Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2013, 01:52 AM
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Resource base economy (google it if you haven't heard of the idea) is probably the best way forward, no need to steal or protect property because it's renewal able and made in abundance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like glueparkenigma's post
14-02-2013, 07:26 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(14-02-2013 01:52 AM)glueparkenigma Wrote:  Resource base economy (google it if you haven't heard of the idea) is probably the best way forward, no need to steal or protect property because it's renewal able and made in abundance.
Like I said earlier, money is a way of measuring value. Much like metric is a system to measure weight/height/length etc..
It doesn't matter if the value of something is measured in units of money or if it's measured in sea shells.
The principle is the same and as such you will always have people who have more then other people which will always result in people having a fucking cry about it.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 02:24 PM by Greatest I am.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 08:57 AM)Zat Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 08:43 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  I have and did not like it and took the steps to do better.
Some do not and those are the ones I target.
...
You don't believe in no-win situations do you?

Just because you were able to do better does not mean that everybody can.

And, if they can't, it may not be for lack of trying or for just plain laziness.

Some are handicapped, burdened with dependents (not necessarily their fault), limited in abilities and talents, exploited by the vultures every time they make an effort.

They say you should try a small business if you can't get a job.

Once you do, all the bedbugs crawl out of the woodwork and suck you dry. You end up making money for everyone else (I have been there too).

It is very easy to say: I was lucky that nobody destroyed me before I succeeded -- easy and stupid and lacking in understanding and in compassion.

A thousand others who tried just as hard as you did never had a chance because they did not have your luck and were pushed back down by the jackals all lurking out there, waiting for weak and easy prey.

The forces of evolution cannot be stopped. The survival of the less fit will always be harder than of the fittest. That is why we have safety nets.

My concern is the right of those who pay for our systems and keep the country going to be able to afford that safety net.
The right of taxpayers. They pay for the systems and have a right to decide what they pay They exercise that right with their vote. Those who do not pay for a system have no right to tell it what to do with a vote.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(15-02-2013 02:21 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  The forces of evolution cannot be stopped.
...
Yes, they can! Yes

I am sure that the "forces of evolution" is a euphemism for the bastards holding the money bags and holding up everybody else like common pirates.

Every now and then we have a revolution and cut off their heads.

Then they are stopped for a while until the next crop of parasites grow up. Evil_monster
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Zat's post
15-02-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"They exercise that right with their vote."
How so?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 04:38 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(14-02-2013 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Like I said earlier, money is a way of measuring value. Much like metric is a system to measure weight/height/length etc..
It doesn't matter if the value of something is measured in units of money or if it's measured in sea shells.
The principle is the same and as such you will always have people who have more then other people which will always result in people having a fucking cry about it.
Yes, the price system is a method of rational distribution.
But when I look at the price system, I see a "half-closed circuit based on bending the driving expansive force into useful ways". It gets worn out in the process and perhaps it is inherently self-destabilizing.

Said in normal words, it has a half-closed circuit - it recycles the money, but not the material goods and fuels. It is self-destabilizing, means that the expansive force, the people's motivation in this system, it seeks shorter and shorter way to get to the money, which means still less and less useful for the system itself. The system gets worn out, which means it turns around still more money for still less actual work done. So money ended up in too few hands, unrecyclable, so someone figured out the money are missing and adding money into the system would fix it. Today money are bought for money and promises of more money. Money left the reality of goods and services far behind.

When you look at it like that, you realize that all you need is a system of rational distribution of goods and services. And monetary system has only a special case of such one, that is rational only in certain special circumstances.
We need rational distribution, but it doesn't have to be money, beads and shells, it doesn't have to be price-based at all.

It has to distribute things rationally. And it has to have a driving force. A motivation. We recognize three basic motivating forces in people.
The original force to get us going was fear. Originally people worked out of fear they'll get hungry, sick, die, or be beaten as slaves. But fear can get the economy only this far, it mostly get you unskilled labor, that's all. So people got some material security and stopped fearing so much.
What do we offer people that aren't afraid? More money! Next motivating force is profit, greed. This force drives the current economy, most people are subject to it. It created lots of diverse products of our civilization. They're mostly all alike, differing only in details, but some are wonderful inventions.
And so it happened that some people actually found a job that they liked to do. The money are good, but they'd do the job even for less money. Some discovered that they're so good at the job they like, that they're better than the competition with people who work just for money. Some successful companies like Google focus on making the people like their job through offering social services.
Today relatively few people work because they like their job - about as many as workers out of fear, in the western type civilization.

You see that every motivating force has limitations. You can't use whip to make people do paperwork or be creative. You can pay people to do paperwork, but they won't swing hoes and plow fields manually for mere money. And no amount of money will help a person to have a creative idea. And obviously, the creative and fun motivation can't be applied to heavy labor and to extremely boring and meaningless office jobs.

It is like switching from steam to petrol to electricity. Each change of power means a change of civilization, a change of consciousness and change of technology. The force of creative fun is a great, humane thing that is worthy of basing our whole civilization on. It is the next big thing after fire and wheel, after the war and trade. It will make our civilization better than a greed or fear-based civilization, if such a word may be used. We need to build our economy in such a way, that the fear and greed-powered jobs will be delegated to machines and the fun-based jobs will become a norm.

This is the Resource-based economy.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 05:14 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(15-02-2013 04:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(14-02-2013 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Like I said earlier, money is a way of measuring value. Much like metric is a system to measure weight/height/length etc..
It doesn't matter if the value of something is measured in units of money or if it's measured in sea shells.
The principle is the same and as such you will always have people who have more then other people which will always result in people having a fucking cry about it.
Yes, the price system is a method of rational distribution.
But when I look at the price system, I see a "half-closed circuit based on bending the driving expansive force into useful ways". It gets worn out in the process and perhaps it is inherently self-destabilizing.

Said in normal words, it has a half-closed circuit - it recycles the money, but not the material goods and fuels. It is self-destabilizing, means that the expansive force, the people's motivation in this system, it seeks shorter and shorter way to get to the money, which means still less and less useful for the system itself. The system gets worn out, which means it turns around still more money for still less actual work done. So money ended up in too few hands, unrecyclable, so someone figured out the money are missing and adding money into the system would fix it. Today money are bought for money and promises of more money. Money left the reality of goods and services far behind.

When you look at it like that, you realize that all you need is a system of rational distribution of goods and services. And monetary system has only a special case of such one, that is rational only in certain special circumstances.
We need rational distribution, but it doesn't have to be money, beads and shells, it doesn't have to be price-based at all.

It has to distribute things rationally. And it has to have a driving force. A motivation. We recognize three basic motivating forces in people.
The original force to get us going was fear. Originally people worked out of fear they'll get hungry, sick, die, or be beaten as slaves. But fear can get the economy only this far, it mostly get you unskilled labor, that's all. So people got some material security and stopped fearing so much.
What do we offer people that aren't afraid? More money! Next motivating force is profit, greed. This force drives the current economy, most people are subject to it. It created lots of diverse products of our civilization. They're mostly all alike, differing only in details, but some are wonderful inventions.
And so it happened that some people actually found a job that they liked to do. The money are good, but they'd do the job even for less money. Some discovered that they're so good at the job they like, that they're better than the competition with people who work just for money. Some successful companies like Google focus on making the people like their job through offering social services.
Today relatively few people work because they like their job - about as many as workers out of fear, in the western type civilization.

You see that every motivating force has limitations. You can't use whip to make people do paperwork or be creative. You can pay people to do paperwork, but they won't swing hoes and plow fields manually for mere money. And no amount of money will help a person to have a creative idea. And obviously, the creative and fun motivation can't be applied to heavy labor and to extremely boring and meaningless office jobs.

It is like switching from steam to petrol to electricity. Each change of power means a change of civilization, a change of consciousness and change of technology. The force of creative fun is a great, humane thing that is worthy of basing our whole civilization on. It is the next big thing after fire and wheel, after the war and trade. It will make our civilization better than a greed or fear-based civilization, if such a word may be used. We need to build our economy in such a way, that the fear and greed-powered jobs will be delegated to machines and the fun-based jobs will become a norm.

This is the Resource-based economy.
Have you been watching the Zeitgeist/Venus project movies again?

Clearly you don't understand that no matter what the system is people with find a way to exploit it and use it for their own benefit. If the machine is delegating the job, then all you'd need to do is form a group of interpreters. That group would speak for the machine, thus gaining absolute power.

The hard part is coming up with the least exploitable system possible.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 05:23 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(15-02-2013 02:21 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 08:57 AM)Zat Wrote:  ...
You don't believe in no-win situations do you?

Just because you were able to do better does not mean that everybody can.

And, if they can't, it may not be for lack of trying or for just plain laziness.

Some are handicapped, burdened with dependents (not necessarily their fault), limited in abilities and talents, exploited by the vultures every time they make an effort.

They say you should try a small business if you can't get a job.

Once you do, all the bedbugs crawl out of the woodwork and suck you dry. You end up making money for everyone else (I have been there too).

It is very easy to say: I was lucky that nobody destroyed me before I succeeded -- easy and stupid and lacking in understanding and in compassion.

A thousand others who tried just as hard as you did never had a chance because they did not have your luck and were pushed back down by the jackals all lurking out there, waiting for weak and easy prey.

The forces of evolution cannot be stopped. The survival of the less fit will always be harder than of the fittest. That is why we have safety nets.

My concern is the right of those who pay for our systems and keep the country going to be able to afford that safety net.
The right of taxpayers. They pay for the systems and have a right to decide what they pay They exercise that right with their vote. Those who do not pay for a system have no right to tell it what to do with a vote.

Regards
DL
You don't seem to understand what a right is... unless you would be clarified to mean. YOU think they don't DESERVE a right.

All U.S. citizens over 18 who fit the other qualifies, like not being a felon, have the right to vote. It's not a constitutional right in it's original concept but with the amendments ratified, it's been made clear to state that.

Again, you ignore the concept of answering who you think these people not paying taxes are... Even Welfare recipients pay sales taxes. If you mean just income tax, say income tax; there are those in welfare-work programs though who do also pay income tax. Is that what you require to vote, how much is necessary, any payment?

And what would be the measure, how long of a range would someone have been on welfare for their vote to be taken away? If they just lost their job in the summer and began getting welfare before the november election would they be invalidated? Or do they need to be without an income tax for the prior year for their vote to be stripped the next year?

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 09:20 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(15-02-2013 05:06 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The hard part is coming up with the least exploitable system possible.

No, it's not. That's the easy part. The hard part is transitioning society. Any random person can throw out an idea of a utopia, the hard part is finding out how to get the people in a society, successfully, from point A to point B.


(14-02-2013 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Like I said earlier, money is a way of measuring value. Much like metric is a system to measure weight/height/length etc..
It doesn't matter if the value of something is measured in units of money or if it's measured in sea shells.
The principle is the same and as such you will always have people who have more then other people which will always result in people having a fucking cry about it.

The sea shell part really didn't make much sense. If you are giving something value, even if it's sea shells, and to use for exchange, then it's still money, or just simply currency.

Apart from that, I really can't see a reasonable analogy between a physical unit of measure and the concept of money. Comparing things like that, especially in a specific way, would seems a bit nonsensical. Wouldn't it?

If you, in the last part, are trying to imply that, in principle, money and no money are the same, that would be begging the question, if not just simply wrong. Money could be easy, convenient and make up for any incompetency or ignorance, but we kind of know what happens when you take that road, as opposed to the other. A good analogy for you could be between what, I guess, would be simply economics and views toward the universe and physical world. Money would be the people deciding to invoke God, while the others choose to use science and philosophy. One might give you the answer right away, while the other takes a while to develop; but in the end, in the long run, who has the better solutions and answers?

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
15-02-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(15-02-2013 02:21 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  The forces of evolution cannot be stopped. The survival of the less fit will always be harder than of the fittest. That is why we have safety nets.

Except by asteroids. Fuckin' asteroids. They're such assholes. The dinosaurs and a bunch of other animals tried to punch that fucker as it entered the atmosphere but I'll be damned if they didn't lose that battle. But hey, it's our turn for a little while (till something like an asteroid comes and picks a fight with us again).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: