Only significant property owners should be allowed to vote.

[ALPHA.]

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?

[1714849380]

1714849380

[1714849380]

1714849380

[Jalum]

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.

[btc_artist]

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

[ALPHA.]

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.

[JA37]

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.

[RodeoX]

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?

[MimiTheKid]

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.

[ALPHA.]

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.

How is this similar? I'm curious.

Or do it the anarcho way and let the guy with the biggest gun rule.

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.

[ALPHA.]

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 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.

[btc_artist]

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.

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

[JA37]

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.

How is this similar? I'm curious.

Or do it the anarcho way and let the guy with the biggest gun rule.

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.

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.

[ALPHA.]

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.

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.

[ALPHA.]

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.

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

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.

[ALPHA.]

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.

How is this similar? I'm curious.

Or do it the anarcho way and let the guy with the biggest gun rule.

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.

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.

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.

[MimiTheKid]

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.
  

[RodeoX]

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 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.

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.

[btc_artist]

The only point of a government should be is to protect and sustain property rights.

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.

[Hawker]

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?

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

[MoonShadow]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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?

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

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.