People have gotten a lot stupider. Back when we were wild animals if you were dumb odds were you would probably get yourself killed. Even if you weren’t killed, you would probably injure yourself which might lead to a sooner death, therefore lack of stupid people reproducing. Also if your parents are dumb, that means you will be too as we had no school and learnt most skills from our parents. Now we have doctors and medicine we have eliminated natural selection and have way more stupid people alive.
Eisenhower or Trump
Posts
Total:
19
We even gave them right to vote.
The vote of 90 IQ person counts same as vote of 160 IQ person.
Entire ancient world would laugh at that, but today, it is reality.
-->
@Best.Korea
Low IQ people cut and paste from random reddit users because they have superior thoughts.
-->
@Best.Korea
We even gave them right to vote.The vote of 90 IQ person counts same as vote of 160 IQ person.Entire ancient world would laugh at that, but today, it is reality.
So a qualification is needed in order to vote? How about owning property? How about paying taxes? An IQ test would be good too. Or maybe the ability to know how the government works. We would weed out so many useful idiots out of the democrat party.
-->
@DavidAZZ
We even gave them right to vote.The vote of 90 IQ person counts same as vote of 160 IQ person.Entire ancient world would laugh at that, but today, it is reality.So a qualification is needed in order to vote? How about owning property? How about paying taxes? An IQ test would be good too. Or maybe the ability to know how the government works. We would weed out so many useful idiots out of the democrat party.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, we haven't yet implemented the rules:
Must be currently alive
Must be a citizen
As I have laid out in many posts throughout my internet existence we can easily separate economic interest "votes" from ethical application votes through an extremely elegant rule:
The people with the money, choose how the money is spent. People cannot spend other people's money.
There ya go, fixed. Don't need to bring in property, intelligence, this or that. You want to influence public economics you have exactly as much power as your bank account balance and you don't need to threaten or take from anyone to do it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You want to influence public economics you have exactly as much power as your bank account balance and you don't need to threaten or take from anyone to do it.
Ooh! I like it. Then it will depend on the drive of the individual to actually achieve in life instead of sucking off the government/others.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You should get 1 vote per tax tier then.
-->
@Greyparrot
You should get 1 vote per tax tier then.
I mean that's moving in the same direction in some sense but it's not a good intermediate step.
I am not saying people with a lot of money should have power over other people. I'm saying other people shouldn't have power over people with money. What you suggest would simply create a dictatorship of the rich.
I am talking about society built on consent.
There is a fundamental difference between public economics and public morality. Today in the USA and in most countries they are shoved together in a diseased and unnatural bucket.
It's no different from when the state religion had clergy as a major part of the government and the government decided theology. There was no good reason for it and it led to a lot of bad things. Separation of church and state was a huge improvement in the American experiment and the next step is separation of public economics and government proper (public morality) i.e. the law.
Law is about regulating immoral behavior, defining it, limiting the scope of punishments.
That has absolutely nothing to do with building a bridge.
Yet the same body handles both and there is the presumption that the decision about whether to build a bridge (and who will pay for it) ought to be decided by the same body people and with the same influence as whether abortion is wrong or the homosexuals should be castrated (for example).
That presumption is wrong. It's wrong morally and it's wrong practically. The people who should decide whether the public needs a bridge is the public weighted by the amount of money they're willing to spend on a bridge. That answers both the question of "is it worth it?" and "who is going to pay for it?" at the same time and without coercion or the looming temptation to enslave the producers.
Imagine how that would look in recent controversies. It would be two separate questions:
1.) Does the USA condemn the invasion of Ukraine; that is a moral question. 1 person 1 vote.
2.) Will the USA send $200 billion (or whatever) to Ukraine in weapons to keep the war going? Put your money where your mouth is.
1.) Is a quarantine in response to covid moral? 1 person 1 vote. Obviously economic implications, but it's not spending money
2.) Who is going to pay for experimental super expensive vaccines for the whole nation? Put your money where your mouth is.
Without the ability to steal money government corruption would plummet. Most of the subversives are just there to steal our money and if they can't do that they won't bother with the lies that confuse and twist the moral questions.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Imagine women get no say in wars at all until they spill blood on the field by draft mandate.
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't see a reason to make the gender explicit, but the kind of citizenship enfranchisement you see in starship troopers (the book) deserves some thought.
Again, I wouldn't make it general. It would be if anything a system with three body politics:
1.) General population, determine general moral application (all laws are applications of the base moral principles enshrined in the constitution)
2.) Wealth holders, determine public economic activity by coordinated donations
3.) The soldier-citizen population, final say on war and other public services where one must risk one's life.
So you want to go to war you need all three:
You need the general population to agree the war is moral. You need the wealth holders to be willing to pay for it. Finally you need the people who will actually risk their lives to consent.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why don't you run for office? You seem to have some good ideas.
-->
@DavidAZZ
You don't run for office when you have good ideas, you run for office when you know how to implement a popular idea.Why don't you run for office? You seem to have some good ideas.
Ideas can be shared, if you like an idea spread it. Maybe someday it will be popular enough and then it won't matter if I implement it or someone else does.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Must be currently alive
That seems to be obvious. You probably meant to say that the voters must be 18 or more.
-->
@IlDiavolo
It is a dark joke that the dead are voting, what is really referred to is election fraud.
Cheaters steal the identity of citizens but sometimes they make a mistake and steal the identity of a dead person.
That's why we have confirmed examples of dead people registering to vote and casting ballots.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As far as I know when someone goes to vote he has to identify with an ID and his fingerprint, at least the later. I'm not sure how it is in the US but the electoral system is more robust when it uses the fingerprint to identify the voter.
-->
@IlDiavolo
you can fake a signature on a mail-in ballot, and nobody will be able to catch the person who did it.
No fingerprint, no ID.
-->
@Greyparrot
And why do you keep using it if it's not reliable? It doesnt make sense.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Because the current cultural spirit in America is to prioritize accessibility to vote over maintaining election integrity. If any conflicts arise, the government will always slash election integrity as a resolution.
-->
@IlDiavolo
As far as I know when someone goes to vote he has to identify with an ID and his fingerprint, at least the later. I'm not sure how it is in the US but the electoral system is more robust when it uses the fingerprint to identify the voter.
In the US you need an address and a name and that's about it. If you use the mail balloting "system" (which they just made up as they went during covid) you can get a ballot sent to any address you want without ever having to show your face.
And why do you keep using it if it's not reliable? It doesnt make sense.
It makes sense if one political faction can block reform and knows that it's easier and safer for their side to cheat.