Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Totenborg]

Sounds like barring poor folk from voting to me. It also sounds like a great way to keep the poor poor. I should know, I'm from Louisiana. Such restrictions only bring detriment to society.

I absolutely do not want to bar poor people from voting! I want the government to have competent and responsible leaders, and allowing anyone to vote who has a pecuniary interest in the government causes issues. My goal is to preserve democracy.

If someone has a personal interest in the government, then this will affect their judgment. If anything, my proposal would bar politicians, bureaucrats, and many corporate leaders from voting.

Additionally, Louisiana does not restrict the vote in this manner, nor does any other state or country. If other restrictions are causing issues, then they should be repealed.

Of course Louisiana doesn't have such restrictions on voting now. Once upon a time, though, Louisiana had quite a few strictures on voting. Such restrictions did little more than disenfranchise the poor, the uneducated, and minorities. Restrictions on voting rights in a democracy will in no way preserve said democracy. It will, instead, eventually lead to a permanent underclass, unable to address their grievances.

[Lat-Errier]

What shall we do instead, herr professor?

He is an absolute monarchist, hence he likely wants you to be forever chained to a landowner and be forced to work in dirty rags and without pay while prostrating thyself to "le Roi" who gets off to seeing you exploited.

Even this would be preferable to the farce that is democracy. What joy, to be able to chose which liar and cheater will be able to lie to me for the next few years while getting richer off the country and doing nothing to improve it. And being constantly lied to that "we" chose our government and that it makes us more free, when in reality you have no impact on the election and your vote does nothing for you. Why support a system that is nothing more than a popularity contest?

[Kowani]

The first problem is your claim that this won’t prevent the poor from voting. It absolutely will.
Your second problem is the idea that people that aren’t net taxpayers don’t have an interest in good governance.
Your third problem is the idea that disenfranchising people will automatically lead to better selection of leaders or “preservation of democracy.”
Your final flaw is misunderstanding how politicians, corporate leaders, and the like influence the democratic system.

Your first point does not prove that this would prevent the poor from voting. Merely asserting something does not make it true.

It’s pretty straightforward.
If you only want net taxpayers to vote, and many poor people are not net taxpayers, and their children require government assistance to break the cycle of generational poverty, then you have disenfranchised the poor, and encased then in a cycle that cannot be broken.

Your second point does not affect my argument. People that are not net taxpayers do have an interest in good government, but the incentive is for them to vote for more benefits. If the vote were restricted to net taxpayers, then only those with skin in the game would have a say, which would promote good governance.

Satan’s Balls, no. The only incentive of literally every voter is to vote for things that they believe benefit them. It’s why the rich spend millions convincing people to vote for tax cuts and small government, why black Americans work heavily to get criminal justice reform, and so forth. If your criticism is that they would only vote in benefits for themselves, then literally nobody should be allowed to vote.

Your third point does not refute my argument. What is wrong with the idea? Again, merely asserting its falsehood does not refute it.

Because nowhere in history has disenfranchisement worked to institute better governance, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it would?

Your final point does not explain how I misunderstand how the democratic system works, but once again merely asserts that I do.

The power of the aforementioned individuals isn’t in their vote. It’s in convincing people to vote, both ordinary citizens and legislators. Restricting the ballot to net taxpayers wouldn’t stop any of that.

[Kowani]

He is an absolute monarchist, hence he likely wants you to be forever chained to a landowner and be forced to work in dirty rags and without pay while prostrating thyself to "le Roi" who gets off to seeing you exploited.

Even this would be preferable to the farce that is democracy. What joy, to be able to chose which liar and cheater will be able to lie to me for the next few years while getting richer off the country and doing nothing to improve it. And being constantly lied to that "we" chose our government and that it makes us more free, when in reality you have no impact on the election and your vote does nothing for you. Why support a system that is nothing more than a popularity contest?

[Deacarsia]

Of course Louisiana doesn't have such restrictions on voting now. Once upon a time, though, Louisiana had quite a few strictures on voting. Such restrictions did little more than disenfranchise the poor, the uneducated, and minorities. Restrictions on voting rights in a democracy will in no way preserve said democracy. It will, instead, eventually lead to a permanent underclass, unable to address their grievances.

My proposal is distinct from those restrictions.

I am not proposing a literacy test or anything of that sort. I merely am proposing restricting the vote to net taxpaying adults, regardless of anything else. This is the only restriction, and I would support abolishing all other restrictions if it meant implementing this single one.

All people under a government without exception fall into two categories: net taxpayers and net tax consumers. Net taxpayers have resources taken from them, and net tax consumers have resources given to them. The rich and poor divide is subsidiary to this. There are rich net tax consumers, and there are poor net taxpayers.

Democracy fails when the people vote money for themselves. My proposal limits this by putting price on doing this: your own ballot. If there is no restriction like this, then eventually the people will continue to vote more and more money for themselves until the government is bankrupt and the democracy itself is destroyed, which would harm everyone except for the privileged few.

Such a voting restriction prevents this, which preserves the democracy. Without it, people can vote with regard only to their percuniary interest, and it will eventually lead the democracy to self-destruct.

Additionally, I have made no judgment of the situation. I merely have said that if you want to preserve a healthy democracy, then you should implement at least this restriction. I have made not judgment of whether this is desirable or not, but only an if-then statement.

Perhaps you are an absolute monarchist or dictator, in which case a democracy is undesirable. Maybe you desire chaos or tyranny, in which case my proposal seems counterproductive. I have assumed that the nations here are in favor of a sustainable democratic system, so I made a suggestion on how to implement one.

[Kubra]

You don't support barring poor people from suffrage, you merely want policy that *incidentally* prevents poor people from voting.
Me, I want property requirements on voting. It's not like I *want* those without property to vote, it's merely an unfortunate byproduct, no?

You have not demonstrated that my proposal bars poor people from suffrage, but merely have asserted it without evidence. Asserting something does not make it true.

Also, property requirements on voting by its nature would mean that you did not want those with property to vote, just as a net taxpaying requirement by its nature means that I would not want those who are not net taxpayers to vote.

Neither proposal necessarily has anything to do with the poor, and I demonstrated in my argument that poor people still would be able to vote if they were net taxpayers, just as rich people would be barred if they were not.

You have not refuted or even addressed my argument, but only made bald assertions. Once more, I ask: Why is my logic bad? Where is the flaw in my argument?

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

[Kubra]

He is an absolute monarchist, hence he likely wants you to be forever chained to a landowner and be forced to work in dirty rags and without pay while prostrating thyself to "le Roi" who gets off to seeing you exploited.

Even this would be preferable to the farce that is democracy. What joy, to be able to chose which liar and cheater will be able to lie to me for the next few years while getting richer off the country and doing nothing to improve it. And being constantly lied to that "we" chose our government and that it makes us more free, when in reality you have no impact on the election and your vote does nothing for you. Why support a system that is nothing more than a popularity contest?

Oh, instead of having the "liar and cheater" foisted on us by virtue of being a habsburg?

[Lat-Errier]

Even this would be preferable to the farce that is democracy. What joy, to be able to chose which liar and cheater will be able to lie to me for the next few years while getting richer off the country and doing nothing to improve it. And being constantly lied to that "we" chose our government and that it makes us more free, when in reality you have no impact on the election and your vote does nothing for you. Why support a system that is nothing more than a popularity contest?

But this is not going to happen any time soon, is it? Politicians have realized lying gets them elected and telling the truth doesn't. That is the flaw in democracy. Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, and sweet lies make you more popular than harsh truth.

[Kubra]

But this is not going to happen any time soon, is it? Politicians have realized lying gets them elected and telling the truth doesn't. That is the flaw in democracy. Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, and sweet lies make you more popular than harsh truth.

And what are these "harsh truths", herr professor?

[Lat-Errier]

But this is not going to happen any time soon, is it? Politicians have realized lying gets them elected and telling the truth doesn't. That is the flaw in democracy. Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, and sweet lies make you more popular than harsh truth.

And what are these "harsh truths", herr professor?

That said politician will not, in fact, be able to do miracles and fix all the economic and social problems.

[Kubra]

And what are these "harsh truths", herr professor?

That said politician will not, in fact, be able to do miracles and fix all the economic and social problems.

and a bourbon will?

[Kowani]

But this is not going to happen any time soon, is it? Politicians have realized lying gets them elected and telling the truth doesn't. That is the flaw in democracy. Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, and sweet lies make you more popular than harsh truth.

I think you don’t realize everything the government does.

[Neanderthaland]

But this is not going to happen any time soon, is it? Politicians have realized lying gets them elected and telling the truth doesn't. That is the flaw in democracy. Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, and sweet lies make you more popular than harsh truth.

To the contrary. "Harsh truth," is a huge bullshit selling point.

[Neanderthaland]

But this is not going to happen any time soon, is it? Politicians have realized lying gets them elected and telling the truth doesn't. That is the flaw in democracy. Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, and sweet lies make you more popular than harsh truth.

I think you don’t realize everything the government does.

I think the bigger problem is that he's under the impression that non-democracies are paragons of truth.

And you know what? He's right. A North Korean Unicorn told me so.

[Lat-Errier]

That said politician will not, in fact, be able to do miracles and fix all the economic and social problems.

and a bourbon will?

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.

[Lat-Errier]

I think you don’t realize everything the government does.

I think the bigger problem is that he's under the impression that non-democracies are paragons of truth.

And you know what? He's right. A North Korean Unicorn told me so.

You're right, they're not. But at least the system isn't built in a way that lying is the most efficient way to power.

[Neanderthaland]

I think the bigger problem is that he's under the impression that non-democracies are paragons of truth.

And you know what? He's right. A North Korean Unicorn told me so.

You're right, they're not. But at least the system isn't built in a way that lying is the most efficient way to power.

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.

[Lat-Errier]

You're right, they're not. But at least the system isn't built in a way that lying is the most efficient way to power.

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.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

and a bourbon will?

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.

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.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

No, everybody from age 15 to death should be able to vote.

[Cameroi]

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.

[Kubra]

and a bourbon will?

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

[Kubra]

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.

what if I want to have buddhist government

[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.

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.

[Deacarsia]

Your first point does not prove that this would prevent the poor from voting. Merely asserting something does not make it true.

It’s pretty straightforward.
If you only want net taxpayers to vote, and many poor people are not net taxpayers, and their children require government assistance to break the cycle of generational poverty, then you have disenfranchised the poor, and encased then in a cycle that cannot be broken.

Your second point does not affect my argument. People that are not net taxpayers do have an interest in good government, but the incentive is for them to vote for more benefits. If the vote were restricted to net taxpayers, then only those with skin in the game would have a say, which would promote good governance.

Satan’s Balls, no. The only incentive of literally every voter is to vote for things that they believe benefit them. It’s why the rich spend millions convincing people to vote for tax cuts and small government, why black Americans work heavily to get criminal justice reform, and so forth. If your criticism is that they would only vote in benefits for themselves, then literally nobody should be allowed to vote.

Your third point does not refute my argument. What is wrong with the idea? Again, merely asserting its falsehood does not refute it.

Because nowhere in history has disenfranchisement worked to institute better governance, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it would?

Your final point does not explain how I misunderstand how the democratic system works, but once again merely asserts that I do.

The power of the aforementioned individuals isn’t in their vote. It’s in convincing people to vote, both ordinary citizens and legislators. Restricting the ballot to net taxpayers wouldn’t stop any of that.

Thank you for going in depth. I appreciate civil discussion like this.

Firstly, the poor are not necessarily not net taxpayers, but let us assume they are for the sake of argument. They still are not disenfranchised because they are poor, but rather because they are not net taxpayers. As net tax consumers, they still face the incentive to vote themselves ever greater benefits from the net taxpayers. My proposal is to stop this incentive. Politicians would have to demonstrate the efficacy of their programs, including anti-poverty programs, rather than merely buy votes.

You also assert that their children require government assistance to break the cycle of generational poverty, but this may not be the case. I do not want to get into a different discussion, but suffice it to say that it government assistance may actually promote generational poverty rather than fix it. Besides, even if it did break the cycle, then you have refuted your own argument. If it breaks the cycle, then they no longer would be disenfranchised! Mission accomplished, and democracy would be preserved.

Secondly, you also mention that the only incentive of every voter is to vote for things that they believe benefit them. While this is not entirely true, as some people do have principles, we may at least assume this. First, the rich do not all support tax cuts and smaller government, but often support big government programs, such as bail-outs, and tax increases that they can avoid but their competitors may not.

However, this is beside the point. My point is not that people vote in their own self-interest. My point is that the self-interest of net tax consumers will tend to lead them to vote for more and more money, whether rich or poor. As more of the population become net tax consumers due to political vote-buying, then you have more people living off of fewer and fewer net taxpayers. Eventually, the system become unsustainable and will collapse, harming everyone except the privileged few.

If the vote were restricted to net taxpayers, then policies would have to be justified to those who pay for them. Politicians would have to demonstrate that their anti-poverty programs actually help poverty, rather than merely exploiting the poor for their votes. Things like bail-outs would be diminished too, since politicians would be held more accountable by the taxpayers.

Thirdly, there are cases where disenfranchisement worked to institute better governance. Minors cannot vote, which I think everyone would agree is a good thing.

Another arguable example is felons, although perhaps a case can be made that punishment should end after the sentence is served, unless of course you consider disenfranchisement part of the sentence. Still, a case has been made against their voting, and indeed in many places this has influence the voting laws.

Yet another example is Hong Kong, which went from poverty to prosperity under an undemocratic British regime, or Singapore, which blossomed under Lee Kuan Yew. These refute your claim that nowhere in history has disenfranchisement worked to institute better governance, and constitutes evidence to suggest that it at least could, although I obviously am not suggesting abolishing democracy itself, as you effectively do later on.

Lastly, you claim that the “power” of the aforementioned individuals is not in their vote, but in convincing other people to vote, both ordinary citizens and legislators. If that is the case, then any restriction on suffrage would have no effect, since individuals always could convince others to vote. Indeed, why not abolish elections all together and have the people use their supposed “power” to convince an unelected oligarch, or even the sole dictator?

Obviously, the whole point of a democracy is that the ultimate decision on voting is left to the actual voter. My proposal is not intended to prevent net tax consumers from participating in politics in other ways, including running for office! (In fact, most politicians would be barred if their salary exceeded their overall tax payments on private income). It only is intended to restrict the ultimate decision to those who actually have to fund the government, the net taxpayers.