Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: ArfinGreebly on November 09, 2012, 05:38:57 PM
-
Something said on another forum about an alternate political platform tripped a random neuron, and I started thinking.
Never an auspicious start, I will admit, still though, thinking beats nerveless apathy. Or so I've heard.
Platform?
I glanced at both platforms in the run-up to the election. Meh. One is the "bread-and-circuses" platform, the other is the "morality-fitting-nobody-really" platform.
One of them I could reject out of hand. The other made me wince.
So . . . I was wondering . . . and thinking . . . what would a collection of my saner friends think would be a good platform?
So I figured I would open the floor for discussion of something I will call "The Sanity Platform." ("Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Clause!")
So: The Sanity Platform
Plank #1: People are not property. Corollary: The government does not own people.
Who wants to go next?
-
Plank #2- Government shall not raise taxes, reduce tax breaks or borrow money from foreign countries. The eventual goal shall be to reduce spending to pre-1913 levels, adjusted for inflation. The U.S. shall be put back on a gold standard.
Lacks brevity...maybe just, "The government shall exercise fiscal responsibility"?
-
Plank 3 - Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year. This is intergenerational slavery, and abhorrent to us. We will never do this.
-
Plank 4: repeal the 16th amendment
-
Plank 3 - Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year. This is intergenerational slavery, and abhorrent to us. We will never do this.
You really want a government that will never borrow money? Wasn't that one of the first things our national government tried to do, during the Revolutionary War? ???
-
If our government resembled that of the Founders, I wouldn't mind. The degenerate morons we have now? No.
-
I'm sorry, the whole gold standard idea is silly, difficult to implement, and EXTREMELY unlikely to actually be taken seriously.
The statement about indebtedness is good, but far too absolute. Would you go into debt to save your children's life, even if they will have to pay it back? I'm guessing yes.
How about: "Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year. Only during times of national emergency will we take on debt."
I have no disagreements with Jamis's plank.
My addition would be: The federal government always imposes one single solution on the entirety of the country. Therefore, everything that can be done by localities or states will be left to states and localities. Regulating commerce between the states means the federal government will prevent tariffs or regulations designed to prevent people, goods, or businesses from freely moving from state to state. (Maybe that should be two planks.)
-
[...]
My addition would be: The federal government always imposes one single solution on the entirety of the country. Therefore, everything that can be done by localities or states will be left to states and localities. Regulating commerce between the states means the federal government will prevent tariffs or regulations designed to prevent people, goods, or businesses from freely moving from state to state. (Maybe that should be two planks.)
Repeal the 17th amendment to help in accomplishing that.
-
How about: "Indebtedness we create this year is a debt to be repaid by our children or grandchildren next year. Only during times of national emergency will we take on debt."
Unfortunately, "national emergency" is a pretty big loophole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act
There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976 and 2001. [2] Most of these were for the purpose of restricting trade with certain foreign entities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707).
...
The United States has been in a state of national emergency continuously since September 14, 2001, when the Bush administration invoked it premised on the September 11 attacks. In September 2011, President Barack Obama informed Congress that the State of National Emergency in effect since September 14, 2001, will be extended another year.
-
FWIW, I'm less interested in specific issues and more interested in expressing planks as principles.
"Repeal the [XX] amendment" becomes an issue, while the reason for doing so is a principle.
I don't have a problem with "Because [abc] principle, repeal [xx] amendment." A clear articulation of the principle is necessary, however, so that the "repeal [xx]" flows naturally from it.
I find that I have less trouble getting agreement with a principle ("people are not property") than with an arguably logical derivation from it (like "therefore children do not belong to government"). If I begin the discussion with "kids don't belong to government" I find myself swimming upstream against a long-propagated meme that "government is in charge of kids" without any examination of why that would be a bad idea. If I start with the principle (people are not property), which has derivations like "therefore slavery is bad and wrong," it becomes easier to highlight the incongruous idea that somehow kids are property ("owned" by government).
Therefore I suggest that "good idea [xx]" be preceded by "such-and-such is a principle."
Principles make better planks than "issues."
-
No law shall be passed without stating the constitutional authority it draws on
-
No law shall be passed without stating the constitutional authority it draws on
No making up Interstate Commerce Clause bullshit to seize power.
The Constitution and it's amendments are crystal clear. When it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", that's exactly what it means, numbnuts. When it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" that's what it means. If the military has it, you should be able to buy it if you can afford the purchase cost and the manufacturer is willing to sell to you.
Get rid of property taxes. I'm sorry, but when you buy land, you should BUY THE LAND, not pay extortion money to a state or local .gov so they won't send men with guns to take your land from you. Speaking of taxes, your money should be taxed once, not multiple times. I should not be taxed upon payday, taxed yearly, and then taxed upon my death for the same money.
Stuff like the NPS, Forest Service, and so on can be easily handled by state agencies. It's entirely stupid, as we have in my state, to have State Parks and Forest Service and then have federal park and forest services.
-
All Federal and State legislation will expire ten years after its passage, where it must be voted on again to extend it another ten years or let it expire....
All Senators, Congress-persons, and their employees will draw their salaries, pension, and office budget from the legislature of the state they represent. The state legislatures can review and change those salaries at any time during the official's term.
-
The results of a person's labor, whether goods or cash, belong to that person. They are never an entitlement or right of some one else.
-
The principle that we seem to be disreguarding the most is:
You can not spemd your way in to prosperity.
-
All the decisions of the executive officer of the week have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs.
-
FWIW, I'm less interested in specific issues and more interested in expressing planks as principles.
"Repeal the [XX] amendment" becomes an issue, while the reason for doing so is a principle.
I don't have a problem with "Because [abc] principle, repeal [xx] amendment." A clear articulation of the principle is necessary, however, so that the "repeal [xx]" flows naturally from it.
I find that I have less trouble getting agreement with a principle ("people are not property") than with an arguably logical derivation from it (like "therefore children do not belong to government"). If I begin the discussion with "kids don't belong to government" I find myself swimming upstream against a long-propagated meme that "government is in charge of kids" without any examination of why that would be a bad idea. If I start with the principle (people are not property), which has derivations like "therefore slavery is bad and wrong," it becomes easier to highlight the incongruous idea that somehow kids are property ("owned" by government).
Therefore I suggest that "good idea [xx]" be preceded by "such-and-such is a principle."
Principles make better planks than "issues."
I disagree. The 16th Amendment gives Leviathian all the power to do all the things we despise, and is the biggest stranglehold on the population at our government's disposal.
"We will do XYZ" is a principle.
-
Plank 4: repeal the 16th amendment
Yay!
-
All the decisions of the executive officer of the week have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs.
But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major......
-
Plank 4: repeal the 16th amendment
16th, 17th, and 18th were all bad. WTF were they thinking?
-
16th, 17th, and 18th were all bad. WTF were they thinking?
Probably something along the lines of...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F250x250%2F25156451.jpg&hash=edb543f8f6961fe2b3cd6d2bea49007ab4e6959f)
-
16th, 17th, and 18th were all bad. WTF were they thinking?
You forgot 19.
-
You forgot 19.
Plank # whatever: fistful shall be permibanned.
-
Plank: Constitutional amendment to restrict suffrage to those persons who have completed at least four years of service in the Armed Forces and are discharged under honorable conditions, or have received a medical discharge under honorable conditions due to injuries sustained in the line of duty, or have completed at least 30 years of non-combat civil service in a non-elected, non-appointed, position and having retired in good standing. Furthermore, franchise shall be a requirement of any candidate to hold any elected office or to receive appointment to a civil position which has a term of office greater than 2 years.
-
Plank: Constitutional amendment to restrict suffrage to those persons who have completed at least four years of service in the Armed Forces and are discharged under honorable conditions, or have received a medical discharge under honorable conditions due to injuries sustained in the line of duty, or have completed at least 30 years of non-combat civil service in a non-elected, non-appointed, position and having retired in good standing. Furthermore, franchise shall be a requirement of any candidate to hold any elected office or to receive appointment to a civil position which has a term of office greater than 2 years.
Great...since I can't be in the military I can't vote? Thanks, guess the decade plus I've spent forgoing a non defense industry big paycheck to put my skills to use for our military isn't quite the same? VETO.
And why the time difference? So 22 year old folks with a DD214 can vote, and 48 year old civil service folks?
That's pretty much selecting a below average voting population with limited experience. Most civil service folks are retarded, and I'm sure DS Fitz can vouch for the -average- civil knowledge and critical thinking skills of young military folks (again, AVERAGE).
I'd prefer voting be restricted to people who can pass a combined critical thinking, economics, and civics test.
-
I disagree. The 16th Amendment gives Leviathian all the power to do all the things we despise, and is the biggest stranglehold on the population at our government's disposal.
"We will do XYZ" is a principle.
No, that's a plan.
What principle is violated by the 16th Amendment?
-
Plank: Constitutional amendment to restrict suffrage to those persons who have completed at least four years of service in the Armed Forces and are discharged under honorable conditions, or have received a medical discharge under honorable conditions due to injuries sustained in the line of duty, or have completed at least 30 years of non-combat civil service in a non-elected, non-appointed, position and having retired in good standing. Furthermore, franchise shall be a requirement of any candidate to hold any elected office or to receive appointment to a civil position which has a term of office greater than 2 years.
a.k.a. the Johnny Rico plank. No thanks.
-
Great...since I can't be in the military I can't vote? Thanks, guess the decade plus I've spent forgoing a non defense industry big paycheck to put my skills to use for our military isn't quite the same? VETO.
And why the time difference? So 22 year old folks with a DD214 can vote, and 48 year old civil service folks?
That's pretty much selecting a below average voting population with limited experience. Most civil service folks are retarded, and I'm sure DS Fitz can vouch for the -average- civil knowledge and critical thinking skills of young military folks (again, AVERAGE).
I'd prefer voting be restricted to people who can pass a combined critical thinking, economics, and civics test.
Because a mailman or DMV clerk typically doesn't get shot at with artillery rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, etc. on a regular basis or have to contend with the constant threat of an IED attack during their commute to/from work. The threat of death and dismemberment is far greater in one of those fields versus the other, and the people are volunteering to take on that danger to themselves in service to the country.
But if my channeling of Heinlein really gets you in such a twist over this, drop the civil service requirement to 20 years, and include the testing. I'd also make the civil service entrance requirements far more stringent, the government isn't (supposed to be) a jobs program for the witless.
ETA: Change the military time requirement to 4 years with a combat deployment, and 16 years without, the 16 instead of 20 simply due to it being a rather dangerous job at times, even if you aren't dodging bullets. An example being UNREP evolutions in the Navy. People still get seriously injured/killed during those things in spite of every precaution possible. Perhaps also add the medical retirement incurred while in service to the civil side as well?
-
Because a mailman or DMV clerk typically doesn't get shot at with artillery rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, etc. on a regular basis or have to contend with the constant threat of an IED attack during their commute to/from work.
Neither does a desk jockey that never got deployed during their 4 years of service.
-
Neither does a desk jockey that never got deployed during their 4 years of service.
Check my edit above.
-
Hrmm. Still looking over and refining the Johnny Rico Plank (thanks for the title Angel Eyes) and not satisfied with it yet. There should be a way for people to accrue civil service time without dedicating their whole career to it. Perhaps something akin to the National Guard/Reserves retirement point system? Volunteering some of your days to community/civil work slowly garners points until you have the equivalent of the 20 years?
Also, I wasn't thinking of state/county/city level franchise, but solely federal level at this moment.
-
I'm firmly in the "no taxation without representation" camp. So if I'm taxed even a penny of my money to the fedgov, passage of any sort of amendment that resembled your military supremacist suffrage plan would be grounds for revolution in my opinion.
-
No, that's a plan.
What principle is violated by the 16th Amendment?
1. Equal protection under the law--taxes (and thus penalties for not paying a certain amount) are not distributed equally person to person, so the law applies differently depending on income.
2. Taxation without representation--as income taxes are not apportioned among the states by population, or by a fixed amount on each individual (capitation), the effective representative voting power is disconnected from the taxes paid...this is the root of all the problems, as it allows a population to vote itself benefits paid for by a different segment of the population, remember, that is how it was passed to begin with--it applied to an exceedingly small population fraction, and was only a marginal rate of 1% IIRC...but has only grown from there.
3. Due process, income tax and it's derivatives, specifically the estate tax and capital gains taxes (due to rule changes in how basis is calculated), combined with the legal penalties for not paying them, are technically an ex post facto law--actions performed prior to one of those being raised can result in higher payments later, and associated legal penalties if not paid. Taxes are the ONLY retroactive way to be thrown in jail for actions performed before a law is changed. Of course, you could always pay the estate or capital gains taxes, oh, you can't afford that? Well, we will just take your property instead (due process AGAIN!)
4. Equal protection and bills of attainder--as having an income tax ALSO allows for deductions or exemptions in how that tax is calculated, those can be made in an extremely and arbitrarily focused fashion (not to mention the original income tax was damn close to a bill of attainder given its focus), thus penalizing or benefiting citizens unequally based on their income or other choices. We can't pass a law saying "people that don't have two kids go to jail" but we have tax code that says if a childless marred couple otherwise identical in all aspects to a couple with two children doesn't pay MORE in taxes, they go to jail...odd no?
So not only are these fundamental principles violated, but look at it as a whole. The founders created a system of government that was (they hoped) resistant to the tyranny of a federal-level voting majority, hence an independent judiciary, bicameral legislature, and the FREAKIN TENTH AMENDMENT. So it is reasonable to assume that the constitutional prohibition on taxes that aren't director apportioned equally was done for a comparable reason--to prevent a population majority or plurality from visiting itself benefits at the expense of a smaller population group.
The 16th amendment tossed that all away, and has grown from "this very small group at the top should pay a little bit more" (where have I heard that before?) to what we have now...and people are STILL saying "this small group should pay more", whether it be the AMT, "new AMT" (buffet rule), steadily more progressive marginal rates, etc.
Basically, the 16th amendment CREATED leviathan by violating nearly all of the basic principles of our original government, including principles that were so important that they were specifically codified as "government can't touch these" in the bill of rights.
-
I'm firmly in the "no taxation without representation" camp. So if I'm taxed even a penny of my money to the fedgov, passage of any sort of amendment that resembled your military supremacist suffrage plan would be grounds for revolution in my opinion.
*scratches chin* You gave me an odd thought what if the Fed gov actually had no taxes or expenditures? All the positions being unpaid, and things like the raising of armies/navies restricted to the State level.
I'm firmly in the "no taxation without representation" camp. So if I'm taxed even a penny of my money to the fedgov, passage of any sort of amendment that resembled your military supremacist suffrage plan would be grounds for revolution in my opinion.
I prefer the term obsequiocracy. :P
-
You forgot 19.
I wasn't stupid enough to say that one out-loud. ;)
-
Hrmm. Still looking over and refining the Johnny Rico Plank (thanks for the title Angel Eyes) and not satisfied with it yet. There should be a way for people to accrue civil service time without dedicating their whole career to it. Perhaps something akin to the National Guard/Reserves retirement point system? Volunteering some of your days to community/civil work slowly garners points until you have the equivalent of the 20 years?
Also, I wasn't thinking of state/county/city level franchise, but solely federal level at this moment.
The problem is, that plank creates a voting population that can't possibly be representative of the population it by definition rules. For instance, let's say I am a blind, but brilliant physicist, and I was born without legs, and believe that I would like some aspect of the government I am subject to be different. So I can't vote thin a way to reflect my thoughts, or even try to represent my fellow citizens WITHOUT doing something I can't do (military service), or dedicate my entire career to civil service? I mean, I assume you are trying to create a SMALLER government, rather than one populated by vast numbers of folks attempting to merely obtain the right to vote?
Given that any new public employees, or short term enlistees merely dilutes the existing voting population in your plank, there is a massive incentive to keep both numbers as low as possible through either increased enlistment terms or smaller number of government civil service positions.
Effectively, you are creating a system that PENALIZES folks from NOT choosing to enlist or go into long term specific service. As BY DEFINITION both of those groups are not value add segments of an economy, (note, they ARE necessary for an economy to exist, but do not create value in and of themselves), you are making a system of government that disincentives through disenfranchisement private sector work.
While I believe there really is no higher calling than to potentially lay down your life for country, the choice to do so doesn't NOT mean that your vote is "better" than someone who feels they can help their society through other means.
To do so is a recipe for abuse of power through other means.
Now, I'm only making a big deal about this because you made it a limit on suffrage, NOT just a limit on holding office. The latter is much less contentious, except in the case of those who cannot perform military jobs. I assume you want this so that our leaders have a true personal experience with what it means to protect a nation or ideal, the problem is, regardless of timeframe, a civil service job cannot reliably yield the same experience.
I think that all of the above is problematic as it attempts to create a voting population that better understands what is at stake. The problem is, that can be done with requiring the proper education, rather than a service that should be voluntary.
-
Don't we go through this argument about every six months?
-
Don't we go through this argument about every six months?
Probably, but it's still a good mental exercise. I also think now that we've finally reached the critical mass point where the politicians offering Free-S*** to buy votes can effectively monopolize the government of this country we should be taking a seriously hard look at suffrage and whether it should be universal.
Hey Birdman, reread the bit from me you just quoted. I think you missed something. ;)
Just did a patrol here at work and was thinking about the testing idea. The problem comes down to: who makes the tests, and who determines the cut off limits.
Perhaps there's another way to go about this, instead of trying to think up who should get the vote, how about who shouldn't.
I'll kick it off with this:
Dishonorable Discharges (permanent disbarment from public service and voting.)
Recidivistic Criminals (what should the cut off be between guy-who-messed-up and career criminal?)
Malfeasant Public Servants (none of this Charlie Rangle slap-on-the-wrist "ethics censure" crap. Malfeasance while in office should be immediate ejection from the position and life-time disbarment from any public employment and voting.)
Chronically Welfare Dependent Individuals (disenfranchised during any year that the public assistance was collected for greater than 2 months. Now what criteria can be used to effectively separate the never-worked-ever-you-should-give-me-money-because-I-exist leaches, and say, those that are or were recently gainfully employed and only need a temporary lift back onto their feet, or perhaps the granny that worked every day of her life from 18 to 70 and is just now collecting her SS?)
-
Birdman,
Under the Johnny Rico plank, even if you are say, Stephen Hawking, and you wish to join, they will find (or create) a position for you to fill during your term of service.
The point being to have earned the franchise by devoting 4 years of your life in service to your country. Whatever that service is.
And yes, if you are receiving money from the .gov, (2 or more months of the year) then no, your are not allowed to vote in any election in that year.
Also all laws, rules and regulations apply to any and all elected officials and .gov employees.
-
Hey Birdman, reread the bit from me you just quoted. I think you missed something. ;)
Just did a patrol here at work and was thinking about the testing idea. The problem comes down to: who makes the tests, and who determines the cut off limits.
Perhaps there's another way to go about this, instead of trying to think up who should get the vote, how about who shouldn't.
I'll kick it off with this:
Dishonorable Discharges (permanent disbarment from public service and voting.)
Recidivistic Criminals (what should the cut off be between guy-who-messed-up and career criminal?)
Malfeasant Public Servants (none of this Charlie Rangle slap-on-the-wrist "ethics censure" crap. Malfeasance while in office should be immediate ejection from the position and life-time disbarment from any public employment and voting.)
Chronically Welfare Dependent Individuals (disenfranchised during any year that the public assistance was collected for greater than 2 months. Now what criteria can be used to effectively separate the never-worked-ever-you-should-give-me-money-because-I-exist leaches, and say, those that are or were recently gainfully employed and only need a temporary lift back onto their feet, or perhaps the granny that worked every day of her life from 18 to 70 and is just now collecting her SS?)
Okay, sorry. Now I got you. You and scout are right on, I still suggest we make it a combination of a minimum qualifier, and very specific disqualifies as you suggest.
So we are the disqualifiers you have, and add in a civil service requirement AND let's call it a "voting license" that you have to take a test to pass (yeah, we will have good luck with that one...it will take about 5 femtoseconds before we are accused of advocating Jim crow laws), AND some civil service requirement.
I think the last could also be made better by combining it with term limits AND a bar from post-service exploitation (as discussed in other threads I believe) AND make federal positions effectively unpaid. Originally, being in congress wasn't supposed to be a job onto itself, but rather a service you are performing for your fellow citizens.
How about that?
-
For the qualifier test, probably can't get away with anything "IQ test" like. Perhaps just a straight up national history/basic economics/mechanisms of government thing? Also update it, and require it to be retaken every 10 years (in conjunction with the census?) If someone has gone senile, or is so mentally disabled that they are incapable of learning and understanding those basic facts then they will likely fail, and all without having the test-makers having to determine and arbitrary cut off for reasoning and cognitive ability.
-
For the test why not use the current Citizenship test given to immigrants? If it's good enough to determine who can become a citizen, then it's good enough to determine who can vote.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.749cabd81f5ffc8fba713d10526e0aa0/?vgnextoid=5efcebb7d4ff8210VgnVCM10000025e6a00aRCRD&vgnextchannel=5efcebb7d4ff8210VgnVCM10000025e6a00aRCRD
(Note that they also have to take an English test.)
I would bump up the number of questions to say 20 with 16 being a passing score. I'd also make it 2 of 3 on both English tests (Reading and Writing).
-
Plank: Constitutional amendment to restrict suffrage to those persons who have completed at least four years of service in the Armed Forces and are discharged under honorable conditions, or have received a medical discharge under honorable conditions due to injuries sustained in the line of duty, or have completed at least 30 years of non-combat civil service in a non-elected, non-appointed, position and having retired in good standing. Furthermore, franchise shall be a requirement of any candidate to hold any elected office or to receive appointment to a civil position which has a term of office greater than 2 years.
Yeah, no. Create a warrior society and the only result is war. Think more freedoms, not less.
I do think a 3/4 majority would be a serious blow to statism. Without a supermajority, you couldn't just ram legislation that is harmful to a majority of the people through.
-
Dishonorable Discharges (permanent disbarment from public service and voting.)
Why is this a permanent ban? (and a single felony on your list was not) There should be a path to redemption for anybody who is not incarcerated at the time.
-
Why is this a permanent ban? (and a single felony on your list was not) There should be a path to redemption for anybody who is not incarcerated at the time.
The day someone walks out of a prison or their parole ends, they should have full rights restored.
Many, many felonies aren't even violent, yet we continue to strip felons of their rights.
-
Warnings against "warrior societies" may be well-taken, but we have seen what the converse of a warrior society is, and it's this. Our foreign war policies are a different matter altogether, but the fact that our nation is willing to let "the one per cent" defend it says volumes about what kind of Republic we really have. I don't think it's about war as much as the very sense of community and accountability that the Left likes to prattle about so grandly.
-
Drop the service requirement, require passing score on civics or citizenship test and I'm good with making that a requirement.
Yeah, under the Johnny Rico platform they will find a position for anyone. That doesn't mean the position wont be strapping explosives to Steves wheel chair and telling him to roll down that hole over yonder.
-
That doesn't mean the position wont be strapping explosives to Steves wheel chair and telling him to roll down that hole over yonder.
Dude, I know Steve sucks, but what did he do to you?!
-
I was just trying to think WTF Stephen Hawking would be able to do in the MI.
-
I was just trying to think WTF Stephen Hawking would be able to do in the MI.
Kill some mother-f'ing bugs while slapping johnny and banging his chick with his armored, thought controlled anthropomorphic power armor that's what!
-
Service =/= MI.
Remember in the book, the girl (Carmen Ibanez) became a Pilot and their other friend ended doing intelligence work (Been a long time since I read the book, so I disremember.)
Anyway, it all counts as service. From Wikipedia:
The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires being prepared to make individual sacrifice. Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy, with aspects of a meritocracy in regard to full citizenship, based on voluntarily assuming a responsibility for the common weal. Suffrage can only be earned by those willing to serve their society by at least two years of volunteer Federal Service – "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of, as Heinlein would later note, anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C"[16] The Federation is required to find a place for anyone who desires to serve, regardless of his skill or aptitude (this also includes service ranging from teaching to dangerous non-military work such as serving as experimental medical test subjects to military service -- such as Rico's Mobile Infantry).
There is an explicit contrast to the "democracies of the 20th century", which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."
-
Service and testing requirements for voting have good intentions but are likely bad ideas.
As with any such rules, imagine the worst possible person in charge of said rule.
Like the founders, we should make rules that are fairly robust to bad actors (tyranny, of course would outright ignore the rules) and not dependent on always having good, honorable persons in office.
(Obviously they weren't perfect given FDR's example of ignoring precedent and the plain language of the constitution. However, I would say it still qualifies as "fairly robust" given how long it took to get to that point.)
-
Why is this a permanent ban? (and a single felony on your list was not) There should be a path to redemption for anybody who is not incarcerated at the time.
Those in positions of extreme trust and power should be held to far higher standards. Also for minor f-ups in the military it isn't an automatic Dishonorable discharge. You have to do something rather grievous to warrant it.
I was just trying to think WTF Stephen Hawking would be able to do in the MI.
I would argue that teaching is a public service. Professor Hawking would have earned his franchise many times over.
Sorry I bounced earlier, had a Marine B-Day even to attend. As I have to get to sleep for work tomorrow I'll try to assemble all the ideas and such into a single post for further tweaking/critiquing.
-
>Also for minor f-ups in the military it isn't an automatic Dishonorable discharge. You have to do something rather grievous to warrant it. <
Not quite true (or wasn't when I was in). Know of at least one person who was given a Dis for "refusing alcohol treatment", after being jerked around with it for a few weeks...
I would simply limit the franchise to anyone who is paying taxes. I'm actually ok with a federal income tax, so long as the feds are milited to only utilizing their actual constitutional authority. At that point, a small fed income tax would be sustainable. Attach the franchise to that.
Keeps the "welfare queens" and professional criminals out of the polls
-
We'd be screwed totally if the electorate was dominated by your average enlisted soldier
-
Anyone advocating sanity or a sane platform for governance would be soundly trounced on election day.
Illusion, delusion and distraction are the order of the day.
Any sane platform would require dealing with reality and hard truths.
As long as the masses are housed, fed and entertained there will be no sanity.
-
We'd be screwed totally if the electorate was dominated by your average enlisted soldier
Free beer and titties.would be the only campaign issues.
-
Free beer and titties.would be the only campaign issues.
Who's payin' for them titties? [popcorn]
-
You better not be taking from my paycheck to pay for free titties for some 47 percenter, I'll tell you what!
-
Free beer and [ahem, chicks] would be the only campaign issues.
Compared to the majority that's currently deciding our elections, I'm not seeing a downside.
-
Who's payin' for them titties? [popcorn]
In San Francisco it could be the tax payers.
-
Who's payin' for them titties? [popcorn]
Appeal to the female campaigner. If they'll flash for beads at Mardes Gras, think of what they'd do for a CAUSE. ;)