Democracy in Danger
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Good riddance to what? Where does government actually reflect the will of the people? You think people want uncontrolled immigration and child grooming?
Good riddance to one pulse, one vote. Good riddance to pretending that numbers equate to a moral right to govern.
You're right, it's great that the elites can just push through whatever they want even if the "pulses" are against it - like uncontrolled immigration, endless wars an child grooming.
They know better, after all.
Being deliberately obtuse, pretty much your only real tactic.
I'm just puzzled that you think you live in a 'democracy' when nothing that happens reflects the public will.
So effectively, you already have what you want.
The "will of the people" is garbage. There are only the makers and the takers.
Any system of voting that listens to those who contribute nothing to the society they vote for deserves to be in the trash bin of history.
10 years ago I was all on board with democracy / democratically elected republic until I finally realized the harm in letting people with no skin in the game vote. What we see today is a direct result. Vote for the war hawk, but don't worry, I won't be drafted. Vote for the spendthrift, but don't worry, I don't pay taxes. Vote for the pervert, but don't worry, no one will judge my degeneracy.
Mitt Romney called, he wants his economic policy back.
By this standard, Mark Zuckerberg "contributes" a lot to society, while coal miners do not.
Could anything go wrong if only wealthy, cosmopolitan elites had the ability to vote? Who is it that's pushing all the garbage we object to? Is it the people who, according to you, contribute nothing - or is it the people with $450,000 a year VP of Diversity positions?
I placed the bar at not being a taker (net positive) but you place it somewhere around being a wealthy cosmopolitan elite.
According to a 30 second web search that I don't care enough to put more time into investigating, coal miners' median income is around 53k, which would place this in the 12% tax bracket for head of household, after standard deduction.
Why such a dishonest distortion? Were you that desperate for a "Mitt Romney" dunk?
I'm just pointing out that people who are net 'takers' are not necessarily bad, and that so called 'makers' are often neither productive nor good people. I don't want to live in a world where the waiter at a restaurant is considered less worthy than the VP of diversity and inclusion, or where the former is not allowed to vote and the latter is. I'd rather have the latter banned from voting.
But are they net positive 'givers'? If so, who are the people who belong to that dreaded 47%? And what makes them less good than Zuckerberg or the VP of diversity?
You caught me. Actually, it's just a reductio ad absurdum. The worth of humans is not measured by the amount of money that they have, nor should their ability to participate fully in society.
Rule of the people is faggotry