Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[AiliailiA]

Which clearly shows democracy doesn't work.

Democracy didn't create Jim Crow; electoral, majoritarian, "democracy" (which, as I explained above, is basically the opposite of real democracy) did.

OK, let's hear what "real democracy" is.

(If I don't reply after it, chances are I "can't think of anything nice to say")

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Well damnit, I'm the last idealogically right-wing person on NSG.

*looks in spoiler dubbed "Politics"*

Are you serious?

[Zephie]

Democracy didn't create Jim Crow; electoral, majoritarian, "democracy" (which, as I explained above, is basically the opposite of real democracy) did.

OK, let's hear what "real democracy" is.

(If I don't reply after it, chances are I "can't think of anything nice to say")

51% tell the 49% what to do. In America's case, the 49% pay taxes to feed & house the 51%

[Prussia-Steinbach]

OK, let's hear what "real democracy" is.

(If I don't reply after it, chances are I "can't think of anything nice to say")

51% tell the 49% what to do. In America's case, the 49% pay taxes to feed & house the 51%

Yes. That is democracy. Which is why I abhor it. It is a fancy name for mob rule.

[Costa Alegria]

No, 'x' should not be disenfranchised for having a disagreeable opinion, even if it is something as silly as 'the world is flat'.

Strangely enough, that's the argument I made.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

"Yes, those damn atheists shouldn't have control over the lord's state. They shouldn't be allowed to degrade our society's moral fabric"

It's not even the Lord's state.
They promised the Muslims the secularity of America.

[Ende]

And this could easily be used as an argument for banning non-christians from voting. No, we shouldn't disenfranchise people for their beliefs

[/thread]

[Lazssia]

Why bother to have a democracy at all if you're going to take away people's rights for voting for the "wrong" thing?

That's nothing more than a dictatorship with privileges.

^

[Costa Alegria]

And this could easily be used as an argument for banning non-christians from voting. No, we shouldn't disenfranchise people for their beliefs

[/thread]

No. You see, people with different opinions are threats to those with people that disagree with said opinions.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

51% tell the 49% what to do. In America's case, the 49% pay taxes to feed & house the 51%

Yes. That is democracy. Which is why I abhor it. It is a fancy name for mob rule.

No, because that would be mob rule. Mob rule is to democracy what MW2 is to Call of Duty.
A corruption.

[Viritica]

It is always scary to see radical things like this on the internet.

No, we shouldn't disenfranchise people simply because of their beliefs. People are allowed to believe in whatever they wish.

/thread

[Ende]

[/thread]

No. You see, people with different opinions are threats to those with people that disagree with said opinions.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Also, that makes me very sad inside and you should feel ashamed of yourself.

[Madistania]

Only property owners should be allowed to vote. That is what was intended for a reason. Listen to and look at the average voter. Go to any college campus or ghetto or union shop and ask them some questions about current events. Climate change deniers are the least of the worries!

I do not entirely agree with this but I believe a further investigation of its general direction is appropriate. In North America and Europe for most of the past couple of centuries it was only the landed class that could vote. It was rightly assumed that acquiring and maintaining property required an abundance of better characteristics within a person, and that such a person was on the whole more capable of making better decisions for the benefit of the state than the average citizen.

Today the world is a little more complex than old agrarian and early industrial societies. So possessing of property could not be the only criteria of possessing the vote. I think we should reduce the level of suffrage in our societies based on some new criteria. It would remain desirable for our societies to maintain majority suffrage where more than fifty percent of the population maintain the right to vote at any time.

Of course implementing something like this would require withdrawing the vote from many, which would be nearly impossible. So this is purely hypothetical.

[Costa Alegria]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Also, that makes me very sad inside and you should feel ashamed of yourself.

It was a jibe at some of the other opinions expressed previously in this thread.

[Ende]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Also, that makes me very sad inside and you should feel ashamed of yourself.

It was a jibe at some of the other opinions expressed previously in this thread.

Okay, good. That's what I was hoping it was.

Poe's Law makes me sad.

[Costa Alegria]

Okay, good. That's what I was hoping it was.

Poe's Law makes me sad.

Humanity makes me sad sometimes. People who claim to respect the rights of others advocating view points to inhibit the rights of others makes me sad also.

And a little outrage.

[Blakk Metal]

Only property owners should be allowed to vote. That is what was intended for a reason. Listen to and look at the average voter. Go to any college campus or ghetto or union shop and ask them some questions about current events. Climate change deniers are the least of the worries!

Fuck you.

[Zweite Alaje]

Only property owners should be allowed to vote. That is what was intended for a reason. Listen to and look at the average voter. Go to any college campus or ghetto or union shop and ask them some questions about current events. Climate change deniers are the least of the worries!

This has to be the most reactionary post I've ever had the displeasure of reading on NSG.

[Galla-]

Which clearly shows democracy doesn't work.

Democracy didn't create Jim Crow; electoral, majoritarian, "democracy" (which, as I explained above, is basically the opposite of real democracy) did.

And also removed it.

Holy shit, mind fuck.

[SaintB]

What have you been using the last couple days Bluth? I want to know in case I need a staycation

[Harkonna]

Service Ensures Citizenship.

[Costa Alegria]

Service Ensures Citizenship.

Work sets you Free. Strength Through Joy.

[AiliailiA]

Only property owners should be allowed to vote. That is what was intended for a reason. Listen to and look at the average voter. Go to any college campus or ghetto or union shop and ask them some questions about current events. Climate change deniers are the least of the worries!

This has to be the most reactionary post I've ever had the displeasure of reading on NSG.

Agreed. It is reactionary on a scale of centuries.

Suffrage only for the owners of property wasn't "intended" at all. It was the previous regime: holders of real estate (FEUDAL LORDS) were the holders of power, and their role in the establishment of democracy was motivated by resisting the power of Monarchs over them. Suffrage expanded outwards from those who held power already.

Despite the quaint 50's style flag and the references to Rand's pseudo-philosophy, Objectiveland isn't just a "back to last century" reactionary. They're a Feudalist.

[AiliailiA]

Service Ensures Citizenship.

Work sets you Free. Strength Through Joy.

Exactly. Even if a person had only seen the movie and not read the book, they'd have to be pretty thick to miss the irony of Starship Troopers.

(I preferred the book, it was making me genuinely angry until it dawned on me "hey, isn't this a lot like Nazism?" and realized it was dystopic not utopic)

[Harkonna]

All Glory to the Utobitha.