Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 02:30 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 02:43 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Compromise doesn't work. Agreement, truth and objectivity work.

One has to come to an agreement to compromise.

(12-02-2013 02:43 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You can't compromise on stupid and fucking stupid, if the middle is stupid as hell; or even stupid and genius, if the middle is still shit.

It is a good thing that both idealism and cynicism are not stupid.

(12-02-2013 02:43 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  There isn't some huge grey area, in between correct and incorrect, with some sort of magical wave pool that every person can stick their toes in. It would be more like an ocean, during hurricane season. And just when you thought the hurricane season was over....

There is a grey area when it comes to the individual personal interpretation about the current state of the world.

One really big problem that we have in society today, is people wanting to look at the exact same thing, come to different solutions, and agreeing that both of their views are okay.

You have people, today, looking at things and saying that it is red, then another group saying that it's blue. Now, some may call it purple, and others may just say it's okay they called it red or okay they called it blue; but in reality, it's either red, blue, both red and blue, or purple.

There are two words that you missed: 'truth' and 'objectivity'.

You can't have people maintaining fundamental disagreements, if you want to move forward properly. Compromise is where people give things up, and come to some sort of practical agreement, but where the fundamental disagreement remains underlying and allowed to flourish.

"My mama told me, 'Son, always call a spade a spade; Be like Chuck D, never be like Flavor Flav'"-- Jay Electronica

I guess, I do understand what it is you are trying to say. I just wanted to make the point that, on some things, like gun ownership, you can compromise, when it might not seem like the best thing to do, and it might be okay; however, when you compromise on, like, economical and governmental systems, or morality, then we have big problems.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 10:57 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 10:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I fucking hate technology and the internet. It hurts in so many more ways than it makes things better.
That's like saying you hate oxygen, because it keeps the bad people alive and it makes things burn. Guess what, some things just exist and if we won't use them for our good, someone will, for theirs. Without the technology and internet you'd be working your ass off on some feudal lord's estate, because you don't have a genetic relation to a hierarchy of nobles. Or worse, because you have a black skin, big nose, or epicantic folds. Or because you don't have some of these.
Now it's certainly simplier, now it depends only whether you have money or not. But it can be still improved.

(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  And you have to look at organization. That's number 1, 101. If you can't properly organize, give up. The biggest problem, when it comes to a lot of positive efforts, is that they are done sporadically, without organization, based on individual topics, one at a time.
Yes, leadership is necessary. But now, anyone can be a leader. Anyone can put up a cause with a few clicks, have people join in, discuss what to do and when and they don't even have to get together for that. They don't have to stuff a single envelope. Of course not many people will join in, but if the message reaches millions, then any topic can gather a significant following. And this activist audience can be capable of action and maybe it can join other such audiences and arrange a cooperative action. I think the free movements are just discovering this possibility. I'd love to see a "new Socialism" movement made of Pirates, OWS, Anonymous and whoever the hell wants to join in. But it would be a movement based on people's independent willingness to join in, not on obedience, ideologies and rigidly set goals.
By definition, that will require the organizers to choose broadest topics with broadest appeal, it will by definition will be impossible to create any privileged group that way.
Isn't that awesome?

(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Listen to George Carlin. People on the other side, they don't need an elaborate, organized, hidden conspiracy. They are the same types of people, they have the exact same interest, work for the same types of companies, go to the same types of schools, are part of the same political parties and country clubs, and have the same views, on most issues across the board. The even read the same book, so even when they aren't on the same page, they are still in the same book.

If you think a lot of unorganized, idiots doing stupid, rebellious shit, will work out, this has been attempted. It's called the 60s, and you can check the 80s, if you want to see how it ended.
You mean the free fuckers who used to drop out of college for a protest? Who used to damage their mind with drugs? Who had no computer skills whatsoever? To say they were not thinking straight would be an understatement.

(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You might think things are all G double O.D, good, because you found an issue that you an other people agree on, see atheism, see this site, but if you have anarchists running around on one side, with Marxists running around on the other, I don't care if you are saying, "yeah, black rights", "yeah, feminism", "yeah, freedom", "no, war", "yeah, peace", at the end of the day, what good is having some middle ground issues, when you fundamentally disagree and will fall apart?
I don't know. We must be always ready to admit ignorance and to learn. What about we say we don't know and ask someone? Let's say, a diplomat, a soldier, an ethnologist who was over there where they have a war, or the people themselves. Then we'll say "yeah war" or "yeah peace". And when we meet someone who says "yeah black rights" we ask him, what rights does he mean. What is the freedom for black people. The same with feminism. These are all buzzwords with no concrete meaning but lots of emotional charge in them. Same as capitalism, communism, economy, freedom, justice, rationality, human nature and so on. Hardly anybody knows what do these words mean, but that didn't stop the top people from fooling the bottom people for years and years. For example, economy meant originally thrift, which meant minimalism. Now the monetary price system so perverted the values, that we get more stuff for less money if we buy in bulk, and suddenly "economic" is the biggest package in the store. A totally opposite thing! If somebody came along let's say from another planet, from another civilization, he'd look at this and thought we're totally crazy.

If we can finally get the words straight and have a straight talk with the top people, we'll ask them, "Is this really what we agreed to let you make us, we're supposed to get born, work our ass off, consume, throw out things, retire, die and consider ourselves lucky we're not in Uganda or somewhere?" And they'll have to say, "Yeah, that's about it." And this is when we say, "Well, fuck off!" We can't tell them to fuck off, until we get our thinking straight. Getting our thinking straight on the matters of faith and religion is just one small area of telling someone to fuck off. We wouldn't have to go through this ordeal if we weren't really in deep shit, but it seems that nothing less will do. Of course I hope we can invent the lite version crash course of that process for the poor and uneducated billions of the world, so they'll understand their situation and what can they really do about it. They don't need our lofty economy of ideal models plus minor corrections, they need Manfred MaxNeef's Barefoot Economics. Back to the roots, man! Only this time not to edible roots and tree branches, but to roots of the words and concepts.

I should not have said, "technology and the internet". I don't really think people could have missed what I meant to imply, but just in case, I was talking about some specific, modern technology, mainly the internet, and in relation to the internet. I definitely wasn't trying to generalize, by saying technology.

The thing about an analogy is that it's actually supposed to have some sort of accurate comparison. The internet vs. oxygen Huh .... I think you can see the problems with that. I also can't say that oxygen hurts, in more ways than it makes things better, or at least, I wouldn't make the argument, even if it was true.

I'm not saying that the internet and some newer technologies can't be used positively or have a positive impact; I'm just pointing out that the harm done is kind of harsh.

As far as organization, every one isn't that person. You have to look at Martin Luther King, Jr. and civil rights; or Barack Obama and how he won the last election. You have to have the right people with the right ideas. You have to have the right person spreading the message. You have to have the right message. You have to have specific people with specific tasks, that take those tasks as seriously as if they were the ones getting all of the glory in the end. Ultimately, you have to have everyone one the same page.

As far as the rest of your post. That was long as hell. Rant less, and get the point across less sporadically. I couldn't tell what in the hell you were talking about throughout most of that. Don't think and write at the same time. Think, and then write. Or at least, edit it, after you're finished.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 11:03 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 07:16 PM)Zat Wrote:  Luminon, you put me in a difficult position.

The last thing I want to do is discourage you guys from your youthful hope, energy, optimism, sincere desire to make the world a better place.

I used to be like that, I understand and I admire it a great deal.

And, if I want to be honest, I have to admit that without your efforts the world would be a lot darker place. You slow down the march of darkness and thus I directly benefit from your efforts and I am grateful.

As recently as 5-10 years ago I was also actively involved in protest marches and petitions (we were called the "Peace Mongers") and we even had a political anti-war website.

As I have said: I was there.

Even before that, a long time before that, I was an Ayn Rand 'disciple', because her social justice philosophy was based on a fundamental principle that appealed to me. I have, since then, seen the holes in her philosophy and I outgrew the naivety required to consider her approach practical, even logical.

I did not expect to change the world, or have even the slightest effect, but I did these things because I believed it was the right thing to do.

Then, I just got tired of it all, realizing how futile my efforts were and how hopeless it was to change things. I decided that I have done my part and it was time for me to retire and spend the last years of my life putting my affairs (material, personal and mental) into order.
Fair enough! You're a veteran from a war that is not yet finished. It never depended on one person's effort and it never had any clear objectives or guarantees of winning. Nobody really can give us such guarantees. We only know that not to fight means to lose by default, maybe not today, but in the long run.

You're free to retire, though of course you might want to get acquainted with the new developments on the front and new weapons used on both sides. You might want to learn about the past mistakes and how we're trying not to repeat them today.
Ultimately, we live in a causal universe. All that ever happens is a reaction to some action and given a right at a right time with right people, we can create any reaction, preferably the one we need. That's all it ever was about.

(12-02-2013 07:16 PM)Zat Wrote:  All the reading, thinking, discussions, debates, analysis that I had had, convinced me that history has a way of going with an inertia that not one man can affect, and right now we are on the downslope that very well may end with our extinction.

I hope you guys can turn it around, but I won't be here to see it.

It is your world now and I wish you the best.
All right. However, my time and mental capacity is limited, before I read a book like X Events by Casti, it must pass through the Socratic sieve.
Is the book true? I presume you've already checked that it is.
Is the book good? Looks like it's not very nice, from the reviews.
Is the book useful? Does it offer any solutions or warnings we can heed and avoid more distress? Or does it demoralize or worse, turn our attention from real solutions that might be around?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 11:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  All right. However, my time and mental capacity is limited, before I read a book like X Events by Casti, it must pass through the Socratic sieve.
Is the book true? I presume you've already checked that it is.
Is the book good? Looks like it's not very nice, from the reviews.
Is the book useful? Does it offer any solutions or warnings we can heed and avoid more distress? Or does it demoralize or worse, turn our attention from real solutions that might be around?
It is true.
It is good.
It offers solutions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 12:47 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 08:56 AM)bemore Wrote:  I don't have any answers, nor can I offer any alternatives... doesn't mean I have to support this shitty system we all live under.
It means you must accept that the "system" is all we have and that you must work in order to have this "system" in your favor if you want to have what you want. It aggravates me when people speak as though we no longer have a say in what the policies are or what the debate is about. If you really want to know what that feels like, move to the middle east or any festering dictatorship in Africa.

The issue is not a bad system. The issue is poorly educated individuals and religion.
We allways seem to clash on this... I know your viewpoints and you know mine (before this conversation) so I would say we should agree to disagree.

You have faith in the system.
I do not.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 10:31 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 02:30 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  One has to come to an agreement to compromise.


It is a good thing that both idealism and cynicism are not stupid.


There is a grey area when it comes to the individual personal interpretation about the current state of the world.

One really big problem that we have in society today, is people wanting to look at the exact same thing, come to different solutions, and agreeing that both of their views are okay.

You have people, today, looking at things and saying that it is red, then another group saying that it's blue. Now, some may call it purple, and others may just say it's okay they called it red or okay they called it blue; but in reality, it's either red, blue, both red and blue, or purple.

There are two words that you missed: 'truth' and 'objectivity'.

You can't have people maintaining fundamental disagreements, if you want to move forward properly. Compromise is where people give things up, and come to some sort of practical agreement, but where the fundamental disagreement remains underlying and allowed to flourish.

"My mama told me, 'Son, always call a spade a spade; Be like Chuck D, never be like Flavor Flav'"-- Jay Electronica

I guess, I do understand what it is you are trying to say. I just wanted to make the point that, on some things, like gun ownership, you can compromise, when it might not seem like the best thing to do, and it might be okay; however, when you compromise on, like, economical and governmental systems, or morality, then we have big problems.
What, my friend, would you call the civil rights movement then? Do you really think that everyone held the same sentiment that Martin Luther King held? Everything is compromise because nobody gets exactly what they want. That is as real as it gets. So no, not everything is objective and very rarely is there ever "truth" in politics.

But morality and economics are major issues within something like gun ownership. How do you propose you compromise on that?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 05:28 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and skip all 7 pages of comments, so you've been warned.

I'll presume we aren't talking about sales tax and the like because then we wouldn't be ruling out anyone from voting. We are talking Income Tax. Lets assume when you say pay income tax, what you mean is people who owe taxes to the government without being refunded those tax dollars at the end of the year under the current tax code. Everyone who has an income pays an income tax, but some people have that money refunded. Let's also assume that Income Tax should be kept for the sake of brevity.

In those cases, here is the problem I have with only allowing tax payers to vote. People with money (and ergo power) can suppress the poor people. It makes it even more difficult for the people who are poor to climb up the socio-economic ladder, it could potentially become a near impossible feat. I think we were headed in the right direction when we allowed suffrage for all adults, and would not like to see that undone. It is true that people born with a silver spoon in their mouth already have an unfair advantage in life, but I see no reason to make that advantage greater, which is exactly what enacted such a law would do. Life's not fair, true enough, but we as a people do not have any right to suppress and enslave those who weren't lucky enough to be provided with the same opportunities as the 'haves.'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a Robin Hood type of society where it is okay to steal from the rich to give to the poor either. Primarily because that is a false-analogy oft argued by so-called "liberals".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 05:28 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm not advocating a Robin Hood type of society where it is okay to steal from the rich to give to the poor either.
...
How about stealing back from the rich that they stole from the poor?

That sounds more reasonable to me! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 06:31 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 02:44 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  What, my friend, would you call the civil rights movement then? Do you really think that everyone held the same sentiment that Martin Luther King held? Everything is compromise because nobody gets exactly what they want. That is as real as it gets. So no, not everything is objective and very rarely is there ever "truth" in politics.

But morality and economics are major issues within something like gun ownership. How do you propose you compromise on that?

Now, you've just made everything confusing.

How was there compromise with civil rights? Black people were property, and now are integrated into society, with rights, and overt racism is pretty much frowned upon by an extremely solid majority of Americans. There are still problems with prejudice, stereotypes, racism, etc., that's pretty much a given, but there wasn't a compromise. One side just lost, the country took a direction, people fought hard to get certain rights, they got rights, and views are continuing in a positive direction, with what was once an opposition, now fading to nothing.

The fact that it was called a "civil rights" movement, and that they were fighting for equal rights, kind of makes the idea of a compromise ridiculous. They weren't going for some rights, but not all.

The world doesn't operate perfectly. I wasn't trying to imply that there was some sort of magical wand that someone can wave to automatically fix all problems and disagreement, in an instant. So, yeah, there were still people who seem a little pissed off that they couldn't own slaves, or remain vastly superior in societal privileges, in comparison to other people, but at the end of the day, they just took an L.

I don't know what you are referring to about "'truth in politics", but as far as objectivity, I was talking about people being objective. I wasn't trying to say that there is an easily knowable, objective truth, to anything and/or everything.

I wouldn't propose a compromise on guns. I'm was saying that if there was a compromise on something like guns, it would be small and not really have that negative of an impact, because it's a small issue. Then, on the other hand, obviously, with the larger issues, a compromise would lead to bigger, negative consequences. Also, morality and economics are not major issues within a gun debate.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 05:30 PM)Zat Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 05:28 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm not advocating a Robin Hood type of society where it is okay to steal from the rich to give to the poor either.
...
How about stealing back from the rich that they stole from the poor?

That sounds more reasonable to me! Big Grin
That is a road I ain't going down on this thread. Ain't nobody got time for that! Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: