Bitcoin Forum

This is an old concept but good one. This used to apply in this nation and I certainly preferred it.

Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others? Shouldn't the law that regulates property only be handled by the property owners that the law mainly affects in the first place?

Hahaha you're the literal embodiment of the "Fuck you, got mine!" spoiled child.

Only people whose last name starts with B should be allowed to vote.

It's not the same. We're talking about force and people's property here and the rules that regulate it. Only including those who are affected by the laws is very relevant.

Why not do away with voting and go straight for a god appointed king instead? Title inherited by first born child so you'll be sure there will be successors.
It's worked in the past. Or do it the anarcho way and let the guy with the biggest gun rule.

The problem I see with this is that most people would have no self interest in your government. I say YOUR government because it would not involve most people. How do you think those people are going to feel if you try making laws that apply to them?  >:(
When they begin planting IED's to get your motorcade, who is going to arrest them? The cop who earns just enough to pay rent?

It's extremly easy. You would loose,
because there are some people like me, who have got so much money, that they take your money too, and you have to work for them. Like a slave.

Sounds unfair for you. But I don't care, poor boy.

How is this similar? I'm curious.



That's what we have now. We already have monopolies on force. The biggest guns are called governments. An ideal anarchy is one of no rulers, where everybody has the ability to own the same amount of guns. However, this doesn't mean no rules.

It wouldn't be of any benefit to place laws upon proles. They have little value to cease. It would be a net loss to blow up motorcycles of poor people. Assuming this democracy is place under good moral governance, the property laws would be limited to commercial code and not individual persons; this is the case in regards to my original argument.

It is equally insane. Voting affects many thousands of things, one of which is property owners' rights.

How it's similar? It's an equally shitty idea.

Yep, biggest guns are the governments. They are responsible to the people. A warlord isn't.

Life is not a zero-sum game. You can't have a monopoly on actual wealth and it doesn't apply exclusively to money. Any peasant on the street can earn the skills or have the insight necessary to create enormous wealth through increased efficiency and innovation.

Wealth is not finite in terms of human desires. It never has been.

I am only arguing this in the case of property and commercial code. I really don't know why law should affect anything else. The only point of a government should be is to protect and sustain property rights.

No they aren't. A monopoly on force is only accountable to its most valuable beneficiary. A government can't be held accountable to a powerless populace. Providers of the monetary supply and commodities on the other hand can easily take hold of a government.

A government stands under the highest bidder.

It isn't the people especially if they have no guns nor any control over the monetary supply.

You don't get it.

I voted for the law, that prohibts you to earn money, because you don't have my amount of education, companies ...

Stop talking and go to work! Ah I forgot to tell you.
Because of the economic crisis we voted:
that all not "female europeans" have to work 65 hours a week, and they will get the money for their work on the first of April 2012.
  

I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that only property owners would be able to vote. In which case you do not have a democracy, you have something more like a fascist oligarchy. I don't know what percent of Americans are property owners, but it must be small. Remember that in a family, only one person likely owns the house.

I agree with a libertarian point of view, but anarchy is not in our best interests. United we stand, divided we fall.  We need a Federal government so we can organize our collective defense, negotiate with other nations, to defend (not grant, obviously) our natural rights such as life, liberty, self-defense, etc.  Government is also useful to mediate between people when there are disagreements.

So, no, protecting property rights is no the only function of government.

You are too soft on the spineless losers who make up the citizenry of your fair land.  Only the 1% should have the vote. 

This is an old idea that was connected to the concept that landowners were those in society most closely associated with the local area, because the 'mobility' (where we get the term 'the mob' from) are able to move away from areas that the political environment is hostile.  This principle didn't really work then, and is even less true today.  That said, I understand the sentiment.  If voting were just in modern democracies, only those who have contributed a net-positive amount of money to the government should have any say in how it is directed.  Of course, requiring that voters prove that they paid more in taxes to the government than they received in direct benefits is likely impossible, and the idea is also probably unconsitutional.

Ironicly, less than 1% actually do have a vote.  The ritutual of voting for president every four years is an official poll, not a vote.  Nor is it 'democracy' in any direct sense.  The citizen casts his vote for his choice, then electors are gathered together to vote on who is president.  It's called the electoral system, and it usually has the same results, but it hasn't always and doesn't have to.  Most states bind their electors to the majority will of the state's citizenry for the first vote, but if there isn't a majority winner the first go, the electors can then vote for whomever they wish.  Very few states bind their electors for as many as three votes, but none beyond that.  Even so, the consequences for voting contrary (it's not a secret vote, btw) are not all that huge.

Yeah, the electoral college has got to go.

One day you will look back at your clown statements, and say to yourself Atlas. WTF was I thinking?

Why a lot of people think, that markets do not need external rules.

Rules don't emerge on their own, because of "moral hazard" and the Prisener's dilemma. There is no reason, why not breaking the rules, when it is for my advantage.

Even Greenspan thought that banks don't need regulations because they would appear, when needed, and caused the suprime-crisis and some other problems for the Us. Ooops. Happens from time to time. It was all for the economy.
And then he regulated the market via money-printing and buying of bonds.

Of course, that would take nothing less than a constitutional amendment, and there are way too many people who take advantage of the system that would be unwilling to risk losing any perceived advantage to let it go easily.  And to what end, then?  Parlimentary systems such as a  common in Europe are easily just as easily screwed with.  A direct vote would actually be worse for voter fraud in the US than is common today, and a great many people would still agree with the original reasons for having an electoral college, namely as a means for the political class to insure against an ignorant electorate making a horrible choice.

Is your labor not significant enough?

Common Law covers contract law pretty well in terms of labor. Commercial Code should be limited to labor and that's what newly mandated statutes apply to.

Why would you like to remove yourself from the voting pool? I mean, you cannot vote right now but when you finally are old enough to do so you're free to not do it. You don't need any legislation to stop you.

That's not the principle I am arguing for. I only want the law to stop allowing others to take property to only use for their own irrational self-interest. A good portion of the voting populace has nothing to lose from stealing through democratic means because they have no significant property that needs protection under the law. Property owners do. If the voting pool was left to only property owners, it would be against their self-interest to steal because it would mean their property would be stolen.

Preventing me from voting is moot. It doesn't solve the issue at hand. It's not an individual one but a societal one dealing with property rights. If I were to ever gain significant property, I wouldn't want it to be voted away by other people and that does not include only myself.

Again, your point is moot and irrelevant.

Us property owners just voted to take your guns away and use them to force you into a gay marriage.  How do you like us now?  ;D

Unconstitutional on a federal-basis and -- again -- I hold that law should only apply to commercial code dealing with the protection of property.

Social laws are unjustified in any case.

Property owners can have more sway -- it's called buying votes, people. Give people free food, and tell them how great a candidate is--politicians are not the only ones who can be purchased with gifts.

The way I look at the government is that it's a company. I have stock in it, purchased with my tax dollars. I get to elect who's in charge, and vote on very important decisions -- otherwise I let the people who are in charge do their job. If it gets to the point where I don't have faith in their business model, I'll switch my assets to a different company (by moving). Right now though, I think that USA Government Co. is doing a pretty good job.

To another country controlled by the central-banking oligarchy. Gotcha.

Somalia. Afghanistan.
I'm sure you can find refuge from the "central-banking oligarchy" there. Start packing.

Well, to address your point directly I think it is a *great* idea to allow non-property owners to be able to vote in issues that have to deal with property rights. Yes, it is your property, you "wouldn't want it to be voted away by other people" but, what if that property was gained by unjust means? would you be capable to actually do the right thing, to vote and get rid of that property and change the laws to prevent it from happening again? Maybe you would be able to but I highly doubt that most people would do so. So, if only the guys with property are allowed to vote (about property laws) the laws will gradually favor them more and more, making it harder for the guys with little property (like you) to enter the club.

Yes, sometimes injustices are done against property owners and their stuff gets quite literally stolen. But your solution would create an even bigger problem. So yup, not only do I find your idea morally repugnant, but also bad for the society in general (it would most certainly lead to an even worse distribution of wealth/property). So, as a property owner, who most certainly has waaayyyyy more property than a high school kid (this is not jab against you, it's normal for a guy with your age/background to have very little property) I welcome you to vote about this in such a way that will benefit you because I don't think that having stuff makes my opinion more important than yours.

So go vote when you get the chance. You deserve it just for being there, even if you would like to take that right away!   HOW COOL IS THAT!?.  Welcome to a modern society.

No, likely not. Probably an Eastern European country, possibly somewhere like Vietnam or Cambodia, maybe Mexico -- places where the government does not do a terribly good job of protecting citizens and enforcing laws (at least when presented with enough force/money). I'd have to hire some security, pay for improvement of roads to my business/etc, but I would probably be paying the same for that as I would in taxes.

Note: This isn't really what I'd do -- but that's not important. What is important is that under the people who would have enough power to significantly change things under the proposed system either:

a) Already do, through lobbying.
b) Have enough capital to do what I suggested above, if they felt it was necessary.

Besides, I think the demographics would surprise you -- most people who have nothing can't be bothered to vote.

But why wouldn't property owners do away with that pesky constitution? Once in power new laws could be made to further entrench power for the greater glory of property owners. Anyone who doesn't like it can vote... Oh wait, no they can't, they are just surfs and peasants.
 
Your approach might work at a smaller scale, a commune or something. But a two tier democracy seems oxymoronic.

Alpha, you're getting a little (lol) out of hand with these.

Wouldn't this just take power away from land owning businesses that didn't have definite owners? They can no longer hold a grass roots grasp on democracy by in-house propaganda and bulletins about what is in the best interest of the company (AKA their jobs) regarding upcoming elections/votes.

Or could someone owning shares in a corporation claim to own a percentage of the land assets of the company?  That way they can just offer the minimum amount of stocks to allow their wage-slaves to vote the way they wish.

In a Bank ruled society, no matter what people vote, they always end up with the same thing

Can I vote how much money Bernanke will print next month? Can I vote how much interest rate the bank will charge for my loan?

Financially it is still monarchy, this need to be changed

Everyone take a number and line up, the bride is getting antsy  :P

How about this:

Everyone is allowed to vote--BUT they're only allowed to use those votes for political decisions (They're not allowed to "take a vote" when it comes to basic human rights like life/liberty/property, since those things are sacrosanct. Instead, voting is restricted to political decisions only.)



"You shall not go after the majority to do evil.
Neither shall you testify in a matter of strife
to incline after the majority to pervert justice."
Exodus 23:2

"Do not pervert justice;
do not show partiality to the poor
or favoritism to the strong,
but judge your neighbor fairly."
Leviticus 19:15

"Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the courts."
Amos 5:15

"Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and
inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
Deuteronomy 16:20



http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G002

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

More lolziness about God, morals and rights  ::)

Ooga-Booga! Come join the invisible friend club, let the childish awe of supernaturalism be a lifetime limitation. You may pick up your necklace of bananas at the door  ;D

In your attempts to reject God, you have rejected Bastiat and all of your Western freedoms to boot.

:-)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your children."
Hosea 4:6

If you are a citizen you get a vote.

Here's what your vote gets you, if we fail to distinguish between right and wrong:


http://sidewalkbubblegum.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sidewalk_bubblegum_068.gif

The US has the Bill of Rights.

The USA has a Bill of Rights due to the Enlightenment, and due to its Judeo-Christian heritage.

Stuff like the Bill of Rights was my whole point when I wrote this:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53366.msg648981#msg648981

Here is a better proposal:

People should vote for policies, not politicians.

Votes should create a contractual obligation for politicians to deliver what has been voted on. If a politician fails to deliver, resignation is mandatory.

Each policy's success should be measured by an idependent "supreme court", according to criteria defined clearly before the voting process.

There should be a "vote deposit".

Votes should be weighed according to how much money each voter deposits for that particular policy voted upon. This deposit will only be returned to the voter after X years if the policy has been deemed successful. If the policy is deemed unsuccessful, the deposit will be used to compensate those who voted against it.

I have a better idea.

Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.

Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?

After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?

Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?

I don't know enough about IQ tests to go along with this.

If you knew anything about IQ tests and their history you'd scream "hell no" and spank whoever suggested such a bad idea.

ah, read my signature...  ;D

"poors shouldn't be allowed to vote. they only vote for things that make their own lives better!! what a bunch of fuck heads."

- atlas

"In the Country of test takers, the test maker is King" -H. G. Wells

This ^

lol

Nice quote...

In order to vote, you must prove P=NP... I have the answer.. to verify your eligibility.. btw: I get to vote too... :)

If I don't accept all of Bastiat's beliefs, then I must reject all of them?  False dichotomy.


I don't need to resort to mysticism in order to have a moral code.  Because of the universal preferences of humanity (typically referred to as human nature) and the universal reality within which humanity exists, one can glean universal truths (a moral code) that are compatible with said human nature and reality.  Those who can come to these truths through their own cognizance and reasoning, and not simply rely on the conclusions of others, have a foundation for the most solid, contradiction-free morality possible.

How has that Bill of Rights been working out?  An old piece of paper won't protect you from immoral people with power.

"My time is destroyed by your stupid posts:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I am ignoring you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the laws of logic,
I will also forget your children."

Me 4:15 ;)

You forgot to put an AR in Bob's hand, the issue would have been 'tabled.'

There aren't votes like these taking place in the United States government. No US politician is stupid enough to have a vote that might jeopardize their own seat.

Besides... killing is handled by the executive branch anyway.

If we want to start discussing the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, I think it should be held somewhere else.