Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Blyathuania]

An absolute monarchy would be pretty cool provided I was the monarch. If the system is set up properly, I could pursue pleasure without the restriction of law. But since it's immensely unlikely that I will ever be King, some form of republic is best.

[The New California Republic]

An absolute monarchy would be pretty cool provided I was the monarch. If the system is set up properly, I could pursue pleasure without the restriction of law. But since it's immensely unlikely that I will ever be King, some form of republic is best.

I think you got lost, as you seem to think this is the monarchy thread. It isn't.

[Alvecia]

The internet is left leaning.

Eh. Depends on where you go.

I think the "as a whole" was implied.

[Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated-]

An absolute monarchy would be pretty cool provided I was the monarch. If the system is set up properly, I could pursue pleasure without the restriction of law. But since it's immensely unlikely that I will ever be King, some form of republic is best.

I think you got lost, as you seem to think this is the monarchy thread. It isn't.

Yeah, it's a thread about why old people make bad decisions.

[Coffin-Breathe]

...which every real democracy has abandoned ages ago - except for the US, because (sorry, but I have to declare this) the US is not even rudimentary a "real democracy".

"Real Democracy" is not desirable. The US would have ended up like post-Revolution France or worse...

Does this mean that you think the "king of the US" (or his heir) would have come back from exile ? Well, dont you have some booze named after him ?
Or does this mean, the US would reinstall the death penalty again ? Or even have some kind of parliament ?

[Blyathuania]

An absolute monarchy would be pretty cool provided I was the monarch. If the system is set up properly, I could pursue pleasure without the restriction of law. But since it's immensely unlikely that I will ever be King, some form of republic is best.

I think you got lost, as you seem to think this is the monarchy thread. It isn't.

I mean, to answer the question that the thread is actually about, I don't think that the elderly should be enfranchised. The elderly tend to vote in a manner that runs contrary to my interests, after all.

[The Emerald Legion]

Eh. Depends on where you go.

I think the "as a whole" was implied.

As a whole? Not even close.

[Coffin-Breathe]

"Real Democracy" is not desirable. The US would have ended up like post-Revolution France or worse...

Post-Revolution France wasn't a real democracy either, but then again I can't think of any "real democracy" that was bigger than one city. Representative democracies (i.e. republics) that represent popular opinion as accurately as possible are my ideal government styles.

How about Republique Suisse ? Or Catalunia in the ´30ies (1930ies, for the younger ones ) ?

[Antityranicals]

"Real Democracy" is not desirable. The US would have ended up like post-Revolution France or worse...

Does this mean that you think the "king of the US" (or his heir) would have come back from exile ? Well, dont you have some booze named after him ?
Or does this mean, the US would reinstall the death penalty again ? Or even have some kind of parliament ?

It's an analogy, and as all of them, it is imperfect. I'm talking about the reign of terror.

[Alvecia]

I think the "as a whole" was implied.

As a whole? Not even close.

Hmm

[Coffin-Breathe]

It's an analogy, and as all of them, it is imperfect. I'm talking about the reign of terror.

Nothing manmade is "perfect". And "terror" is, what follows every revolution if the people had been supressed for to long, without any way to ventilate their anger. But, as history has proven, after a period of anger, wrath and thirst for revenge, society has regulated and repaired by itself.

[Antityranicals]

It's an analogy, and as all of them, it is imperfect. I'm talking about the reign of terror.

Nothing manmade is "perfect". And "terror" is, what follows every revolution if the people had been supressed for to long, without any way to ventilate their anger. But, as history has proven, after a period of anger, wrath and thirst for revenge, society has regulated and repaired by itself.

I do not think that the "terror," in the case of the French Revolution, was a direct result of the people, so much as the fact that democracies have a way of putting demagogues on top of them, as was the case with Robespierre, and he, rather, convinced the people that the terror was good and necessary, or at least not to argue when it happened, lest they were next.

[Fahran]

No. /thread

[Blyathuania]

No. /thread

[Andsed]

No. /thread

Yeah imagine believing in a democratic government that gives political freedoms to its citizens regardless of their beliefs allowing them to be represented. So uncool.

[Blyathuania]

Yeah imagine believing in a democratic government that gives political freedoms to its citizens regardless of their beliefs allowing them to be represented. So uncool.

If I'm not represented in government, then it's a tragedy that must be rectified immediately. But why must that privilege be applied to others, especially those who are my ideological enemies?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Post-Revolution France wasn't a real democracy either, but then again I can't think of any "real democracy" that was bigger than one city. Representative democracies (i.e. republics) that represent popular opinion as accurately as possible are my ideal government styles.

How about Republique Suisse ? Or Catalunia in the ´30ies (1930ies, for the younger ones ) ?

Switzerland is close (but still not there), and I'm not sure how well Catalonia would have turned out if it had existed for longer. In addition, I do not believe that either system would work well in the United States without a long time to build up to the change.
That said, you do raise good points, and Switzerland is actually the ideal to strive for in many ways, although I don't like some of its other policies. (This is getting dangerously close to a threadjack, though, so I'll stop there.)

[Fahran]

Let old people vote, let 16 year olds vote, let convicts and prisoners vote.

I'll allow this when we allow these people to own firearms (and purchase alcohol and face conscription).

Only one of these things is listed in the Bill of Rights after all.

[Luziyca]

Seems like a bad idea, honestly. Either everyone over the voting age (except those convicted of voter fraud) should get to vote, or none at all.

[Deacarsia]

so then explain: how do we give the poor a vote?

Poor people would get a vote if they were net taxpayers.

Methinks there is a difference in the way we understand voting. You see voting as a fundamental right that on principle should be expanded as much as possible. I see voting merely as a tool to pick competent leaders with no special moral or metaphysical significance.

As a result, you are concerned that my proposal would disproportionately impact a group, even if not necessarily so, then at least commonly in practice under welfare-state democracies; whereas I would be perfectly content to restrict the franchise to people named “Steve” if it would improve the competency of leaders and the effectiveness of government. My reasoning and research leads me to believe that restricting the franchise at least to net taxpayers would promote this goal, although of course it is possible that I am incorrect.

Since we have such different philosophical bases, I do not think that either of us will change the other’s mind, especially on an Internet forum, though I would hope that we both would be open to the possibility. I know I am.

Anyway, I think we just will have to agree to disagree, and others may read our discussion and come to their own conclusions. It has been a pleasure to discuss this with you, and I wish you all the best.

[Deacarsia]

The internet is left leaning.

Reality is left leaning.

Reality has a well-known right-wing bias.

[Deacarsia]

This thread is just an attempt by a leftist to give political opposition the finger.

Yes

[Fahran]

This thread is just an attempt by a leftist to give political opposition the finger.

basically but im not surprised NationStates as a whole seems to be leftist

NSG as a community is pretty progressive but there are pockets of right-wing individuals here and there, and they often make pretty forceful arguments when push comes to shove.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Okay Zoomer.

[Dangine]

basically but im not surprised NationStates as a whole seems to be leftist

NSG as a community is pretty progressive but there are pockets of right-wing individuals here and there, and they often make pretty forceful arguments when push comes to shove.

From my experience people who are right-winged tend to debate more than someone who is left-winged, I was apart of a debate discord server that mainly just had Conservatives and Fascist debating, there were very few leftists. I guess that's why we see a good amount of right-wingers debating even though the Nation States community is more progressive.