Gyroscopic Investing

I'll just use your own logic, Kshartle. Excluding people from voting is "self-refuting" and therefore cannot be right. It is "self-refuting" because the very idea of voting is that it gives people a voice in their government; Excluding even a single person implies very strongly that that person does not deserve a voice in his own government, which runs contrary to the central ideal of representative governance--that we all deserve a say in how we are governed.

And if you want a real answer, limiting the vote to only property owners is bad because it simply paves the way for the property owners to use their political power to get the government to oppress the non-voters people. Seen in a certain way, that's basically what slavery was. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that property owners would exercise the restraint that the entire electorate seems incapable of exercising. They're not supermen who can be trusted with the vote. They're ordinary people with desires and goals, who can sometimes be selfish, greedy, or delusional.

The problem is not that too many people can vote. The problem, IMHO, is that of government violence deployed against peaceful people. Who gets to vote only determines who gets to use that power, not whether it is used in the first place. Thus, limiting the vote to only property owners--quite aside from the feasibility of its implementation or preservation--does not solve more problems than it causes.

Pointedstick wrote: And if you want a real answer, limiting the vote to only property owners is bad because it simply paves the way for the property owners to use their political power to get the government to oppress the non-voters people. Seen in a certain way, that's basically what slavery was. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that property owners would exercise the restraint that the entire electorate seems incapable of exercising. They're not supermen who can be trusted with the vote. They're ordinary people with desires and goals, who can sometimes be selfish, greedy, or delusional.

The problem is not that too many people can vote. The problem, IMHO, is that of government violence deployed against peaceful people. Who gets to vote only determines who gets to use that power, not whether it is used in the first place. Thus, limiting the vote to only property owners--quite aside from the feasibility of its implementation or preservation--does not solve more problems than it causes.

Today I took my my wife and grandson to Adventure Acquarium in downtown riverfront Camden, NJ.  I had already been several times so I decided to just drive around the area while they enjoyed the sharks and such.  I have not been that fearful of my life for quite sometime.  Once you got off the main "tourist" roads to the waterfront, oh my!!!!!  Pimps, prostitutes, drug deals going down, boarded up buildings, horrible streets that probably took 5 years off my car life, etc.  I went into a McDonalds for a cup of coffee.  That was an experience, even trying to communicate with the cashier, and then being acosted by some shady looking type while I tried to enjoy the cup.  What really got my attention was all the "working age" people just milling around on every block.  Why don't these people have jobs?  I suddenly realized why "dear follower" is in office.  He was elected by these people.  So, who should vote?  My intellectual compassionate side says everyone.  My practical side says the end of US civilization is near as our leaders purposefully foster this type of culture.  Ugh, what a mess.  I wish there were a good, even satisfactory, solution to this.  If what I saw today is hope and change I sure would hate to experience depression and stagnation.

... Mountaineer

From a utilitarian point of view, and putting on my filthy capitalist bastard elitist hat, it is probably true that giving more power to property owners produces a more civilized society than doing so to the underclasses and the indigent. And more precisely, setting up institutions that encourage people to become property owners with jobs and responsibilities results in society being a nicer place than setting up institutions that encourage people to be poor, unmarried, lazy, irresponsible, unemployed, addicted to drugs, etc.

However, the property owners will inevitably be overwhelmed by the more numerous members of the underclasses. It is simply irresistible that politicians should attempt to capture these votes by expanding the franchise to them. The reason being that votes are the currency of representative governance. Politicians en masse denying certain groups the vote is akin to a business voluntarily choosing not to sell a product to likely customers. It only makes sense if those customers/voters are written off entirely, which explains why Republicans are always trying to make voting harder: they understand that making it easy for poor people and even illegal immigrants to vote benefits the Democrats, not them. Unfortunately for them, they are doomed to failure.

Representative governance is incompatible with elitism. Elites lack the votes, even with all the money in the world. That's simply the way it was set up; it's by design. So we should not be shocked when society sinks to the level of the average voter. ...I mean, wasn't that the whole point!?

This is the time for Ad Orientem to chime in about how much better monarchy was.

Mountaineer wrote:... Camden, NJ... Why don't these people have jobs?  I suddenly realized why "dear follower" is in office.  He was elected by these people.

Wouldn't the mayor of Camden and the governor of NJ have more influence on the situation Camden, NJ is in?

To be fair, Camden has been a disaster zone for quite some time now. According to Wikipedia, the police department and school systems were run by the state between 2005 and 2012 in response to findings of outrageous corruption and incompetence. Three recent mayors have been jailed for similar reasons. Crime is more than 500% of the national average, and the graduation rate is below the state average despite spending substantially more per pupil than average. The unemployment rate stands at nearly 20%.

And, completely coincidentally of course, the city is ruled almost entirely by Democrats! Obama received 91% of the vote in 2008 and only 2% of the population are registered Republicans (!).

Perhaps it is not Obama's fault personally, but it certainly seems like the Democrats have made an almighty mess of the place.

Pointedstick wrote: However, the property owners will inevitably be overwhelmed by the more numerous members of the underclasses. It is simply irresistible that politicians should attempt to capture these votes by expanding the franchise to them. The reason being that votes are the currency of representative governance. Politicians en masse denying certain groups the vote is akin to a business voluntarily choosing not to sell a product to likely customers.

It's a very good analogy. I would add that the "customer base" for the government naturally shrinks over time as the population gets wealthier and wealthier with capitalism. Therefore the government needs to create customers by creating poverty with it's policies, otherwise it would go out of business.

I know people will say it's impossible for everyone to be wealthy but I dissagree. There is no reason everyone in a given area couldn't be wealthy by virtue of hard work and technology. The wealth generated by capitalism would make it clear that problems can be solved through trade and business services rather than appealing to a thug. The rulers can't allow that much wealth, hence the fiat slave money and poverty creating programs like welfare and unemployment.

Anyway that probably will spawn too many branches. Good analogy, and I have sympathy for the Monarchy idea as at least a more sustainable and moral system than democracy, even an absolute monarchy. Especially if I'm the monarch 

Kshartle wrote: Anyway that probably will spawn too many branches. Good analogy, and I have sympathy for the Monarchy idea as at least a more sustainable and moral system than democracy, even an absolute monarchy. Especially if I'm the monarch 

And that's the key problem with monarchy: ensuring that the monarch isn't a madman, an idiot, a tyrant, or a bloodthirsty warmonger.

Simonjester wrote:
or that his inbred, Microcephalic children don't inherit the throne..

Anyway that probably will spawn too many branches. Good analogy, and I have sympathy for the Monarchy idea as at least a more sustainable and moral system than democracy, even an absolute monarchy.

Could you please elaborate on why a monarchy is more moral and sustainable?

Regarding morality, if the only "immoral" act is one of initiating force, then how is monarchy "more moral" than democracy?

And it certainly doesn't appear more stable... How many do we still have today?  And if we are valuing stability, where does an anarchist-laden territory rank? 

moda0306 wrote: Anyway that probably will spawn too many branches. Good analogy, and I have sympathy for the Monarchy idea as at least a more sustainable and moral system than democracy, even an absolute monarchy.

Could you please elaborate on why a monarchy is more moral and sustainable?

Regarding morality, if the only "immoral" act is one of initiating force, then how is monarchy "more moral" than democracy?

And it certainly doesn't appear more stable... How many do we still have today?  And if we are valuing stability, where does an anarchist-laden territory rank?

I've already covered all that and we've discussed it many times, including the monachy vs. Democracy and morality of it.

Not trying to be mean moda.....maybe later I can look for the thread. We all discussed it at length if I remember.

We haven't discussed the stability of it if memory serves.

And regarding the morality of it, we never specifically addressed your contradiction in claiming that initiation of force being the only moral wrong, and then claiming that monarchy is more moral system than democracy because of a non-force-based factor... How they present their "service" to people, and allow people to interact with government.

moda0306 wrote: We haven't discussed the stability of it if memory serves.

And regarding the morality of it, we never specifically addressed your contradiction in claiming that initiation of force being the only moral wrong, and then claiming that monarchy is more moral system than democracy because of a non-force-based factor... How they present their "service" to people, and allow people to interact with government.

There's nothing moral about the force of a monarchy, it's the people that are more moral, in that they don't try to use the government violence and force to solve all their problems or pretend they have a right to force everyone.

moda0306 wrote: We haven't discussed the stability of it if memory serves.

And regarding the morality of it, we never specifically addressed your contradiction in claiming that initiation of force being the only moral wrong, and then claiming that monarchy is more moral system than democracy because of a non-force-based factor... How they present their "service" to people, and allow people to interact with government.

sustainable because the Monarch has a vested interest in seeing the improvement and expansion of wealth so he can pass it onto his heirs, as opposed to individual politicians robbing everyone for votes and power and competing with everyone. They have little to no motivation in things getting better, their focus is exclusively on the present.

Let's make a new thread for monarchy. Hopefully it will attract Ad Orientem, who I believe is the most fervent monarchist among us.

Kshartle wrote: I know people will say it's impossible for everyone to be wealthy but I dissagree. There is no reason everyone in a given area couldn't be wealthy by virtue of hard work and technology. The wealth generated by capitalism would make it clear that problems can be solved through trade and business services rather than appealing to a thug. The rulers can't allow that much wealth, hence the fiat slave money and poverty creating programs like welfare and unemployment.

I agree with this premise, but it is also true that wealth is relative, as is the term "underclass." To a starving African, members of the American underclass look impossibly rich, with their televisions, video game consoles, motor vehicles, refrigerators, and more. Even though a rising tide lifts all boats, it is the nature of people in the boats that are nonetheless lower than other boats to feel envious and jealous. Even 100 years from now when everyone has personal replicators and jet packs, there will still be a segment of society that feels left out and resentful because they don't have personal spaceships with teleporters. So increasing the absolute level of wealth in society--even such that everybody gets more--won't really do anything to stop there being an underclass and prevent politicians from going after their votes.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: We haven't discussed the stability of it if memory serves.

And regarding the morality of it, we never specifically addressed your contradiction in claiming that initiation of force being the only moral wrong, and then claiming that monarchy is more moral system than democracy because of a non-force-based factor... How they present their "service" to people, and allow people to interact with government.

sustainable because the Monarch has a vested interest in seeing the improvement and expansion of wealth so he can pass it onto his heirs, as opposed to individual politicians robbing everyone for votes and power and competing with everyone. They have little to no motivation in things getting better, their focus is exclusively on the present.

Makes good sense to me.  But, are not most of the monarchies today mere figureheads where the real power is in a parliament or equivalent?  Of course, dictators have real power but they are not necessairly monarchs, and are usually more corrupt than our beloved "in over his head dear follower".

... Mountaineer

Followup to my Camden, NJ visit.  Just read this in the latest edition of Imprimis.  It sounds like this description of the lower echelons in Britain could apply to what I saw in Camden.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current

I do wonder how all this is going to shake out - probably really not pretty in a few more years.  I'm beginning to think I'm blessed for being closer to the end than the beginning of life.


... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote: Most of the president's power comes from his executive ability. He wields more or less total control over the federal regulatory agencies, which becomes more powerful as they grow in size and power. He directs military operations--covert and acknowledged, he can propose and veto legislation, and he nominates SCOTUS appointees (much more important than many think IMHO).

And, more recently, he can openly kill anyone anywhere in the world.

He's no dictator, but let's not pretend he lacks power. The only reason why Obama has been unable to meaningfully get much done recently is because he's a pussy who's really not comfortable with power.

The president can do anything he wants, subject only to the requirement that he has 235 representatives or 34 senators who will not vote to impeach or convict, respectively. Of course, theoretically he is supposed to obey the Constitution, but there is no way to compel him to do so as long as Congress does not remove him from office via impeachment.

There's really only theory that would have a rogue president leave office even after being convicted by the Senate.  Ultimately it depends what side the men with guns take.

Xan wrote: There's really only theory that would have a rogue president leave office even after being convicted by the Senate.  Ultimately it depends what side the men with guns take.

Yes, that is true, but I suspect they would escort him out.