Some questions about democracy

[pErvinalia]

I'm an Engelist.

[JimC]

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.

Always, there must be a say. Those who edge towards the idea of limiting votes because person X is lacking quality Y are treading very dangerous grounds indeed.

But accepting that still leaves us with the burden of selfish populism; perhaps we simply need to accept it as part of the human condition...

[JimC]

I'm an Engelist.

So, a B-grade follower rather than leading edge...

[pErvinalia]

It's all the same, to Seth...

[JimC]

It's all the same, to Seth...

But to careful observers of the old left, the subtle differences are all important...

I wish I could persuade you to be a Trotskyite - I could send you your very own ice-pick...

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm an Engelist.

At least credit me when you use my joke.

[pErvinalia]

Who are you?

[Coito ergo sum]

Who are you?

I am Coitoman.

[pErvinalia]

You're a coitoist!

[Tyrannical]

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

Fried up right, who doesn't.

[Tyrannical]

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.

Always, there must be a say. Those who edge towards the idea of limiting votes because person X is lacking quality Y are treading very dangerous grounds indeed.

But accepting that still leaves us with the burden of selfish populism; perhaps we simply need to accept it as part of the human condition...

A Democracy is only as good as the quality of the voters. Not disenfranchising poor quality voters is very dangerous and risks collapse of the entire government.

Oh, and Revolutionist neither you or anyone else is on my ignore list. Did you make a productive comment that I missed?

[Tyrannical]

I do like big black cock. No denying that. I am a troll. Nothing more.

[Tyrannical]

I do like big black cock. No denying that. I am a troll. Nothing more.

Damnit!
Wife got my phone again.

[Seth]

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.

How so? Disenfranchising the dependent class is perfectly logical and a good thing...for everyone. First, it prevents those who are dependent on government largess from voting themselves more of other people's money, thus protecting the productive class against the rapacious cupidity of slackers and idlers. Second, it makes "second-class" citizens of the dependent class, which provides a strong incentive for those who object to being second-class citizens to get off government welfare and become members of the productive class so they can vote and have a say in the government policies that affect them.

Robert Heinlein went further and suggested that EVERYONE should be part of the second-class non-voting citizenry unless and until they serve a term of public service in the military or some other public entity like police, firefighting, trash collectors or whatnot.

I like that idea VERY much...in addition of course to disenfranchising the dependent class.

If you are nothing but a drain on society in that you are dependent on others for your existence rather than being productive, why should you have a say in the policies of the government? We don't allow minor children who are dependent on their parents for support vote whether they have to go to bed at 8:30 or 9:00, so why should we allow adult dependents the right to set policy for the rest of us.

[Audley Strange]

I think we should disallow bad sci-fi writers from voting.