Millennial generation
-
@Dashrender said:
I definitely see the point benefits of moving to a voting based on land ownership - I wonder if that's one of the founding pillars why the push to own your own home instead of renting came about.
Most cultures have that. Home ownership has always been a status symbol and a mark of people who look to accumulate wealth rather than investing it (a problem that brought Ireland and Spain to their financial knees in recent years.)
-
@Dashrender said:
How would a situation like that apply to say some place like NYC? How many apartments are owned by the people who live in them? Though maybe it doesn't matter, because the whole point is to give voting rights only to those who care enough to have a stake, i.e. own land.
It effectively doesn't. The move was to placate the agrarian powers that owned the colonies at the start of the American era. Virginia was the powerhouse then, not the backwater that it is today. The people who lives in cities, even in the big ones like NYC, Philly and Boston, were considered mostly poor or undesirables (bankers, tradesman, traders, merchants) and not worth of voting. Only rich land holders were considered valuable enough to vote. No different than traditional European politics up to that time. England was exactly the same before a certain point with only the landed gentry having any input in politics. Landed being the key word, meaning you weren't just a gentlemen, but a land holder.
-
Re instituting voting based on land ownership then begs the question, do you get more votes based on the amount of land you own?
All those fat cats on wallstreet who don't own their apartments, but instead rent them would have to find some land to own so they could vote.
Which also asks - in a highrise, even if you own your residence.. how does that work? is that the same as owning 'land'?
-
The real issue at the heart of ANY governing body is that is consists of people. People are weak and selfish. That's why "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". At least in an autocratic system, you have a 50/50 shot at the guy in charge being aligned with your personal ideals. In a democratic republic (US), the real rule is by the political class. You can say whatever you want, but that's the real truth. The whole Republican/Democrat struggle is just a ruse, while those in power all smoke cigars and sip brandy together in the back room. I think the best line I've heard quoted (forgive me, I can't credit the originator of the quote properly) is "If voting made any real kind of difference, they would have outlawed it a long time ago." It's the dialectic process in action D/R = thesis/antithesis, while the pre-ordained synthesis happens right under our noses, while everyone bickers about the figureheads representing each side of the aisle. Oh, but "we can vote them out"... if you believe the accuracy of the voting process, the tallying, etcetera. The whole thing is a game, and the populace is at the mercy of the political class. The only way to change that, in all honesty, is through revolution, and those are messy. Nobody wants war, as was so accurately stated previously. Until we get mad enough to DO something about the state of things, the decay will continue.
-
@Dashrender said:
Re instituting voting based on land ownership then begs the question, do you get more votes based on the amount of land you own?
You could, the US never did that. It was about having a ruling class, not tying dollars directly to voting power.
-
@Dashrender said:
All those fat cats on wallstreet who don't own their apartments, but instead rent them would have to find some land to own so they could vote.
Yes, that's how it always was and it was because the even fatter cats on the farms had enough power to shut them out.
Of course, today, buying land is so trivial that this seems like a ridiculously silly requirement.
-
@Dashrender said:
Which also asks - in a highrise, even if you own your residence.. how does that work? is that the same as owning 'land'?
No, it was about owning land and never was tied to having an apartment.
-
@art_of_shred said:
"If voting made any real kind of difference, they would have outlawed it a long time ago."
If you play Tropico long enough, that quote and source will pop up.
-
I'd like to see actual skill be promoted, as well as lack of corruption. I've no clue how such a system would work, but if we reward the people who make positive changes I think that'll help at least a bit.
-
@art_of_shred said:
The real issue at the heart of ANY governing body is that is consists of people. People are weak and selfish. That's why "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". At least in an autocratic system, you have a 50/50 shot at the guy in charge being aligned with your personal ideals. In a democratic republic (US), the real rule is by the political class. You can say whatever you want, but that's the real truth. The whole Republican/Democrat struggle is just a ruse, while those in power all smoke cigars and sip brandy together in the back room. I think the best line I've heard quoted (forgive me, I can't credit the originator of the quote properly) is "If voting made any real kind of difference, they would have outlawed it a long time ago." It's the dialectic process in action D/R = thesis/antithesis, while the pre-ordained synthesis happens right under our noses, while everyone bickers about the figureheads representing each side of the aisle. Oh, but "we can vote them out"... if you believe the accuracy of the voting process, the tallying, etcetera. The whole thing is a game, and the populace is at the mercy of the political class. The only way to change that, in all honesty, is through revolution, and those are messy. Nobody wants war, as was so accurately stated previously. Until we get mad enough to DO something about the state of things, the decay will continue.
That's part of any system that has to maintain the pretense of voting. In an authoritarian system you have an opportunity for common, bloodless revolution.
Example you ask? Morocco. Fifty years ago Morocco was a completely different place. What happened was a change of kings. One got old, his son took over. The current ruler has the good of the country in mind and has turned it around, completely, in a decade. Instead of being a backwater, it is outpacing the US in modern rail infrastructure in half the time the US has been trying to convince Congress to let us try it. It went from a tourist poor to a tourist rich country. Corruption has decreased like crazy while safety has increased. The culture has changed and the whole theme of the country is different.
No one fought a revolution. It's one of the upsides (and downsides) to monarchy - change of rule or a change of ruler's heart can completely change the government.
-
Wow. Let's get rid of universal suffrage cos that will fix all of America's problems. Why don't you bring back slavery whilst you're at it?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not according to a lot of people, it actually does help the poor. A great book to read that deals with how the poor are kept poor by NGOs is "Dark Star Safari." It's a travelogue but by a guy who hangs out with prime ministers and worked for NGOs and observes NGOs being used to keep corrupt governments rich and the poor really poor.
I love Paul Theroux and that's a great book and makes some great points. But he's a travel writer not an expert. At the moment it seems that a lot of Africa's problems are being solved by Chinese investment, but I'm nervous about how that'll eventually turn out.
-
@art_of_shred said:
And what's wrong with America is all the people who want to rob from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" because they "deserve" everything I have, but shouldn't need to work to get them, since I have done the work and earned enough to have them.
I hate the expression "haves and have nots". Politicians are using it in the UK at the moment and it's not true and is just a classic case of divide and conquer. The reality is that people go through life moving between having and not having as they get jobs, then lose jobs, then get jobs, then get sick, then get better etc etc. The welfare state is just an insurance scheme to smooth out life's ups and downs. So in the same way that I'm not resentful when my neighbour gets an insurance payout after his house has been burgled when I've been paying insurance premiums for years and haven't received a dime, why should I be resentful when my neighbour loses his job or gets sick and needs some help?
I'm really lucky that I've never been unemployed or sick but there but for the grace of God go I.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I love Paul Theroux and that's a great book and makes some great points. But he's a travel writer not an expert. At the moment it seems that a lot of Africa's problems are being solved by Chinese investment, but I'm nervous about how that'll eventually turn out.
He is a travel writer but so am I. I don't think that the fact that I travel write should detract from my IT work, maybe it doesn't add to it, but it shouldn't be a penalty. Paul has done a lot of things that are not travel writing, including NGO and academic work that give him some valuable background here.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Wow. Let's get rid of universal suffrage cos that will fix all of America's problems. Why don't you bring back slavery whilst you're at it?
Just remember, slavery was a legacy from the British, not an American institution. We had to clean that up. Slavery was brought here, it didn't start here.
It was a Cromwellian legacy on this side of the pond, like many of our political and history woes.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@art_of_shred said:
And what's wrong with America is all the people who want to rob from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" because they "deserve" everything I have, but shouldn't need to work to get them, since I have done the work and earned enough to have them.
I hate the expression "haves and have nots". Politicians are using it in the UK at the moment and it's not true and is just a classic case of divide and conquer. The reality is that people go through life moving between having and not having as they get jobs, then lose jobs, then get jobs, then get sick, then get better etc etc. The welfare state is just an insurance scheme to smooth out life's ups and downs. So in the same way that I'm not resentful when my neighbour gets an insurance payout after his house has been burgled when I've been paying insurance premiums for years and haven't received a dime, why should I be resentful when my neighbour loses his job or gets sick and needs some help?
I'm really lucky that I've never been unemployed or sick but there but for the grace of God go I.
I agree, welfare has a good place and when done well is to everyone's benefit, much like universal healthcare. It is in the interest of everyone to have a healthy, productive population. A sick person, or a dead one, isn't just an "expense" but they impact family, friends, jobs, etc. Every person we can keep healthy is a person who produces and is a positive to the economy rather than a negative. When we don't have good support systems, everyone gets hurt (or at least, fails to benefit.)
The problem here, though, is that most Americans, given the choice and understanding that universal welfare and healthcare benefits them even if they don't use it, choose to hurt themselves to keep those who they feel don't deserve it (and I'm not saying that they do) from getting it. The "cutting off their nose to spite their faces" problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Example you ask? Morocco.
Strange example. They're a democracy and the King changed the constitution after protests during the Arab Spring uprisings. So they didn't have a revolution, but they were on their way to a revolution had the King not reduced his powers and increased the elected government's powers. I find it hard to believe people would prefer an autocracy to a democracy.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Example you ask? Morocco.
Strange example. They're a democracy and the King changed the constitution after protests during the Arab Spring uprisings. So they didn't have a revolution, but they were on their way to a revolution had the King not reduced his powers and increased the elected government's powers. I find it hard to believe people would prefer an autocracy to a democracy.
I agree with you - I don't think 'people' ever really will. A person might though if they trust the autocracy, and even in a discussion a person might accept that it's a better solution - maybe, but people never will.
-
@scottalanmiller's example isn't a bloodless revolution, it's simply a regime change either due to death or the previous regime stepping down, but definitely not a revolution.
This type of thing happens all the time in dictatorships - though generally the status quo just happens to be maintained. The example provided just showed where the new leader decided to make his and his countries situation better.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The problem here, though, is that most Americans, given the choice and understanding that universal welfare and healthcare benefits them even if they don't use it, choose to hurt themselves to keep those who they feel don't deserve it (and I'm not saying that they do) from getting it. The "cutting off their nose to spite their faces" problem.
Please explain to me how it helps me when I don't use it?
I suppose you'll say that if my wife is sick, the benefit to me is that I don't go into the poor house while she is getting well? Or my work load at the office is evenly spread because everyone is well, and the fact that others have health care means that if they do get sick, they'll get well faster bringing a benefit to me? OK sure, but I have to ask... at what cost?
Our government has shown that it can't run anything efficiently - they should be able to get the economy of scale thing, but we can all see that they don't - also, since there shouldn't be any profit in it for the healthcare system, what's the motivation to do a good job?
My German friends have told me that their state provided healthcare is great as long as you get nothing worth than a cold, or perhaps a broken bone. But if you need a surgery to get a tumor removed, you'll likely die from it before you get surgery because the lines are so long and the number of surgical spots to few. My friends tell me that additional private coverage is a must if you want real coverage.
Now I'll agree that most illnesses are of the generic kind that can be taken care of non surgically, and those are probably handled very well by a state provided service, but what do you do about the specialty cases - cancer, organ transplants, etc. Then there's the most expensive part of healthcare - elderly care. Americans spend something like 50% of their healthcare costs (or more) in the last year of their lives. Short of a healthcare Czar dictating who does and doesn't get services after a certain health level condition (which we kinda have today, it's called the insurance coverage you have - but we completely ignore that anyway, and just saddle our families with the debt after we die)?
