'Service Guarantees Citizenship' and 'only citizens can vote' is a good system, but I think there's some other components that should be considered.
I understand why some people on the populist Left want direct, but this is one of the reasons I want stratified voting. The only things that you should vote on are the things directly within your community and the government you create to govern you. From there, those local government members are the only people that vote on state issues. Those state governments then vote on Federal issues. Etc.
The only people voting on a thing, should be the people effected by the thing. Thus, you only vote one step up in the stratification. The government's jurisdiction should be only one step down. The government can only really regulate the relationships of the people that put it in power.
A direct vote on something like boarders may be too broad. The only exception to this in my mind would be "votes of no confidence". If you pissed X number of raw people off at the bottom rung, then you must have fucked something up royally, and you should get removed.
The issue with this is who controls the categorization. If something can be taken away by the government it will be eventually abused against you. Just as even starship troopers pointed out, when the military expanded significantly, the risk to earn citizenship decreased significantly so many more people signed up without having to “earn it”. When the government expands enough they will demand to be a part of everything while allowing you to nothing.
The only people voting on a thing, should be the people effected by the thing.
Generally agreed, unless they're dependent on the government. The incentives created by letting people on welfare vote to give themselves more money should be avoided.
There was a reason originally only property owners had franchise in America.
If you're not paying into a system, you're not incentivized to ensure it's well run. Would someone on welfare, who pays no taxes, give a shit if they taxed everyone else 90% of their income and wasted all but a few dollars of it as long as their check remained the same?
Sure, they have a vested interest in ensuring the system paying their welfare doesn't collapse, but I honestly don't think people in that situation are farsighted enough to vote for responsible spending or, God forbid, a reduction in their benefits in order to sustain the system long-term.
If they're dependent on anyone else, they shouldn't get the right to vote. This is what Adams and Blackstone were pointing out with land requirements. If you don't own your own home and your own business, you are dependent on someone else, and you are voting in their best interests. Not yours. If they are dependent on the government, they don't get to vote. The government shouldn't vote for itself. In fact, I think there's an argument to ban government officials from participating in elections.
Just FYI, this stratification idea is how Soviet "democracy" worked. You would elect members to your local soviet, who would elect members of the regional soviet, and so on up to the Supreme Soviet.
They also had no protections of liberty or property, unlimited jurisdiction, and they sure didn't have the "no confidence" vote that I specified.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think the system I'm suggesting would have the same kinds of holes in it that the Soviet system intentionally created.
For example, I'm saying that the top level can't make laws for the lowest level. At all. The top level can only go one step down. They can only regulate relations to their immediate subordinates.
'Service Guarantees Citizenship' and 'only citizens can vote' is a good system, but I think there's some other components that should be considered.
I understand why some people on the populist Left want direct, but this is one of the reasons I want stratified voting. The only things that you should vote on are the things directly within your community and the government you create to govern you. From there, those local government members are the only people that vote on state issues. Those state governments then vote on Federal issues. Etc.
The only people voting on a thing, should be the people effected by the thing. Thus, you only vote one step up in the stratification. The government's jurisdiction should be only one step down. The government can only really regulate the relationships of the people that put it in power.
A direct vote on something like boarders may be too broad. The only exception to this in my mind would be "votes of no confidence". If you pissed X number of raw people off at the bottom rung, then you must have fucked something up royally, and you should get removed.
The issue with this is who controls the categorization. If something can be taken away by the government it will be eventually abused against you. Just as even starship troopers pointed out, when the military expanded significantly, the risk to earn citizenship decreased significantly so many more people signed up without having to “earn it”. When the government expands enough they will demand to be a part of everything while allowing you to nothing.
I don't disagree, I just think static boarders of states, counties, townships v. cities, are already in place and make sense.
Generally agreed, unless they're dependent on the government. The incentives created by letting people on welfare vote to give themselves more money should be avoided.
There was a reason originally only property owners had franchise in America.
If you're not paying into a system, you're not incentivized to ensure it's well run. Would someone on welfare, who pays no taxes, give a shit if they taxed everyone else 90% of their income and wasted all but a few dollars of it as long as their check remained the same?
Sure, they have a vested interest in ensuring the system paying their welfare doesn't collapse, but I honestly don't think people in that situation are farsighted enough to vote for responsible spending or, God forbid, a reduction in their benefits in order to sustain the system long-term.
If they were that far sighted they'd hedge and save and develop alternative Oh I get it.
If they're dependent on anyone else, they shouldn't get the right to vote. This is what Adams and Blackstone were pointing out with land requirements. If you don't own your own home and your own business, you are dependent on someone else, and you are voting in their best interests. Not yours. If they are dependent on the government, they don't get to vote. The government shouldn't vote for itself. In fact, I think there's an argument to ban government officials from participating in elections.
Even better.
Just FYI, this stratification idea is how Soviet "democracy" worked. You would elect members to your local soviet, who would elect members of the regional soviet, and so on up to the Supreme Soviet.
They also had no protections of liberty or property, unlimited jurisdiction, and they sure didn't have the "no confidence" vote that I specified.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think the system I'm suggesting would have the same kinds of holes in it that the Soviet system intentionally created.
For example, I'm saying that the top level can't make laws for the lowest level. At all. The top level can only go one step down. They can only regulate relations to their immediate subordinates.