I don't see anything about choice in my quote.
Advertisement
by Novus America » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:27 am
Ifreann wrote:Novus America wrote:
If people should only have say when it affects their lives it should not apply to matters that do not, right?
And what objective measures do you have of who is affected by what and how much?
I don't.If the Irish had a majority in Parliament British rule would not have been so bad for the Irish, though probably much worse for the English...
You have the wildest ideas about history.But obviously that did not happen.
At least you admit your system is impossible to realistically implement though.
Difficult, maybe. Not impossible.And yes I do have to pay for might right to vote. Not a direct monetary payment pers se, but I am subject to US laws and taxes as a result of being a citizen.
As you would be even if you were not allowed to vote. So you aren't paying for your vote with that.
Maybe voting is a bad example. What do you have to pay to enjoy freedom of religion?
by Luziyca » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:29 am
by The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket » Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:15 am
by Ifreann » Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:30 am
Novus America wrote:Ifreann wrote:I don't.
You have the wildest ideas about history.
Difficult, maybe. Not impossible.
As you would be even if you were not allowed to vote. So you aren't paying for your vote with that.
Maybe voting is a bad example. What do you have to pay to enjoy freedom of religion?
If you have no measure than how do we determine who gets to vote where based solely on effects?
And a system without a method of implementation is can never happen.
That was a hypothetical of course. Hypotheticals are not history.
But in that hypothetical it would be much better.
Obviously British rule was tyrannical, but it was at least by the 1800s tyranny by a majority.
Which is why you should want to limit your electorate to at least those who broadly have the same interest in doing what is best for your country and not want foreign, often hostile countries voting in your elections.
Which is a major reason why the Irish wanted independence. To be free from The British Parliament and its laws. So mostly Irish would vote on Irish issues.
I am subject taxes and US laws, otherwise I would not have any protection for my freedom of religion from the US government.
You only enjoy rights if the government protects them.
Rights are not just there. Unless they are enforced they are meaningless.
To enjoy my right to religious freedom I must be subject to the taxes and laws of some country that respects that right.
The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket wrote:Ifreann wrote:It doesn't. As an Irish citizen I would be allowed to vote in British elections if I lived there, and doing so would not make me a British citizen.
Which would make you a de facto citizen. Just like if you were allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without supervision, yet did not have a license, you would have a de facto license.
Arguing for automatoc citzenship for all residents as well as foreigners overshore would be nore logical.
by Telconi » Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:35 am
Ifreann wrote:Ors Might wrote:All laws are backed by violence, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Yeah, when the government paves a road or builds a hospital or cleans the drinking water, that's backed by violence.Governments should generally not inflict violence upon those outside its jurisdiction. You’re using one wrong to justify another.
Are there no people within the US who are not US citizens? Are they immune from the law?Children should be allowed to vote now? Hot take.
If you aren’t governed by a country’s laws, you should have zero say in how those laws are made.
And if the effects of a law stopped politely at the border that would be fine. But they don't. Isn't Trump getting mad at three Mexican countries for not building their own walls to stop migration across their borders to the US? Or how about Iran. Surely you can't think that decisions made in the US and Europe make no difference to the lives of Iranians.
by Novus America » Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:45 am
Ifreann wrote:Novus America wrote:
If you have no measure than how do we determine who gets to vote where based solely on effects?
And a system without a method of implementation is can never happen.
I guess someone else will have to figure that out.That was a hypothetical of course. Hypotheticals are not history.
But in that hypothetical it would be much better.
Obviously British rule was tyrannical, but it was at least by the 1800s tyranny by a majority.
Which is why you should want to limit your electorate to at least those who broadly have the same interest in doing what is best for your country and not want foreign, often hostile countries voting in your elections.
I don't want to take power by disenfranchising people. I don't want to take power at all. I want people to have power over their own lives.Which is a major reason why the Irish wanted independence. To be free from The British Parliament and its laws. So mostly Irish would vote on Irish issues.
I am subject taxes and US laws, otherwise I would not have any protection for my freedom of religion from the US government.
You only enjoy rights if the government protects them.
Rights are not just there. Unless they are enforced they are meaningless.
To enjoy my right to religious freedom I must be subject to the taxes and laws of some country that respects that right.
You'd be subject to those laws and pay those taxes even if the law said that you must be a Christian.The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket wrote:Which would make you a de facto citizen. Just like if you were allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without supervision, yet did not have a license, you would have a de facto license.
Arguing for automatoc citzenship for all residents as well as foreigners overshore would be nore logical.
You're saying that the whole population of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland are actually British citizens? Sounds rather farcical.
by Bahktar » Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:08 pm
by The Lone Alliance » Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:58 pm
by Ifreann » Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:15 pm
Telconi wrote:Ifreann wrote:Yeah, when the government paves a road or builds a hospital or cleans the drinking water, that's backed by violence.
Are there no people within the US who are not US citizens? Are they immune from the law?
And if the effects of a law stopped politely at the border that would be fine. But they don't. Isn't Trump getting mad at three Mexican countries for not building their own walls to stop migration across their borders to the US? Or how about Iran. Surely you can't think that decisions made in the US and Europe make no difference to the lives of Iranians.
So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...
by Aellex » Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:17 pm
Ifreann wrote:Telconi wrote:
So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...
So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.
by The Emerald Legion » Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:52 pm
Ifreann wrote:So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.
by Bear Stearns » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:13 pm
Ifreann wrote:Telconi wrote:
So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...
So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.
by The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:12 pm
Ifreann wrote:Novus America wrote:
If you have no measure than how do we determine who gets to vote where based solely on effects?
And a system without a method of implementation is can never happen.
I guess someone else will have to figure that out.That was a hypothetical of course. Hypotheticals are not history.
But in that hypothetical it would be much better.
Obviously British rule was tyrannical, but it was at least by the 1800s tyranny by a majority.
Which is why you should want to limit your electorate to at least those who broadly have the same interest in doing what is best for your country and not want foreign, often hostile countries voting in your elections.
I don't want to take power by disenfranchising people. I don't want to take power at all. I want people to have power over their own lives.Which is a major reason why the Irish wanted independence. To be free from The British Parliament and its laws. So mostly Irish would vote on Irish issues.
I am subject taxes and US laws, otherwise I would not have any protection for my freedom of religion from the US government.
You only enjoy rights if the government protects them.
Rights are not just there. Unless they are enforced they are meaningless.
To enjoy my right to religious freedom I must be subject to the taxes and laws of some country that respects that right.
You'd be subject to those laws and pay those taxes even if the law said that you must be a Christian.The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket wrote:Which would make you a de facto citizen. Just like if you were allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without supervision, yet did not have a license, you would have a de facto license.
Arguing for automatoc citzenship for all residents as well as foreigners overshore would be nore logical.
You're saying that the whole population of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland are actually British citizens? Sounds rather farcical.
by United States of Natan » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:29 pm
Then it's a lie. Everything Fox News says is a lie.
Even true things once said on Fox News become lies.
(Family Guy: Excellence in Broadcasting)
by Ors Might » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:49 pm
Ifreann wrote:Ors Might wrote:Not seeing any laws being made there..
Weirdly it still happens, though. I guess you should look.Yes, they abide by the law by not voting in our federal elections.
And are subjected to violence by your government from time to time, despite never having voted on whether they would allow that.Children are, in fact, people. People impacted by decisions the government makes. Why don’t you think voting should be a right?
Don't be a sillypants.What laws are on the books specifically involvinf Iranians? You’re confusing law with foreign policy.
The Iran Sanctions Act, passed by the 104th Congress as the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, extended several times since and renamed, obviously, most recently having been extended for 10 years in 2016.
by Katganistan » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:52 pm
by Ifreann » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:32 pm
The Emerald Legion wrote:Ifreann wrote:So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.
Seems easier to just consider everyone but your countrymen someone else's problem/valid targets for military intervention for economic gain.
Bear Stearns wrote:Ifreann wrote:So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.
The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.
by Telconi » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:38 pm
Ifreann wrote:The Emerald Legion wrote:
Seems easier to just consider everyone but your countrymen someone else's problem/valid targets for military intervention for economic gain.
Nah, that sucks.Bear Stearns wrote:
The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.
Whatever you want to call them they're not useful.
by WENDIP SHIPPER » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:40 pm
by Novus America » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:45 pm
Ifreann wrote:The Emerald Legion wrote:
Seems easier to just consider everyone but your countrymen someone else's problem/valid targets for military intervention for economic gain.
Nah, that sucks.Bear Stearns wrote:
The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.
Whatever you want to call them they're not useful.
by Bear Stearns » Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:11 pm
by San Lumen » Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:49 pm
by Hakons » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:03 pm
Ifreann wrote:Telconi wrote:
So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...
So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.
by New haven america » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:05 pm
Hakons wrote:Ifreann wrote:So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.
This is your brain on globalism. An Irishman of all people should know the significance of borders, and why they are drawn where they are.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ifreann, ML Library, Oceasia, Varsemia
Advertisement