Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

Not really no, Nationstates forum goes through phases. I remember there was a time, when only left wing people were the vocal ones. I do recall there was a thread directly theorizing that NS was going to go far-right due to a swarm of right wings coming in. People come and go, and the demographic shifts at times.

[Kingdom Of The UN]

Yes.

where the hell have u been

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Tribalism....

Everybody should vote from the age of majority to the age of dementia. That is why democracy can be a tyranny of the majority instead of a tyranny of the minority.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

There's been two basic arguments against this proposal so far.
1) Older people are wiser than young people.
2) Older people are more reliable than young people.

Argument one is fairly easily disprovable, and has already been disproved multiple times. Scammers target old people. It's not because they're wiser. It's because they're more gullible.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/30/w ... on-makers/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0043647
https://gero.usc.edu/labs/matherlab/fil ... al2005.pdf

Argument two is not a valid argument as it actually presents a reason why older people should NOT vote. To say that a group can be counted on as a reliable voter implies one of two things.
a) The person can be counted on to deliver a specific vote, regardless of the wisdom of said vote.
b) The person can be counted on to be swayed by arguments, regardless of their validity.

If either a or b is true for a specific voting bloc, they are no longer actually participating actively in democracy, and are in fact a threat to it, and so should not be allowed to vote.

Older people have to retest to continue driving because of the obvious question of public safety at a micro level, and they should at the very least be tested to be able to continue to vote because of the obvious question of public safety at the macro level. (And if testing people to be able to vote bothers you, you can always simply name a cutoff age.)

Scammers also target young people. Why the fuck do you think student loans are a thing?

Exploding tuition thanks to a privatized education system and little regulation of prices, that's why. If they are poor, they can either get a loan, or remain permanently shut out from higher education. That's how it goes in the Land of Liberty™.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

The idea has a little bit of merit... After all, the votes of older people are what keep bankrupt institutions such as Social Security careening yet further into bankruptcy. However, it's still probably not smart, because that leaves voting to younger individuals who are probably even more selfish than their older compatriots, and they'll probably invent even stupider ideas than expanding Social Security.

These "stupider ideas" as you've called them led to Scandinavia becoming one of the most developed and prosperous regions on Earth, but of course, considering you are essentially a ancap, only Mad Max would be a ideal future for you to live in.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Reality is left leaning.

Reality has a well-known right-wing bias.

Then why did rightwing policies cause the Great Recession and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis? Why is it that nations who have a left-leaning economy and society rank high on the HDI?

[Swith Witherward]

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.

Not really no, Nationstates forum goes through phases. I remember there was a time, when only left wing people were the vocal ones. I do recall there was a thread directly theorizing that NS was going to go far-right due to a swarm of right wings coming in. People come and go, and the demographic shifts at times.

I remember the same. From my earliest recollections, it was far more left than right. The overly outspoken portion of the right wing tended to be followers of Abrahamic faiths, those that did not support the GLBTQ movement, or young trolls getting off by riling up the left. Moderation would frequently see reports by those offended because someone did not refer to them by their preferred pronoun or complaints because someone believed homosexuality could be "cured" or was a mental illness.

There have always been asinine states based on Nazi Germany. Most had an anime feel. Around 2015, it seemed that these people became more bold, more outspoken. It was ANTIFA vs Trumpism. By 2016, it seemed evenly split between extremes, with all the normal people just trying to hold good discussions minus political rhetoric or attacks based on belief. Both sides were smacked for warping politicians' names (King Bush, Trumptard, tRump, Obummer etc). For the record, I agree with that. People need to stop being dicks.

I took a lengthy sabbatical for health reasons and have only recently returned. The flavor is different. The obnoxious percentage of the right wing has more presence. The trolls are still active. But this is just my perspective; others have experienced it differently.


As for age voting restrictions? What determines the age cutoff? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86 and still sharp. My aunt is 85 and only slows down when the weather keeps her from power-walking. And my uncle, suffering from both Parkinson's and dementia, is no longer able to make legal decisions (or understand what a ballot is or who is running for what office) thus the family trust informed the county that he should be dropped from the database. What I wish would STOP doing is filling out early voting paperwork on behalf of their addled loved one. That's giving yourself two votes.

[Dumb Ideologies]

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.

Thankfully the progressives are declining somewhat in favour of full-fat leftists and there's a greater portion of the rightists who are hostile towards free market capitalism.

[La Xinga]

No, they have experience and We don't exactly like when we can't do something for the rest of our time on this world.

[Fahran]

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.

Discord, overall, seems pretty right-leaning. That said, we're drifting from our proper subject.

[Kubra]

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.

and they are not net tax payers. And you want to abolish things that *would* make them net taxpayers.
Stop dodging the question.

[Andsed]

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?

For the same reasons you have them. Your not anymore inherently deserving of them than other people and rights and political freedoms don’t just not apply to those you do not like. The mere suggestion of taking away voting rights of law abiding citizens simply for their voting habits and beliefs is inherently undemocratic.

[Telconi]

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?

For the same reasons you have them. Your not anymore inherently deserving of them than other people and rights and political freedoms don’t just not apply to those you do not like. The mere suggestion of taking away voting rights of law abiding citizens simply for their voting habits and beliefs is inherently undemocratic.

Democracy must be tempered by reason, surely.

[Andsed]

For the same reasons you have them. Your not anymore inherently deserving of them than other people and rights and political freedoms don’t just not apply to those you do not like. The mere suggestion of taking away voting rights of law abiding citizens simply for their voting habits and beliefs is inherently undemocratic.

Democracy must be tempered by reason, surely.

In some cases sure. But not in this case. Representation and allowing people to have a say in government is a cornerstone of democracy and with regards to law abiding citizens should never be infringed upon regardless of political beliefs.

[Telconi]

Democracy must be tempered by reason, surely.

In some cases sure. But not in this case. Representation and allowing people to have a say in government is a cornerstone of democracy and with regards to law abiding citizens should never be infringed upon regardless of political beliefs.

We deny franchise to plenty of people who are law abiding.

[Andsed]

In some cases sure. But not in this case. Representation and allowing people to have a say in government is a cornerstone of democracy and with regards to law abiding citizens should never be infringed upon regardless of political beliefs.

We deny franchise to plenty of people who are law abiding.

I am guessing your referring to those under 18? Because I would quite frankly be fine with lowering the voting age to 16.

[Fahran]

We deny franchise to plenty of people who are law abiding.

I am guessing your referring to those under 18? Because I would quite frankly be fine with lowering the voting age to 16.

I would accept this so long as we gave them other rights and responsibilities. At the moment, however, I'm fine with our present system. It ain't broke. Honestly, most college students don't really use their right to vote as is.

[Telconi]

We deny franchise to plenty of people who are law abiding.

I am guessing your referring to those under 18? Because I would quite frankly be fine with lowering the voting age to 16.

People under 18, non-citizens, etc. Are these limitations "Undemocratic"?

[Deacarsia]

Reality has a well-known right-wing bias.

Then why did rightwing policies cause the Great Recession and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis? Why is it that nations who have a left-leaning economy and society rank high on the HDI?

Right-wing policies did not cause the Great Recession and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Those were caused by loose monetary policy coupled with left-wing governmental regulations encouraging subprime lending.

The free market does not cause problems, but government intervention always does.

Also, the political left is the one that makes purely emotional appeals without regard to facts, whereas the political right actually debates on the basis of logic and reason.

So again, reality has a well-known right-wing bias.

Anatomy of the Great Recession

The Great Recession

The Logical Fallacies of the American Left-Wing

Liberal Emotion versus Conservative Logic

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I am guessing your referring to those under 18? Because I would quite frankly be fine with lowering the voting age to 16.

I would accept this so long as we gave them other rights and responsibilities. At the moment, however, I'm fine with our present system. It ain't broke. Honestly, most college students don't really use their right to vote as is.

Eh, a lot of post college people don’t exercise that right either, but they still should have it.

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

Why should people with no vested interest in the future of their country be allowed to vote? Old people will not live to see the choices they make. They've had their time.

Because they do. They often have a thing called family in which many will be younger and so often they will look out for what they believe is best for their family's future.

[Fahran]

I would accept this so long as we gave them other rights and responsibilities. At the moment, however, I'm fine with our present system. It ain't broke. Honestly, most college students don't really use their right to vote as is.

Eh, a lot of post college people don’t exercise that right either, but they still should have it.

True, my point was that college students are specifically known not to vote as a group. I like having my right to vote and I do actually use it, but lowering the voting age to eighteen didn't really do a whole lot to strengthen our democracy beyond basic principles.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Eh, a lot of post college people don’t exercise that right either, but they still should have it.

True, my point was that college students are specifically known not to vote as a group. I like having my right to vote and I do actually use it, but lowering the voting age to eighteen didn't really do a whole lot to strengthen our democracy beyond basic principles.

Just a measure of what’s considered “adulthood” in your society, but I get your meaning.

[Fahran]

Why should people with no vested interest in the future of their country be allowed to vote? Old people will not live to see the choices they make. They've had their time.

Because they have invested more labor and service into the state, and have a vested interest in maintaining particular programs and ensuring their own well-being. They also have families.

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

Why should people with no vested interest in the future of their country be allowed to vote? Old people will not live to see the choices they make. They've had their time.

Because they have invested more labor and service into the state, and have a vested interest in maintaining particular programs and ensuring their own well-being. They also have families.

I bet also if this were to come into effect that in how ever many decades time they will complain about how unfair it is that they can no longer vote.