Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Nea Byzantia]

I would never support such restrictions, but I would regard restrictions that are not along lines of sex or race to not be inherently savage, just inherently undemocratic.

Eh. I might be neutral-positive about weighted franchise based only on education, but even then I realize that not giving everyone the equal voice in the process of decisionmaking should be unacceptable in a civilized society. (Didn't say if the activities themselves were savage. I mean, most -though not all- limitations on franchise are savagery, but exceptions apply)

I guess Aristotle was "uncivilized", then...

[Hanafuridake]

I'm more in favor of a sort of hybrid system, similar to IRL imperial Germany or Morocco.

I broadly agree but with rather different eligibility criteria for suffrage.

No Catholics allowed?

As for me, I have no objections to universal suffrage. As all citizens as properly children of the Emperor, I can see arguments for why they should all be able to participate in government.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I would never support such restrictions, but I would regard restrictions that are not along lines of sex or race to not be inherently savage, just inherently undemocratic.

Eh. I might be neutral-positive about weighted franchise based only on education, but even then I realize that not giving everyone the equal voice in the process of decisionmaking should be unacceptable in a civilized society. (Didn't say if the activities themselves were savage. I mean, most -though not all- limitations on franchise are savagery, but exceptions apply)

Making franchisement based on education is a great idea in concept, but in practice, it tends to become a tool used to disenfranchise minorities (see the voting tests in the Jim Crow South, for example). It could definitely work if there was one universal test, the answers were unambiguously right or wrong, and there was no way to cheat on it, but even the most well-made systems will have at best two of those things.

[North German Realm]

Eh. I might be neutral-positive about weighted franchise based only on education, but even then I realize that not giving everyone the equal voice in the process of decisionmaking should be unacceptable in a civilized society. (Didn't say if the activities themselves were savage. I mean, most -though not all- limitations on franchise are savagery, but exceptions apply)

I guess Aristotle was "uncivilized", then...

I mean, he was. That's not really a secret. Nearly every human being until maybe 1907 was uncivilized at best and an open savage by my standards.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No doubt. Though I think it's more efficient if people are allowed to find their own role in society, rather than having it be determined by their sex. If women are predisposed towards nurturing roles, and men are predisposed towards more dangerous, assertive, competitive roles, then in a egalitarian society, they will naturally gravitate towards those roles. No social engineering necessary.

I don't quite understand. Which men do you think should be able to vote, if any? And which women do you think should be able to vote, if any?

Interesting. So a Monarchy which allows suffrage to "stake-holders" (ie. those who have served in the Military, etc.)?

I broadly agree but with rather different eligibility criteria for suffrage.

My politics are in a bit of flux, so I haven't quite fleshed out exactly what I think on the question. But I definitely prefer some kind of partial male suffrage.

What would you say to a woman who meets all the qualifications for your getting the vote? Be it military service, or property ownership or education or IQ or party membership, etc.

[Diopolis]

Ah, but one of the effects of the current model of capitalism is that the banksters and CEO's don't give a shit and built an economic system which forces women and men out of their natural roles(albeit particularly women). Moreover, I've actually worked construction. I don't recall any women there, unless they were an architect or designer or something. To a certain degree, people follow their natural inclinations anyways, even while a crooked economic system attempts to force them out of it.

So do you or do you not believe that your system needs enforcement for it to function? I kind of need to know before I can continue with this debate.

I believe that, once supporting economic measures have been undertaken, it will be just as self-sustaining as it was for the first ~4950 years of civilization. I do, however, recognize that it results in lower levels of short term economic growth, and that there will therefore always be those that seek short term growth at all costs and attempt to change the economy for that end, which must be guarded against.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Eh. I might be neutral-positive about weighted franchise based only on education, but even then I realize that not giving everyone the equal voice in the process of decisionmaking should be unacceptable in a civilized society. (Didn't say if the activities themselves were savage. I mean, most -though not all- limitations on franchise are savagery, but exceptions apply)

I guess Aristotle was "uncivilized", then...

The guy thought women were stupid because they had fewer teeth than men, so I take his advice with an entire mine's worth of salt.

[Diopolis]

My politics are in a bit of flux, so I haven't quite fleshed out exactly what I think on the question. But I definitely prefer some kind of partial male suffrage.

What would you say to a woman who meets all the qualifications for your getting the vote? Be it military service, or property ownership or education or IQ or party membership, etc.

Women should not be in the military and should be police only as auxiliaries. I'm not sure my ideal party would have women as full members either.
I do believe that widows of a voting man should be able to keep his vote, assuming that the conditions for voting are still met, and that they were married for at least a certain amount of time(no late-in-life trophy wives inheriting their husband's votes).

[Conserative Morality]

Once when the question arose as to whether or not sons and daughters ought to be given the same education, he remarked that trainers of horses and dogs make no distinction in the training of the male and the female; for female dogs are taught to hunt just as the males are, and one can see no difference in the training of mares, if they are expected to do a horse's work, and the training of stallions. In the case of man, however, it would seem to be felt necessary to employ some special and exceptional training and education for males over females, as if it were not essential that the same virtues should be present in both alike, in man and woman, or as if it were possible to arrive at the same virtues, not through the same, but through different instruction.

2 And yet that there is not one set of virtues for a man and another for a woman is easy to perceive. In the first place, a man must have understanding and so must a woman, or what pray would be the use of a foolish man or woman? Then it is essential for one no less than the other to live justly, since the man who is not just would not be a good citizen, and the woman would not manage her household well if she did not do it justly; but if she is unjust she will wrong her husband like Eriphyle in the story.[1] Again, it is recognized as right for a woman in wedlock to be chaste, and so is it likewise for a man; the law, at all events, decrees the same punishment for committing adultery as for being taken in adultery. Gluttony, drunkenness, and other related vices, which are vices of excess and bring disgrace upon those guilty of them, show that self-control is most necessary for every human being, male and female alike; for the only way of escape from wantonness is through self-control; there is no other.

3 Perhaps someone may say that courage is a virtue appropriate to men only. That is not so.[2] For a woman too of the right sort must have courage and be wholly free of cowardice, so that she will neither be swayed by hardships nor by fear; otherwise, how will she be said to have self-control, if by threat or force she can be constrained to yield to shame? Nay more, it is necessary for women to be able to repel attack, unless indeed they are willing to appear more cowardly than hens and other female birds which fight with creatures much larger than themselves to defend their young. How then should women not need courage? That women have some prowess in arms the race of the Amazons demonstrated when they defeated many tribes in war.[3] If, therefore, something of this courage is lacking in other women, it is due to lack of use and practice rather than because they were not endowed with it.

4 If then men and women are born with the same virtues, the same type of training and education must, of necessity, befit both men and women. For with every animal and plant whatsoever, proper care must be bestowed upon it to produce the excellence appropriate to it. Is it not true that, if it were necessary under like circumstances for a man and a woman to be able to play the flute, and if, furthermore, both had to do so in order to earn a living, we should give them both exactly the same thorough training in flute playing; and similarly if it were necessary for either to play the harp? Well then, if it is necessary for both to be proficient in the virtue which is appropriate to a human being, that is for both to be able to have understanding, and self-control, and courage, and justice, the one no less than the other, shall we not teach them both alike the art by which a human being becomes good? Yes, certainly we must do that and nothing else.

>> when first century Romans are more civilized than some modern folk

W E W

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

So do you or do you not believe that your system needs enforcement for it to function? I kind of need to know before I can continue with this debate.

I believe that, once supporting economic measures have been undertaken, it will be just as self-sustaining as it was for the first ~4950 years of civilization. I do, however, recognize that it results in lower levels of short term economic growth, and that there will therefore always be those that seek short term growth at all costs and attempt to change the economy for that end, which must be guarded against.

First, the "self-sustaining system" you're describing was codified under law and it did actually require enforcement, the changes that brought about women's rights were the result of the patriarchal social hierarchy no longer being enforced. The only reason that it looks like it was self-sustaining is because the same protocols were in place across most of the world for most of human history, and most women didn't try to resist it because most of them they didn't have any power to change the system and the ones that did preferred to keep it for themselves and eliminate half the future competition.
Second, I'm curious where you got the idea that preventing 50% of the population from contributing to the economy in any significant way is good for long term growth.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What would you say to a woman who meets all the qualifications for your getting the vote? Be it military service, or property ownership or education or IQ or party membership, etc.

Women should not be in the military and should be police only as auxiliaries. I'm not sure my ideal party would have women as full members either.
I do believe that widows of a voting man should be able to keep his vote, assuming that the conditions for voting are still met, and that they were married for at least a certain amount of time(no late-in-life trophy wives inheriting their husband's votes).

So do you think there should only be one vote per family unit? If so, why only give the vote to the man of the family? Why not make it so both parents have to agree on who to vote for?

[Old Tyrannia]

I broadly agree but with rather different eligibility criteria for suffrage.

My politics are in a bit of flux, so I haven't quite fleshed out exactly what I think on the question. But I definitely prefer some kind of partial male suffrage.

To quote Lord Salisbury, "when I am told that my ploughmen are capable citizens, it seems to me ridiculous to say that educated women are not just as capable. A good deal of the political battle of the future will be a conflict between religion and unbelief: & the women will in that controversy be on the right side." Salisbury is undoubtedly my favourite prime minister; his writings on conservatism express just about the ideal distillation of constitutional conservatism, personal liberty and economic pragmatism, and he's a gold mine for excellent quotations.

I broadly agree but with rather different eligibility criteria for suffrage.

No Catholics allowed?

No, holding office in England should be conditional on taking communion in the Church of England, but it is only just that anyone living in a country and subject to the decisions of its government should have some degree of representation. Prior statements of mine to the contrary were made in a spirit of spite against certain followers of other religions whose attitudes wore out my patience, and I regret them in retrospect.

Personally, I'd say that the vote should be restricted to British subjects aged 21 or older who have been resident in the country for at least six months in the prior year.

[Diopolis]

Women should not be in the military and should be police only as auxiliaries. I'm not sure my ideal party would have women as full members either.
I do believe that widows of a voting man should be able to keep his vote, assuming that the conditions for voting are still met, and that they were married for at least a certain amount of time(no late-in-life trophy wives inheriting their husband's votes).

So do you think there should only be one vote per family unit? If so, why only give the vote to the man of the family? Why not make it so both parents have to agree on who to vote for?

Because the man ought to be head of household.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What would you say to a woman who meets all the qualifications for your getting the vote? Be it military service, or property ownership or education or IQ or party membership, etc.

Women should not be in the military and should be police only as auxiliaries. I'm not sure my ideal party would have women as full members either.
I do believe that widows of a voting man should be able to keep his vote, assuming that the conditions for voting are still met, and that they were married for at least a certain amount of time(no late-in-life trophy wives inheriting their husband's votes).

Also, what happens when a woman passes all the mental and physical tests and qualifications required to get into the military?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So do you think there should only be one vote per family unit? If so, why only give the vote to the man of the family? Why not make it so both parents have to agree on who to vote for?

Because the man ought to be head of household.

Why not both parents equally? What happens in same sex families?

[Old Tyrannia]

Because the man ought to be head of household.

Why not both parents equally? What happens in same sex families?

You really think there would be same sex families in Dio's National Catholic police state?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

So do you think there should only be one vote per family unit? If so, why only give the vote to the man of the family? Why not make it so both parents have to agree on who to vote for?

Because the man ought to be head of household.

Why so?

[Diopolis]

Women should not be in the military and should be police only as auxiliaries. I'm not sure my ideal party would have women as full members either.
I do believe that widows of a voting man should be able to keep his vote, assuming that the conditions for voting are still met, and that they were married for at least a certain amount of time(no late-in-life trophy wives inheriting their husband's votes).

Also, what happens when a woman passes all the mental and physical tests and qualifications required to get into the military?

Golf clapping?

Because the man ought to be head of household.

Why not both parents equally? What happens in same sex families?

Because you can't have a democracy with two people, and same sex marriage shouldn't be a thing.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Why not both parents equally? What happens in same sex families?

You really think there would be same sex families in Dio's National Catholic police state?

I had to ask. Also, who said anything about a police state.

[Diopolis]

Why not both parents equally? What happens in same sex families?

You really think there would be same sex families in Dio's National Catholic police state?

St. Francisco Franco would not approve, to be sure.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Why not both parents equally? What happens in same sex families?

Because you can't have a democracy with two people, and same sex marriage shouldn't be a thing.

Why not, and why not, respectively.

[Hanafuridake]

This is Xeno and Dio right now.

[Diopolis]

This is Xeno and Dio right now.

What did I just watch?

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is Xeno and Dio right now.

What did I just watch?

Something amazing.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Also, what happens when a woman passes all the mental and physical tests and qualifications required to get into the military?

Golf clapping?

Why not both parents equally? What happens in same sex families?

Because you can't have a democracy with two people, and same sex marriage shouldn't be a thing.

Why shouldn't a woman who's more qualified than the average cadet be able to join the military?

Then why not have two votes per household?

What would you say to a stable loving homosexual couple of two men equally qualified to vote? Which one of them gets the vote?