Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Kubra]

Considering that absolute monarchs such as Louis XVI and Nikolai II did a pisspoor job of actually tackling poverty and developing their own country properly, I would take your "promises" of glory with a pinch of salt. After all, authoritarian countries today have the tendency to be more impoverished and corrupt than their democratic counterparts, where leaders are at least formally accountable to the people, who can vote them out at any moment. Absolute monarchs howewer can only be deposed by a violent revolution, which may or may not succeed depending on just how ruthless said king/queen is.

There isn't a single proper Christian Monarchy in the entire world, except for technically the Vatican and Liechtenstein.

And a couple bad rulers aren't an excuse to vilify an entire mode of government, otherwise democracy would be the best target. People like Nixon and Trump were elected democratically. Or what about FDR, who put his citizen in internment camps for being Japanese?

Monarchy has also had such rulers as Saint Louis IX, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, William of Normandy, etc...
Monarchy has an over-abundance of rulers who changed things in their countries and accomplished great things. Democracy doesn't, it's mediocre at best.

uhhh not having another William is a great reason for not having monarchy
you miiiiight want to reappraise what exactly christian spirit consists of

[Lat-Errier]

No. But at least a monarch will be able to tell the truth without risking being removed from power. And he will actually have a stake in it. After all, the country is *his*, if he does a bad job, it's his son that reaps the consequences, and if it prospers, his son will reap the rewards.

>without being removed from power
guillotines tho
and in any case what stake exactly does a court cloistered in the fetid halls of versailles have in in a whole country
I mean this is a highly idealised vision of monarchy if it doesn't involve getting shuffled off for being very bad at the job

Yes, it's idealized. But even a bad monarchy is better than a good democracy in my eyes. My point was that a monarch is free to make an unpopular move if he thinks it will benefit the country. A democratically elected leader cannot.

Monarchies aren't the only ones subject to violent opposition. Plenty of democratic leaders were assassinated.

[Gormwood]

"The elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I'm not saying young people aren't,"

Okay then, what's your point in bringing up whether or not some people are or aren't going to be more prone to be swayed by propaganda. Everyone is able to be swayed by propaganda, one way or another, through their own mental process or by giving into peer pressure. Propaganda is made specifically for that purpose of swaying opinion or boosting morale or destroying it. Eitherway, the idea that old people shouldn't be able to vote is(Ironic I know when it me bringing it up) an authoritarian view point. At the end of the day, humanity is humanity, we have our faults. But just because someone's a certain age all together doesn't mean we should judge whether or not they're fit to vote or do anything based on age, as we advance medically and scientifically, life expectancy will go up.

Then we'll be asking if, should the viewpoint become mainstream and accepted. "Should we raise the voting age limit". Which will just bring into question why there even is one, and it will likely be abolished due to in hindsight being pointless.

Yeah I don't see the slightest bit of evidence to support the claim that old people are more susceptible to propaganda. If anything common sense would suggest that their experience would make them less susceptible to it.

Apparently the elderly are more vulnerable to scams.

[Lat-Errier]

There isn't a single proper Christian Monarchy in the entire world, except for technically the Vatican and Liechtenstein.

And a couple bad rulers aren't an excuse to vilify an entire mode of government, otherwise democracy would be the best target. People like Nixon and Trump were elected democratically. Or what about FDR, who put his citizen in internment camps for being Japanese?

Monarchy has also had such rulers as Saint Louis IX, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, William of Normandy, etc...
Monarchy has an over-abundance of rulers who changed things in their countries and accomplished great things. Democracy doesn't, it's mediocre at best.

uhhh not having another William is a great reason for not having monarchy
you miiiiight want to reappraise what exactly christian spirit consists of

Fair enough, I just did a quick list of some historic leaders that accomplished grand things. But why exactly is William a bad example?

[Kubra]

uhhh not having another William is a great reason for not having monarchy
you miiiiight want to reappraise what exactly christian spirit consists of

Fair enough, I just did a quick list of some historic leaders that accomplished grand things. But why exactly is William a bad example?

well I should think those whose main accomplishments are speedily sending the lords subjects to him in a most speedy manner are probably not the sort of figures you ought to venerate.

[Lat-Errier]

Fair enough, I just did a quick list of some historic leaders that accomplished grand things. But why exactly is William a bad example?

well I should think those whose main accomplishments are speedily sending the lords subjects to him in a most speedy manner are probably not the sort of figures you ought to venerate.

Nor do I venerate him. But it's inarguable that he accomplished grand things. Even the modest accomplishments of William (which pale in comparison to Charlemagne), exceed what any democratic leader has accomplished.

I'll grant you he wasn't the absolute best example, however.

[ImperialRussia]

Everybody to vote no matter what the age is

[Deacarsia]

Because the poor often do not pay taxes after filing in a good many places.
This isn't rocket science.

Rocket science actually is not all that hard, at least the basics.

Even if the poor were barred due to being net tax consumers, this still does not refute my argument. They would not be disenfranchised due to their poverty, but as a result of their being a net drain on the public till. It still would be possible to be a poor net taxpayer, but even if there were none, this misses the point.

My argument is that, since everyone is either a net taxpayer or a net tax consumer, for a democracy to be sustainable the franchise should be restricted to net taxpayers. While net tax consumers always have the incentive to continually increase their government-sourced income, net taxpayers instead are incentivized to scrutinize all spending to make sure that their tax money is not being misused.

Taxes and spending would settle at a socially optimal level, since any tax cut would add people to the voting base, who in turn would vote to increase their benefits and income again at the expense of a tax increase on the net taxpayers, while all spending would have have demonstrated its efficacy rather than be profligate or used merely to buy votes.

[Neanderthaland]

That's dumb and wrong. All autocracy is built on lies. Fundamentally.

Divine right. Mandate of Heaven. The New Man and the Soviet Ideal. Aryan blood myths.

The difference is: they kill you for calling them out on their bullshit.

As a firm believer in divine right, we'll just have to disagree on that then.

Monarchy is simply the only way to have a christian government. Monarchy is rooted in Christianity, and democracy is opposed to it.

Of course as a firm believer in a lie, you are overly concerned with the lies of others. Because that's how projection works.

[Deacarsia]

Everybody to vote no matter what the age is

I would assume you do not want infants and toddlers to vote, so there would have to be a lower limit somewhere. Also, restricting the vote at least to net taxpayers would be beneficial, for the reasons I have explained previously.

[Kubra]

well I should think those whose main accomplishments are speedily sending the lords subjects to him in a most speedy manner are probably not the sort of figures you ought to venerate.

Nor do I venerate him. But it's inarguable that he accomplished grand things. Even the modest accomplishments of William (which pale in comparison to Charlemagne), exceed what any democratic leader has accomplished.

I'll grant you he wasn't the absolute best example, however.

Oh yes, grand things, I'm sure the plundered are comforted knowing they will be reborn in his glory. But will William? Will Charlemagne?
How exactly do you *not* venerate these mean, in your celebration of their conquests? Perhaps you should instead find examples of more beautiful souls, such as the one called Christ?

[Lat-Errier]

As a firm believer in divine right, we'll just have to disagree on that then.

Monarchy is simply the only way to have a christian government. Monarchy is rooted in Christianity, and democracy is opposed to it.

Of course as a firm believer in a lie, you are overly concerned with the lies of others. Because that's how projection works.

That's pretty arrogant of you to say, since you can neither prove, nor disprove it.

Either way, God is real, and He loves you no matter what you decide to say about Him.
I sincerely hope you find Him into your life.

[Kubra]

Because the poor often do not pay taxes after filing in a good many places.
This isn't rocket science.

Rocket science actually is not all that hard, at least the basics.

Even if the poor were barred due to being net tax consumers, this still does not refute my argument. They would not be disenfranchised due to their poverty, but as a result of their being a net drain on the public till. It still would be possible to be a poor net taxpayer, but even if there were none, this misses the point.

My argument is that, since everyone is either a net taxpayer or a net tax consumer, for a democracy to be sustainable the franchise should be restricted to net taxpayers. While net tax consumers always have the incentive to continually increase their government-sourced income, net taxpayers instead are incentivized to scrutinize all spending to make sure that their tax money is not being misused.

Taxes and spending would settle at a socially optimal level, since any tax cut would add people to the voting base, who in turn would vote to increase their benefits and income again at the expense of a tax increase on the net taxpayers, while all spending would have have demonstrated its efficacy rather than be profligate or used merely to buy votes.

>not due to their poverty
but their poverty is why they get tax refunds

False witness not to bear be strict;
And cautious, ere you contradict.

[Deacarsia]

narcisstic people shouldn't be able to vote nor hold public office, regardless their financial status.
age, young or old, has nothing to do with it.
but then you DO know what they say about "should".

imagination isn't what growing up is about leaving behind,
thinking you have to be the center of the universe is.

Perhaps, although maybe a narcissist might otherwise be a good and effective leader. Also, who decides who is a narcissist? This seems open to all sorts of abuse, since it is so subjective.

Absolutely you do not leave imagination behind when you grow up! Imagination is what makes life worth living, and only bitter fools dare mock it. Without imagination, could we even be having this conversation? Food for thought!

[Lat-Errier]

Nor do I venerate him. But it's inarguable that he accomplished grand things. Even the modest accomplishments of William (which pale in comparison to Charlemagne), exceed what any democratic leader has accomplished.

I'll grant you he wasn't the absolute best example, however.

Oh yes, grand things, I'm sure the plundered are comforted knowing they will be reborn in his glory. But will William? Will Charlemagne?
How exactly do you *not* venerate these mean, in your celebration of their conquests? Perhaps you should instead find examples of more beautiful souls, such as the one called Christ?

An excellent example. Christ Himself is called king of kings, lord of lords and king of heaven. He makes many mentions of giving respect to the king, and that the monarch is the representative of God. He is the very reason why I am a monarchist.

Not only that, but democracies tend to be completely opposed to Christ.

[Kubra]

Oh yes, grand things, I'm sure the plundered are comforted knowing they will be reborn in his glory. But will William? Will Charlemagne?
How exactly do you *not* venerate these mean, in your celebration of their conquests? Perhaps you should instead find examples of more beautiful souls, such as the one called Christ?

An excellent example. Christ Himself is called king of kings, lord of lords and king of heaven. He makes many mentions of giving respect to the king, and that the monarch is the representative of God. He is the very reason why I am a monarchist.

Not only that, but democracies tend to be completely opposed to Christ.

Oh yes, and who did he slay?
Heap as many titles on him as you please, but how did he live?

[Neo Kerala]

I'm 66. I question whether YOUNG people are qualified to vote. So many seem ignorant of history. Small wonder...they have so little of it themselves.

Ok Boomer

[Neanderthaland]

Of course as a firm believer in a lie, you are overly concerned with the lies of others. Because that's how projection works.

That's pretty arrogant of you to say, since you can neither prove, nor disprove it.

That's how you know it's a lie. If it had any connection to reality, it would be possible to test it. Saying that it's unfalsifiable is to say that it has no connection to reality.

Either way, God is real, and He loves you no matter what you decide to say about Him.
I sincerely hope you find Him into your life.

That's quite a leap. Not only is there a God, but he axiomatically agrees with your edgy teenage political beliefs. Sure thing bud.

[Deacarsia]

>not due to their poverty
but their poverty is why they get tax refunds

False witness not to bear be strict;
And cautious, ere you contradict.

Yes, but not all tax refunds are due to poverty. The poor also pay taxes in other ways, like sales taxes and sin taxes, which would be factored into the calculation of being a net taxpayer. I am not referring only to income taxes!

Also, in the United States F.I.C.A. taxes eat up much of the income of the poor, and I would count these in the calculation as well, since the whole “earned right to benefits” thing is just a lie (Fleming v. Nestor), while the actual benefits would be counted as negative tax payments.

None of this is false witness, but at most difference of understanding and opinion. Projection much?

Also, I can rhyme too.

[Kubra]

>not due to their poverty
but their poverty is why they get tax refunds

False witness not to bear be strict;
And cautious, ere you contradict.

Yes, but not all tax refunds are due to poverty. The poor also pay taxes in other ways, like sales taxes and sin taxes, which would be factored into the calculation of being a net taxpayer. I am not referring only to income taxes!

Also, in the United States F.I.C.A. taxes eat up much of the income of the poor, and I would count these in the calculation as well, since the whole “earned right to benefits” thing is just a lie (Fleming v. Nestor), while the actual benefits would be counted as negative tax payments.

None of this is false witness, but at most difference of understanding and opinion. Projection much?

Also, I can rhyme too.

>sales tax
I'm expecting my refund any day now, now that you mention it.
That aside, it's pleasing to know the poor shall gain the franchise, so long as they do so by way of cigarettes. Truly, we are pushing new boundaries in public health.
As for FICA, we are reaching new bounds for what counts as tax.

[Deacarsia]

I'm 66. I question whether YOUNG people are qualified to vote. So many seem ignorant of history. Small wonder...they have so little of it themselves.

Ok Boomer

Roar! Panic attack! Angry baby boomer screeching!

In all seriousness, has everybody forgotten what the baby boomers’ own parents thought of them when they were young?

I generally view them the way the Greatest Generation did: a bunch of self-absorbed whiners and delinquents who ruined the country.

[Cetacea]

No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions. This is crazier than "voters should be 16", because at least that one isn't completely dumb

This. Age brings wisdom and experience, most of the time. People have their reasons for the way they vote, and not liking how someone votes is by no means an excuse to take away their right to vote. Especially since whatever happens also affects them. Sometimes far more adversely.

Age doesn’t bring wisdom, an old fool is just as foolish as a young one

[Deacarsia]

>sales tax
I'm expecting my refund any day now, now that you mention it.
That aside, it's pleasing to know the poor shall gain the franchise, so long as they do so by way of cigarettes. Truly, we are pushing new boundaries in public health.
As for FICA, we are reaching new bounds for what counts as tax.

I am in favor of abolishing the cigarette tax. Why does the government exploit people’s addictions, especially the poor? Regardless, if you are a net taxpayer, you would be able to vote.

As for F.I.C.A., we are not pushing the bounds of what counts as a tax.

Tax, noun: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

F.I.C.A. is a tax. If you refuse to pay, you will go to prison. It does not matter that you have been given some nebulous promise of future benefits, especially since the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling establishes that there is no earned right to benefits. The promise is a lie peddled by the politicians.

Since F.I.C.A. is a tax, it obviously would be included in the calculation, although the tax structure could be altered if so desired. I personally would be in favor of abolishing the F.I.C.A. tax, since it and the trust funds are lies, and honestly funding the social security system from the general tax revenues, although that is a separate discussion.

Either way, this does not address the logic of the proposal, since the proposal is related to the net taxpayers and net tax consumers and the preservation of democracy, regardless of whom they actually may be. If a rich person was not a net taxpayer, then he would be barred as well.

[Kubra]

>sales tax
I'm expecting my refund any day now, now that you mention it.
That aside, it's pleasing to know the poor shall gain the franchise, so long as they do so by way of cigarettes. Truly, we are pushing new boundaries in public health.
As for FICA, we are reaching new bounds for what counts as tax.

I am in favor of abolishing the cigarette tax. Why does the government exploit people’s addictions, especially the poor? Regardless, if you are a net taxpayer, you would be able to vote.

As for F.I.C.A., we are not pushing the bounds of what counts as a tax.

Tax, noun: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

F.I.C.A. is a tax. If you refuse to pay, you will go to prison. It does not matter that you have been given some nebulous promise of future benefits, especially since the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling establishes that there is no earned right to benefits. The promise is a lie peddled by the politicians.

Since F.I.C.A. is a tax, it obviously would be included in the calculation, although the tax structure could be altered if so desired. I personally would be in favor of abolishing the F.I.C.A. tax, since it and the trust funds are lies, and honestly funding the social security system from the general tax revenues, although that is a separate discussion.

Either way, this does not address the logic of the proposal, since the proposal is related to the net taxpayers and net tax consumers and the preservation of democracy, regardless of whom they actually may be. If a rich person was not a net taxpayer, then he would be barred as well.

But if we remove the tax, how will the poor gain suffrage?
Oh, so you want to recognize FICA as a tax, and then *abolish* it?
Seriously man, you're going to have to explain in detail how you don't want the poor to lose the vote.

[Deacarsia]

But if we remove the tax, how will the poor gain suffrage?
Oh, so you want to recognize FICA as a tax, and then *abolish* it?
Seriously man, you're going to have to explain in detail how you don't want the poor to lose the vote.

Of course it is a tax! It should be abolished, for it is based upon a vicious lie. While my voter proposal would be effective in any case, assuming welfare-state democracy, I would support a single head tax on voting, alongside a uniform and unified welfare system. Whether I actually support a welfare-state democracy is another point entirely, and different from the proposal being discussed.