Some questions about democracy

[Seth]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

Disenfranchise the poor. Brilliant.

Lot to be said for disenfranchising the dependent class. If you depend on government for your survival, then you will always vote for the candidate who promises you the most largess from the public treasury, which gets there at the expense of the productive class. That's wrong.

If you're just poor, but don't take welfare from the government, then you should be allowed to vote.

But nobody who takes welfare should be allowed to vote because what they are voting for is their own vested self-interests at the expense of those who are productive in society. Why should those who do not produce be allowed to vote on taking the property of those who do produce?

[pErvinalia]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't let racists vote.

[Red Celt]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

How about: People who can't spell society shouldn't be considered a part of it? Too harsh?

[Tyrannical]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

Disenfranchise the poor. Brilliant.

Thanks, but I can hardy take credit for it.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
--Alexander Fraser Tytler

[pErvinalia]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

How about: People who can't spell society shouldn't be considered a part of it? Too harsh?

[pErvinalia]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

Disenfranchise the poor. Brilliant.

Thanks, but I can hardy take credit for it.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
--Alexander Fraser Tytler

He sounds like a bit of an idiot. Where are all these democracies that are collapsing and turning into dictatorships and then monarchies?

[Tyrannical]

I take it the only fault you jokers found with my argument was spelling.

[Jason]

Well your wife says you like big black cock and you have yet to deny it.

[pErvinalia]

Is it possible that Tyrannical has actually got me on "ignore"? Man, that would be ironic. Haha!

[JimC]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

Disenfranchise the poor. Brilliant.

Thanks, but I can hardy take credit for it.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
--Alexander Fraser Tytler

He sounds like a bit of an idiot. Where are all these democracies that are collapsing and turning into dictatorships and then monarchies?

The consequences in the quote are absurdly dramatic, but there is a grain of truth. Votes are often linked to selfish personal reasons for voters, rather than rational long term planning for the future, and politicians know it in their bones...

[Jason]

That much is not in question. What's in question is which is better: to have the 'rich', the 'poor', or both, have a say in their government's policies.

Disenfranchisement is never a good thing.

[Robert_S]

People should not be allowed to vote until they are able to contribute to scociety at a certain level, and for some that may never come.

Disenfranchise the poor. Brilliant.

Lot to be said for disenfranchising the dependent class. If you depend on government for your survival, then you will always vote for the candidate who promises you the most largess from the public treasury, which gets there at the expense of the productive class. That's wrong.

If you're just poor, but don't take welfare from the government, then you should be allowed to vote.

But nobody who takes welfare should be allowed to vote because what they are voting for is their own vested self-interests at the expense of those who are productive in society. Why should those who do not produce be allowed to vote on taking the property of those who do produce?

What about government subsidized industries? I'd let the owners and workers vote, but would restrict them from contributing any money to any political speech whatsoever.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, but you're a Marxist...

[Robert_S]

Yeah, but you're a Marxist...

At least I'm not a lemonist.

[Jason]

I'm Stalin.