Speaking of Revolution

[Second Amendment]

SERVICE = CITIZENSHIP

Would you like to know more?

Unless you're Fleet, don't worry everybody gets the shakes before a drop

Caught Starship Troopers last night on tv?

 

[Huckleberry]

Caught Starship Troopers last night on tv?

Nope, never saw it

 

[HarCo2ANewb]

And then all of our military folks who haven't bought because they keep expecting to move would suddenly be unable to vote.

That can be fixed by an easy carve out.

The goal is to slide the intelligence of the electorate curve back towards "not totally retarded" and when you can eliminate 5 million of the dumbest by doing this, why not?

 

[Multifaceted]

Considering that more than half the people in that discussion have done zero research on anarchy as a historical subject, I don't much care what they have to say...

If you've grazed over my comments in that discussion then you'd know where I stand on the matter. I was simply pointing that out before this thread bears off topic like what happened in the Kokesh armed D.C. march thread. We don't need to argue over the merits or shortfalls of the anarchist view, but that appears to already have happened.

 

[BigToe]

The 2nd amendment was constructed to avoid a revolt by making it possible to have a successful one. Unfortunately, todays civilian weaponry is archaic compared to what the government has at it's disposal. We would certainly lose a revolt if it came to that. All we can hope for is that we have enough people willing to fight, so the govt. will realize that although they would survive a revolt, it would certainly be very messy.

 

[abean4187]

If you've grazed over my comments in that discussion then you'd know where I stand on the matter. I was simply pointing that out before this thread bears off topic like what happened in the Kokesh armed D.C. march thread. We don't need to argue over the merits or shortfalls of the anarchist view, but that appears to already have happened.

Yeah, I'm going to delete my response. It is impossible to talk on discussion boards about stuff like this because you end up having to write a book on it. Considering that I have already been called a jackass and other ad hominem attacks by some guy with an obvious hero complex, I no longer have a desire to discuss as it can't be done civilly here.

This stuff is much better for face to face talks. If anyone in interested in learning about anarchy there are multiple sources online. No need for me to regurgitate talking points.

 

[BondJamesBond]

I know a lot of people including myself are asking themselves when is enough and when is the line in the sand crossed. With a lot of talk about citizen uprising to take back what is lost the question comes to mind:

If you take it back it must be replaced with something. Something always replaces it with something new.

The next question:

With the same people that vote, wont the same problem reoccur......

Good point. Revolution often has unintended consequences and the people often end up worse off.

The French Revolution gave them Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution gave them Lenin / Stalin.

The Cuban "Revolution" gave them Castro.

The Iranian Revolution gave them the Ayatollah.

 

[jpo183]

Good point. Revolution often has unintended consequences and the people often end up worse off.

The French Revolution gave them Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution gave them Lenin / Stalin.

The Cuban "Revolution" gave them Castro.

The Iranian Revolution gave them the Ayatollah.

So how do you do this without falling into the same pattern.

IMO the Constitution IS the best form of government created by man yet. The problem is it is not being followed.

 

[Sc0tt556]

Good point. Revolution often has unintended consequences and the people often end up worse off.

The French Revolution gave them Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution gave them Lenin / Stalin.

The Cuban "Revolution" gave them Castro.

The Iranian Revolution gave them the Ayatollah.

.....You don't have to look that far in history: Arab-Spring.... and who's in charge of these countries as a result of "Unintended Consequences?" Scary times we live in.....

 

[Multifaceted]

Good point. Revolution often has unintended consequences and the people often end up worse off.

The French Revolution gave them Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution gave them Lenin / Stalin.

The Cuban "Revolution" gave them Castro.

The Iranian Revolution gave them the Ayatollah.

Excellent examples.

Even more interesting is that the Iranians had a "revolution" before that, one of culture —to which they had a more democratic society. When Mosaddegh was toppled and the Shah installed, the policies and overall ill practices by his regime lead to the cultural overthrow of the Shah and a reformation of old traditions into the quasi-theocratic/oligarchy type society we still see today. A lot of anti-western sentiments were either spawned or fomented by the coup d'état.

It goes to show that society is very volatile in times of revolution. Too many variables exist to predict any one outcome.

 

[Sthomas229]

Property ownership is the wrong way to go, Everyone should be working and paying taxes to vote. If you take out more than you put in, no vote.

 

[Second Amendment]

Nope, never saw it

Come onnnnnn.......

 

[BondJamesBond]

So how do you do this without falling into the same pattern.

IMO the Constitution IS the best form of government created by man yet. The problem is it is not being followed.

The problem is that revolutions are usually initiated because of a frustrated populace who will listen to anyone who says what they want to hear, regardless of the political or economic feasibility of the message.

 

[MaxVO2]

Just make it so you need to own property in order to vote. Fixed.

****Funny. Aristotle wrote about this before our nations founders were even born. This thinking had a profound influence on many of of our founders including Madison, Jay, Hamilton, and others which is why we did not end up with a democracy (essentially mob rule).

One of the principal reasons our nation is so wealthy is because the government, as the founders intended it, was to protect the personal property of individuals from unjust confiscation.

The pendulum has unfortunately swung in the wrong direction with such landmark cases as Kelo vs New London, and others where the government can confiscate private property for more lucrative use (generate more tax revenue, etc...) for something other than the "public good" as had been done to construct railroads, the highway system, etc...

Government based upon true majority rule almost always leads to organized theft from the wealthy to the majority who are not wealthy. Progressive taxation, where one group (the poor majority) is voting through their representatives to confiscate the fruits of some other persons labor in ever greater amounts is how other nations and empires have imploded.

A true democracy is incompatible with strong property rights, and as more people in the USA feel that they are entitled to more of other people's wealth, the worse things will get for just about everyone.

Requiring ownership of property to vote would make too much sense and will not happen in our current political climate.

 

[jpo183]

The problem is that revolutions are usually initiated because of a frustrated populace who will listen to anyone who says what they want to hear, regardless of the political or economic feasibility of the message.

Ok so what would you call a group of people (lets just say MDS for example) of people that know what they want (constitutionality) and are not just blowing where the wind goes.

I know this is a broad statement, but I am not talking about a revolution where the population is mad because they are hungry and starving. Im talking about a political revolution.

 

[vector03]

Would people who own more than 1 property get more than 1 vote? Would it be a weighted voting system?

 

[fred2207]

To limit voting to those with skin in the game.

Your skin in the game theory is flawed, if not outright stupid---I believe both. When I originally enlisted in the USAF, I owned no property and by the time I purchased property, I had served well over 5 years. As for as not having skin in the game before I purchased property, I find your theory not only flawed and stupid, I also find it insulting to myself and to all those who have served that did not own property. IMO we most certainly had/have skin in the game. To all those who believe the way you do, it is your right, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone should know the drill....
Fred

 

[jpo183]

Your skin in the game theory is flawed, if not outright stupid---I believe both. When I originally enlisted in the USAF, I owned no property and by the time I purchased property, I had served well over 5 years. As for as not having skin in the game before I purchased property, I find your theory not only flawed and stupid, I also find it insulting to myself and to all those who have served that did not own property. IMO we most certainly had/have skin in the game. To all those who believe the way you do, it is your right, but as far as I'm concerned, you know what part of my anatomy you can kiss....
Fred

It has been clarified that property ownership meant they were paying taxes.

Pay taxes = skin in the game.

Back when property owners could vote there were no income taxes. But there was property tax.

 

[Second Amendment]

Your skin in the game theory is flawed, if not outright stupid---I believe both. When I originally enlisted in the USAF, I owned no property and by the time I purchased property, I had served well over 5 years. As for as not having skin in the game before I purchased property, I find your theory not only flawed and stupid, I also find it insulting to myself and to all those who have served that did not own property. IMO we most certainly had/have skin in the game. To all those who believe the way you do, it is your right, but as far as I'm concerned, you know what part of my anatomy you can kiss....
Fred

Hey douchebag, get a grip. I was answering WHY people advocate that only property owners should vote. If you read original posts and my response to them, you would have figured that out. Go pound sand you idiot.

 

[TLL]

That can be fixed by an easy carve out.

The goal is to slide the intelligence of the electorate curve back towards "not totally retarded" and when you can eliminate 5 million of the dumbest by doing this, why not?

So property owners , whatever that is, and people who serve in the military are not "totally retarded" but everyone else is.
You are the one that is totally retarded.

Tapatalk is crashing crap