I see you prefer the wealth of the nation over the wealth of the individual. In that case, why vote at all? Monarchy is a much more agile form of government and will serve to "better the nation" much more than any form of democracy. Autocracy and (actual) Facism are also fine choices.
Of course, the wealth of the nation always comes at the cost of the wealth of the individual. See: Modern China, the British Empire, Pre-War Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Rome, etc.
Also, funny how your posts are upvoted twice within seconds of posting. Either you've got a loyal simp refreshing the page, or you're using multiple accounts.
While starting a family is an excellent idea, and one that often leads to happiness, it is not a moral perogative. A state-enforced family, implicitly or explicitly, is no family at all. Forcing that decision onto someone, male or female, leads to long term unhappiness.
As for the semantics of wealth, in this context it is short-hand for well-being. By denying a citizen the right to vote, you are taking wealth away from them. Based on your previous posts, it sounds like the purpose of this is in service to the nation. Ergo, you sacrifice the wealth of the individual for the wealth of the nation.
I see you prefer the wealth of the nation over the wealth of the individual. In that case, why vote at all? Monarchy is a much more agile form of government and will serve to "better the nation" much more than any form of democracy. Autocracy and (actual) Facism are also fine choices.
Of course, the wealth of the nation always comes at the cost of the wealth of the individual. See: Modern China, the British Empire, Pre-War Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Rome, etc.
I have not used the word or idea of wealth a single time in this discussion.
Do you understand at all what I've been saying?
Now we're arguing semantics.
Also, funny how your posts are upvoted twice within seconds of posting. Either you've got a loyal simp refreshing the page, or you're using multiple accounts.
Or you're an idiot who is too full of themselves to accept that they have no idea what they're talking about.
You're simping for women while accusing someone of having simps for... attacking women? Just think about that for a second bud.
On the issue of semantics, no.
You have no idea what I've been saying this whole time. Your last two posts make that clear.
Let me spell it out:
It is in the greatest interest of a Nation to promote stable, happy, loving families with many children.
Feminism, women's suffrage, and women holding prime political positions all goes against that greater issue of family.
What you support is women being given a role superseding that of a wife. In doing so you're advocating for the death of the Nation.
While starting a family is an excellent idea, and one that often leads to happiness, it is not a moral perogative. A state-enforced family, implicitly or explicitly, is no family at all. Forcing that decision onto someone, male or female, leads to long term unhappiness.
As for the semantics of wealth, in this context it is short-hand for well-being. By denying a citizen the right to vote, you are taking wealth away from them. Based on your previous posts, it sounds like the purpose of this is in service to the nation. Ergo, you sacrifice the wealth of the individual for the wealth of the nation.
This violates the people's individual freedom.
That's authoritarian.