Democracy in Danger
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
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.
Ah, I see the problem here. Words like good and bad.
It's not a value judgment, it's strictly professional. One can be a good person who definitely needs a hand up, through no fault of their own. But, yeah, maybe they should sit out an election or two until they get their shit together, nothing personal. Not because they are bad people, but no one can really verify your story that you had your life savings under your mattress which went up in flames and that you didn't actually spend it all on hookers and blackjack
The point of this scheme is that the people that vote themselves gibs find themselves unable to continue giving themselves gibs. Those who can't participate in society, like criminals, don't get a voice on how society administration justice. And of the people whose voices matter, there is still a majority so that the VP of DIE who wants Cultural Marxism is drowned out by many more voices who are sensible.
As far that bar? I'd propose it starts at zero. Don't cost people money, welcome to the table. And if you want a seat, all you gotta do is not cash that check
Now, that distillation needs to account for everything. Zuckerberg: how much taxpayer funded security is he getting? Is he paying his taxes on his property or is he weaseling out of it? How much liability is he dodging from that fictional "corporate personhood" thing?
It's got to be better than today where that homeless junkie that hasn't had an OD he didn't live through has the same voice in government as someone who can at. It's got to be better than that single mom who couldn't handle taking a practically free pill every day and couldn't say no to creampie action having a say. It's got to be better than literal children who have never known a day's work to dictate how much money should be stolen from a paycheck.