his birthday was yesterday, he won't be back for another yearHunter/Jumper wrote:
We can plan a surprise birthday party for him right here and he will never know !
Sure, and that's all touched on in the biographies I've read on him. You're taking it out of context though because he himself was a landed aristocrat. He just wasn't the first born son and would've received nothing if his older brother had not died. That is what fueled his crusade. His father in laws death and the subsequent fighting between the heirs also added to his views. Read up on his life instead of pulling stuff out of context.Macbeth wrote:
Read the block of text I pasted over a few times.JohnG@lt wrote:
Primogeniture actually. What does him wanting to dispose of his property as he saw fit have to do with him advocating the abolition of the landed class?Macbeth wrote:
On an interesting sidenote, Thomas Jefferson helped get entail abolished in the U.S. He thought it led to aristocracy. He would probably be in favor of high death taxes today.
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/tour/tjefferson.html
It wasn't about giving them a way to decide how to manage their property, it was about preventing them from becoming too powerful. Hence why it wasIt's why he was pretty happy proud of it becauseresisted fiercely by those representing the conservative planter class"these laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy."
He wasn't the working class hero you're trying to portray him as.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-10 13:37:14)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Read Hunt's Book (The Oil man ) I think he called it " YourTopia " Basically the more money you have The more votes you get. I think his driving base of thought wasSenorToenails wrote:
Your explanation for why you'd want a poll tax is the reason I would prefer to base it on something other than income. It just highlights a broken system.JohnG@lt wrote:
Similar to a poll tax. I've advocated Heinlein's system of franchising only those that volunteer to serve in the government before on here.SenorToenails wrote:
Why a poll tax? Personally, I'd rather a Heinlein-esque system of suffrage instead of a poll tax. But neither are truly ideal.
Wiki
Idea is to limit the right to vote to only those that have a financial stake in the outcome of the election. When we live in a society where 47% do not pay federal income tax and yet are still eligible to vote for politicians who have control over how tax money is spent it becomes a very serious problem.
And do 47% of people really not pay income tax? I make shit money and even I paid taxes... Do they include minors or something?
" I have more money than everyone else - therefore I must be smarter than everyone else !"
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-10 13:43:12)
I liked Salon's take on it.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, and that's all touched on in the biographies I've read on him. You're taking it out of context though because he himself was a landed aristocrat. He just wasn't the first born son and would've received nothing if his older brother had not died. That is what fueled his crusade. His father in laws death and the subsequent fighting between the heirs also added to his views. Read up on his life instead of pulling stuff out of context.Macbeth wrote:
Read the block of text I pasted over a few times.JohnG@lt wrote:
Primogeniture actually. What does him wanting to dispose of his property as he saw fit have to do with him advocating the abolition of the landed class?
It wasn't about giving them a way to decide how to manage their property, it was about preventing them from becoming too powerful. Hence why it wasIt's why he was pretty happy proud of it becauseresisted fiercely by those representing the conservative planter class"these laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy."
He wasn't the working class hero you're trying to portray him as.
I'm not trying to portray him as a working class hero. I just find it hypocritical, in a way, to post a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding economics and government that defend your position while at the same time ignoring his other views which are in opposition to your own. Picking and choosing. I have weird peeves.Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.
Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.
And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."
Well, I'm also not a personal finance moron that would put myself so far into debt during my lifetime that the state is forced to auction off my home at death in order to pay off my creditors. Just because I happen to agree with some of his points doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them. His quote served my purposes.Macbeth wrote:
I liked Salon's take on it.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, and that's all touched on in the biographies I've read on him. You're taking it out of context though because he himself was a landed aristocrat. He just wasn't the first born son and would've received nothing if his older brother had not died. That is what fueled his crusade. His father in laws death and the subsequent fighting between the heirs also added to his views. Read up on his life instead of pulling stuff out of context.Macbeth wrote:
Read the block of text I pasted over a few times.JohnG@lt wrote:
Primogeniture actually. What does him wanting to dispose of his property as he saw fit have to do with him advocating the abolition of the landed class?
It wasn't about giving them a way to decide how to manage their property, it was about preventing them from becoming too powerful. Hence why it was
It's why he was pretty happy proud of it because
He wasn't the working class hero you're trying to portray him as.I'm not trying to portray him as a working class hero. I just find it hypocritical, in a way, to post a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding economics and government that defend your position while at the same time ignoring his other views which are in opposition to your own. Picking and choosing. I have weird peeves.Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.
Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.
And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."
If I could only quote people that I agree with 100% then conversation would get boring
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-10 13:50:31)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And yes his personal experience shaped his views on life, economics, and government. Thank you, John, I'll alert the ghost of Sigmund Freud immediately to tell him the news you just mastered his theory of human psychological development.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, and that's all touched on in the biographies I've read on him. You're taking it out of context though because he himself was a landed aristocrat. He just wasn't the first born son and would've received nothing if his older brother had not died. That is what fueled his crusade. His father in laws death and the subsequent fighting between the heirs also added to his views. Read up on his life instead of pulling stuff out of context.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-09-10 13:51:39)
Plato's Republic + Norway's social systems + Unicameral Legislature (solely based around population, proportional voting, instant runoff voting, and running at-large so there are no gerrymandering issues) + term limits + parliamentary style executive (Prime Minister instead of President)Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Can you think of a better System of Goverment ?
With all the different points of view, experience, Places we've been and education levels here. Can we think of a better System of Government or improve the ones we have seen employed to date ?
What would you take from which political systems ? What would you avoid ? How would you improve or merely adjust ?
The Party systems - length of public service - campaign rules - media coverage - voting - any one topic or all, Plus any you can think of.
The legislature would not be able to vote on matters that directly affect their own pay and benefits. All raises would require referendums passed by the general populace. Also, all campaign finance reform would be handled through referendums as well.
Legislators would serve for 4 years per term and would be limited to 2 terms (as a lifetime limit, not just a consecutive limit). Prime Ministers would be determined as in the parliamentary system where the party with the most seats would select their party leader as PM. Also, things like votes of no confidence would be part of the system, as would coalition governments.
All programs would be pay-as-you-go. All bills would require an explicit explanation of exactly where the funding is coming from and any new taxes involved. Riders would be completely prohibited, so no pork could be added to bills during the legislative process.
Citizenship would be a revised form of jus sanguinis, where at least one parent/guardian must be a citizen at the time of the child's birth for automatic citizenship to be granted. Otherwise, the child would eventually have to go through the naturalization process in order to obtain citizenship.
Turquoise wrote:
Plato's Republic + Norway's social systems + Unicameral Legislature (solely based around population, proportional voting, instant runoff voting, and running at-large so there are no gerrymandering issues) + term limits + parliamentary style executive (Prime Minister instead of President)Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Can you think of a better System of Goverment ?
With all the different points of view, experience, Places we've been and education levels here. Can we think of a better System of Government or improve the ones we have seen employed to date ?
What would you take from which political systems ? What would you avoid ? How would you improve or merely adjust ?
The Party systems - length of public service - campaign rules - media coverage - voting - any one topic or all, Plus any you can think of.
The legislature would not be able to vote on matters that directly affect their own pay and benefits. All raises would require referendums passed by the general populace. Also, all campaign finance reform would be handled through referendums as well.
Legislators would serve for 4 years per term and would be limited to 2 terms (as a lifetime limit, not just a consecutive limit). Prime Ministers would be determined as in the parliamentary system where the party with the most seats would select their party leader as PM. Also, things like votes of no confidence would be part of the system, as would coalition governments.
All programs would be pay-as-you-go. All bills would require an explicit explanation of exactly where the funding is coming from and any new taxes involved. Riders would be completely prohibited, so no pork could be added to bills during the legislative process.
Citizenship would be a revised form of jus sanguinis, where at least one parent/guardian must be a citizen at the time of the child's birth for automatic citizenship to be granted. Otherwise, the child would eventually have to go through the naturalization process in order to obtain citizenship.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's funny, I figured you would agree with the pay as you go idea as well as the referendums for pay raises.
I agreed with all of it except Norwegian style social programs.Turquoise wrote:
That's funny, I figured you would agree with the pay as you go idea as well as the referendums for pay raises.
You'd run into a problem with the citizenship thing though. You'd end up with a bunch of people in legal limbo and with no nationality.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-10 14:27:34)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So that's the dealbreaker, eh?JohnG@lt wrote:
I agreed with all of it except Norwegian style social programs.Turquoise wrote:
That's funny, I figured you would agree with the pay as you go idea as well as the referendums for pay raises.
Of course it is.Turquoise wrote:
So that's the dealbreaker, eh?JohnG@lt wrote:
I agreed with all of it except Norwegian style social programs.Turquoise wrote:
That's funny, I figured you would agree with the pay as you go idea as well as the referendums for pay raises.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The poll tax is the dealbreaker for me concerning yours.JohnG@lt wrote:
Of course it is.Turquoise wrote:
So that's the dealbreaker, eh?JohnG@lt wrote:
I agreed with all of it except Norwegian style social programs.
Like I said, I'm not advocating a direct money exchange for the right to vote. Universal suffrage just doesn't work, not when you have such a large percentage of the populace not paying into the system. We bitch about our politicians campaigning to the lowest common societal denominator in order to woo them with promises of handouts. Politicians would no longer be able to do this.Turquoise wrote:
The poll tax is the dealbreaker for me concerning yours.JohnG@lt wrote:
Of course it is.Turquoise wrote:
So that's the dealbreaker, eh?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
When they pander to corporations, it costs a lot more -- like with the bailouts.JohnG@lt wrote:
Like I said, I'm not advocating a direct money exchange for the right to vote. Universal suffrage just doesn't work, not when you have such a large percentage of the populace not paying into the system. We bitch about our politicians campaigning to the lowest common societal denominator in order to woo them with promises of handouts. Politicians would no longer be able to do this.Turquoise wrote:
The poll tax is the dealbreaker for me concerning yours.JohnG@lt wrote:
Of course it is.
I'm not so concerned about the bread and circus vote when looking at how much corporate interests rape the system as compared to the poor. And in some cases, they aren't paying into the system either -- like Exxon with income taxes.
And as I keep telling you, that is only possible because people like you want them to monkey around in the economy with regulations and other crap. There needs to be a clear separation of business and state like there is for church and state. Remove the corruption.Turquoise wrote:
When they pander to corporations, it costs a lot more -- like with the bailouts.JohnG@lt wrote:
Like I said, I'm not advocating a direct money exchange for the right to vote. Universal suffrage just doesn't work, not when you have such a large percentage of the populace not paying into the system. We bitch about our politicians campaigning to the lowest common societal denominator in order to woo them with promises of handouts. Politicians would no longer be able to do this.Turquoise wrote:
The poll tax is the dealbreaker for me concerning yours.
I'm not so concerned about the bread and circus vote when looking at how much corporate interests rape the system as compared to the poor. And in some cases, they aren't paying into the system either -- like Exxon with income taxes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
....and so it begins again. For the sake of the rest of the forum, I'm going to stop derailing this thread.JohnG@lt wrote:
And as I keep telling you, that is only possible because people like you want them to monkey around in the economy with regulations and other crap. There needs to be a clear separation of business and state like there is for church and state. Remove the corruption.Turquoise wrote:
When they pander to corporations, it costs a lot more -- like with the bailouts.JohnG@lt wrote:
Like I said, I'm not advocating a direct money exchange for the right to vote. Universal suffrage just doesn't work, not when you have such a large percentage of the populace not paying into the system. We bitch about our politicians campaigning to the lowest common societal denominator in order to woo them with promises of handouts. Politicians would no longer be able to do this.
I'm not so concerned about the bread and circus vote when looking at how much corporate interests rape the system as compared to the poor. And in some cases, they aren't paying into the system either -- like Exxon with income taxes.
Good call.Turquoise wrote:
....and so it begins again. For the sake of the rest of the forum, I'm going to stop derailing this thread.JohnG@lt wrote:
And as I keep telling you, that is only possible because people like you want them to monkey around in the economy with regulations and other crap. There needs to be a clear separation of business and state like there is for church and state. Remove the corruption.Turquoise wrote:
When they pander to corporations, it costs a lot more -- like with the bailouts.
I'm not so concerned about the bread and circus vote when looking at how much corporate interests rape the system as compared to the poor. And in some cases, they aren't paying into the system either -- like Exxon with income taxes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The most well planned system of government is still subject to the corruption, laziness, and greed of imperfect people.
Doesn't matter how many perfectly written laws are on the books when those laws are ignored, willfully misinterpreted, unfunded, or skirted with loopholes, bribes, corruption, and negligence.
The education and upbringing of the next generation of citizens is as important as the form of government.
Without being an Orwellian totalitarian state, it is exceptionally difficult to mandate exactly what values, ethics, morals, and productive skills the next generation is imbued with. Parents and peers take this education and upbringing as their inherent right, and apply it haphazardly at best.
With a perfectly moral and ethical population, even communism or socialism works.
To each according to their need, from each according to their ability doesn't work in the real world.
Real world is more like From each according to their need, to each according to their ability (i.e., people will do just what they need to, and expect to make top dollar for their meager skills).
An ideal system of government would have to take the above points into primary consideration.
It's a frightening observation that those with the most effective insights into governing are generally those with the least morals, and those with the loftiest of ideals are the least effective at actually governing in reality.
Doesn't matter how many perfectly written laws are on the books when those laws are ignored, willfully misinterpreted, unfunded, or skirted with loopholes, bribes, corruption, and negligence.
The education and upbringing of the next generation of citizens is as important as the form of government.
Without being an Orwellian totalitarian state, it is exceptionally difficult to mandate exactly what values, ethics, morals, and productive skills the next generation is imbued with. Parents and peers take this education and upbringing as their inherent right, and apply it haphazardly at best.
With a perfectly moral and ethical population, even communism or socialism works.
To each according to their need, from each according to their ability doesn't work in the real world.
Real world is more like From each according to their need, to each according to their ability (i.e., people will do just what they need to, and expect to make top dollar for their meager skills).
An ideal system of government would have to take the above points into primary consideration.
It's a frightening observation that those with the most effective insights into governing are generally those with the least morals, and those with the loftiest of ideals are the least effective at actually governing in reality.
Today's version of democracy - today's political corruption = win
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Duke Nukem for President : 2012Graphic-J wrote:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e56/s … ks/dvr.jpg
Anything which doesn't inevitably lead to a two-party state but still allows for stable government.
Proportional representation with no fixed govt term, just 1/5 of representatives up for re-election every year.
Proportional representation with no fixed govt term, just 1/5 of representatives up for re-election every year.
Fuck Israel
I like that Graphic ! the Republican Predator has all the Cool Guns and Enhanced Vision Equipment butGraphic-J wrote:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e56/s … ks/dvr.jpg
the Democrat Alien Bleeds Acid. whoa ! Watch were you are standing this November !
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-10 17:32:54)
JohnG@lt wrote:
It wasn't only military service, it was other forms of service as well. The idea is that only people who have been willing to lay down their own lives for their country should have a say in how it is run. Those who aren't willing obviously don't care enough that they should have their voice heard. If there is any book I would recommend on here it's Starship Troopers. Fantastic book.
I think it should go further. Think people should have to pass a Political Awareness test to get a voter's license and have done 4 years of Federal or State service and have paid income taxes for the last four years.Macbeth wrote:
I understand that, like I said before--fuck that.
I don't think that people who do some sort of structured government approved service to their country has anymore of a right to decide how it is run then the kids who piss away their parents money creating art in college. I think that everyone who is a legal citizen of an area should have a say in it's governance. Also if your goal is to create a stronger more caring society then disenfranchising people who don't do government service is a great way to create instability due to lose of government legitimacy.
Also for someone who claims to be a freedom loving libertarian, mandatory service to that state in return for a right as basic as suffrage is an awfully semi-fascist view.
As for science fiction novels, I liked the pessimistic view of the military, state, and government that The Forever War had. It's considered by many to be the counter balance to Starship troopers.
First, if you are not educated on the issues and political system, your vote is more of a hazard than a benefit as you're going to be swayed by bullshit advertising and PR spin. Just as you have to prove a minimal competence for a driver's license or any other potentially hazardous undertaking, you should have to prove you are competent enough to be entrusted with a vote.
Second, if you have not invested into the system, what right do you have to determine the direction of the system?
Simply existing and breathing should not entitle one to a vote, you should have to earn that right.
Four years as an intern at a hospital, in the military, as a fire fighter, as a paramedic, on a Federal or State "Broom Trust" as a street cleaner, as a Masters or PhD candidate working on projects of "national significance", or as an aide to an elected official. Does not have to be military service - no forced induction, no goose stepping around singing Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Stadt, Ein Coca Cola - Heil Mickey Mouse.