Further, this supports MY contention that achievement is less quantifiable than you are stating in this kind of political system. Your vision is not a meritocracy... as defined by YOUR OWN SOURCE. Your system is either a plutocracy or something else... but regardless of what it is, it's tyrannical.

Also, so you know, the term "meritocracy" originated in 1958 by Michael Dunlop Young in his book "Rise of Meritocracy". The founders knew nothing of this concept and their idea of land ownership equates to voting rights had nothing to do with it. Therefore, based on your own source, you have been lying about the definition. Not good to do.



One does not need a vast sum of wealth to own property. Yes, it does require some wealth to get, but then not everyone is barred from advancing themselves to owning it as they would under a plutocracy. For a plutocracy see England since that is what a plutocracy is. You also have no concept of what a tyranny is when you state that currently there is more freedom than there was under a meritocracy. The government was rarely involved in a person's life prior to 1916 and most definitely when we were still a republican system. Are you free when the government is involved in every single aspect of your life?

Society is far more complicated than it was prior to 1916. One has vastly different freedoms today than one did then. More? Less? Because of the difference, any comparison is silly. But what you are talking about, as we have established by your own source, is NOT a meritocracy. You are creating apartheid. That is tyrannical.
 
Again, you are basing your perception of achievement on both a very narrow view... and on a position from 1790, one that no longer applies. You fail to understand that, today is not 1790. Society has changed, significantly. Achievement and success are individual perceptions and cannot be quantified. You are dictating what they mean and demanding what merit equals. This is not freedom, but tyranny. When you do this you eliminate choice, and you qualify what "achievement" equals in the image of certain folks. It's a system based on controls. It is also not a system based on achievement, but based on the accumulation of property. You keep failing to understand that merit is not the static term that you claim it is. This, along with you not recognizing that society is far different today than it was in 1790 are the main flaws to your position. It's tyrannical.

Is not owning property an achievement? Yes, it is. Thus, it is based off the merits of one's ability to advance themself. Society has changed to where the government is intruding from your bedroom to what you can do outside in public. That is tyranny. Our entire way of life is all about the accumulation of property and material possessions since we are a commercialized society. Thus, my statements are true. You have no concept of what a tyranny is.

From the American Heritage Dictionary Online:


Nothing about land ownership. You are completely wrong, as prove by your own source. Further, this supports MY contention that achievement is less quantifiable than you are stating in this kind of political system. Your vision is not a meritocracy... as defined by YOUR OWN SOURCE. Your system is either a plutocracy or something else... but regardless of what it is, it's tyrannical.

Advancement can be through the acquisition of property, both real and personal. Thus it is upon your merit alone. Again, stating that it is a tyranny when historical fact refutes you is laughable at best.

Also, so you know, the term "meritocracy" originated in 1958 by Michael Dunlop Young in his book "Rise of Meritocracy". The founders knew nothing of this concept and their idea of land ownership equates to voting rights had nothing to do with it. Therefore, based on your own source, you have been lying about the definition. Not good to do.

The term may not have been invented until 1958, but the founding fathers believed in it. They called it 'natural aristocracy'. I'll cite Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams dated October 28, 1813. Meritocracy was alive and well as an idea in the time of the founding fathers.

The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency. I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats], of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.

At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independence, we passed a law abolishing entails [limitations on the inheritance of property to a specified succession of heirs]. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture [the eldest child?s exclusive right of inheritance], and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy.

Society is far more complicated than it was prior to 1916. One has vastly different freedoms today than one did then. More? Less? Because of the difference, any comparison is silly. But what you are talking about, as we have established by your own source, is NOT a meritocracy. You are creating apartheid. That is tyrannical.

Society is far more complicated due to the intrusion of the government in every day life. One had greater freedoms back then due to the lack of government intrusion. You are for the enslavement of a certain class of people to do the bidding of the majority. Historically speaking, under the republican system guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, there was tyranny in the form of slavery being accepted, but beyond that it wasn't a tyranny due to the lack of government intrusion. As I stated before, you have no idea on what is really freedom and what is tyranny. When you have large groups of immigrants from communist countries coming here and stating that the government here is being tyrannical you should pay attention to what they are saying. Having a gilded cage doesn't mean you are free. It just means that you have a prettier cell to view the world from.
 
Last edited:
Is not owning property an achievement? Yes, it is. Thus, it is based off the merits of one's ability to advance themself. Society has changed to where the government is intruding from your bedroom to what you can do outside in public. That is tyranny. Our entire way of life is all about the accumulation of property and material possessions since we are a commercialized society. Thus, my statements are true. You have no concept of what a tyranny is.

Owning property is ONE achievement. It is not THE achievement. When you define achievement is a solitary way, and base a system on it, you are being tyrannical and are restricting choice. You do not know what tyranny is, mostly because you have cornered yourself and refuse to admit it,



Advancement can be through the acquisition of property, both real and personal. Thus it is upon your merit alone. Again, stating that it is a tyranny when historical fact refutes you is laughable at best.

Your own source refutes and disproves your position on what a meritocracy is and what achievement is defined by. This is called self-pwnage. Now, you can "bob and weave" all you like, but you have been proven wrong. What you are proposing is NOT a meritocracy, by the very definition you cited. I'm sure you didn't think I'd go and find it. You thought wrong.



The term may not have been invented until 1958, but the founding fathers believed in it. They called it 'natural aristocracy'. I'll cite Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams dated October 28, 1813. Meritocracy was alive and well as an idea in the time of the founding fathers.

Do you actually read what you post? Adams is professing that the aristocracy should rule. He stated "In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society." He is stating that the wealthy will tend to choose the best people. He is professing an plutocracy, NOT a meritocracy. I've read a bit about Adams, and he always felt this way. You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Society is far more complicated due to the intrusion of the government in every day life. One had greater freedoms back then due to the lack of government intrusion. You are for the enslavement of a certain class of people to do the bidding of the majority. Historically speaking, under the republican system guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, there was tyranny in the form of slavery being accepted, but beyond that it wasn't a tyranny due to the lack of government intrusion. As I stated before, you have no idea on what is really freedom and what is tyranny. When you have large groups of immigrants from communist countries coming here and stating that the government here is being tyrannical you should pay attention to what they are saying. Having a gilded cage means you are free. It just means that you have a prettier cell to view the world from.

You have no idea of freedom and tyranny in context. Government regulation is key in a modern society. Your perception that if we leave everyone alone, everything will be fine is a fantasy, and does not take into consideration basic human psychology. Beyond not understanding your own terms, your position is not based in reality. Freedom does not mean doing what you want, simply because you do not live in a vacuum.
 
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.

Completely untrue. I doubt the rag-tag revolutionary army was fully composed it the wealthy.
 
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.

*giggles*
Oh, Patrick! good ole fear mongering Patrick who didn't even want our Constitution to be Ratified.
 
I'm a supporter that only those who actually pay for the government should be the ones that have say in the government. Those who do not pay still get the protection of the government as a US citizen. But they do not get to help choose what 'protections' the government provides if they are not the ones paying for 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.

Do you have that link to the natural rights debate? I would like to read it. Thanks!
 
Once you start limiting the rights of others, for any reason, you head down the path of tyranny.

And yet without it, we're already a majority welfare state where the have's support have not's with no incentive for have not's to better themselves. Sounds like a little more meritocracy would balance things out.
 
And yet without it, we're already a majority welfare state where the have's support have not's with no incentive for have not's to better themselves. Sounds like a little more meritocracy would balance things out.

I disagree. I was a have not that decided to better himself, however, I could have not and been just fine. I think this kind of attitude shows a pretty cynical view of humanity.
 
When the 13 independent colonies were freed from the grip of Great Britain, the standard voting practice was done with public votes by land owners. The thinking was that those that actually owned land had a stake in the welfare of the city/county/state/country they resided in and to prevent masses of people from voting themselves largesse from the land owners. This was the way voting was done up until the 1820's when the Whig and Democratic parties platformed for change to allow all white males to vote and was passed in time for Andrew Jackson to be elected. This is why I prefer to call the Republican method of voting.

The current way of voting is that everyone can vote that is 18 and above. This had lead to a large warfare/welfare state where the key issues aren't filled with substance, but about who can redistribute the wealth of the property owners into the pockets of the non-property owners.

Which do you prefer?

of course, the current system.
 
I believe those who pay more taxes (or have say served the nation in the military etc) should have more say than those who are on the dole.

I don't think 51 welfare recipients should be able to vote away the wealth of 49 hard working net tax payers

seriously, dude, you are no better than anyone else.
 
I would go that route but with the caveat of it being property owners and not contributers. History has shown that property owners make the best decisions since they are naturally inclined to be well versed in the issues of the day and to keep the best interests of the community in mind when voting. I like the public voting aspect as well since a person should be able to withstand any scrutiny by their neighbors regarding the way they voted.

i would really like to see proof of what you claim. and as for public voting, wtf? why is it your business how i vote?
 
i would really like to see proof of what you claim. and as for public voting, wtf? why is it your business how i vote?

The reason voting became private was because business owners were telling their employees to vote a certain way or be fired. I would hate to return to those days.
 
I disagree. I was a have not that decided to better himself, however, I could have not and been just fine. I think this kind of attitude shows a pretty cynical view of humanity.

I agree and didn't mean to infer all have not's are happy that way. However, not all have not's are like you, and I still submit that many as you say will be "just fine" eating cheeto's, living off government welfare handouts and will be very content that way. A balance between welfare and merit seems appropriate.
 
seriously, dude, you are no better than anyone else.

It depends -- he might be. He's better than my cousin who's been on the dole now for over a year. She claims she get's just as much staying home and unemployed as she does working - so why work?
 
I agree and didn't mean to infer all have not's are happy that way. However, not all have not's are like you, and I still submit that many as you say will be "just fine" eating cheeto's, living off government welfare handouts and will be very content that way. A balance between welfare and merit seems appropriate.

My personal view is that if someone is on welfare with no job, than the state should assign them one, the more not fun the job, the better. However, we should certainly not get rid of the program as I think the stability it adds to society is more than worth it.
 
Back
Top Bottom