Lawrence G. Holmes wrote:
Non-property owners have no vested interest to ensure quality
representation is maintained in Congress.

They sure do. I do and I'm not a property owner. They have LESS vested
interest. NOT none at all.


Why should a welfare thug, ghetto drug dealer, illegal immigrant or
felon have any say what-so-ever in the conduct of government?

There is a pretty big gap between them and property owners.


Return voting rights to property owners only.

But I do hear you.

People sometimes say that we were lucky to have the Founding Fathers
collected together. Other nations have been lucky to have one such man, and
they see him as a hero. We had a couple of dozen great ones at the same
time.

But they are wrong to say we were lucky. It wasn't luck. Those men were
deliberately chosen by voters. If the voters had included every beggar,
it's quite unlikely they would have made the same choices.

People today have a few good choices in every Primary season, and the best
are almost always the first to be ejected from the race.

People are morons. They think we have Democracy because the people know
best. It pleases their egos to think so. They also vote for the sake of
satisfying their egos.

The reason for Democracy is to protect freedom, because freedom to make
choices is more important than making the right choices. Therefore we have
Democracy in spite of the fact that the people don't know best. But people
don't want to hear that that's the reason.

When they vote they don't keep in mind that they are supposed to be voting
to protect their freedom. George Lukas said he had his Galactic Empire
voted in because he wanted to examine why people vote away their freedom,
but the reason is simple. They don't recall that they are supposed to be
protecting it.

So maybe it just doesn't work. People vote under the fallacious belief that
we have Democracy because it works, and in so doing they ensure it won't
work.

Property owners would do better, I'm certain, but only because they're
smarter. The average slob would be at least a little bit smarter if he
wasn't encouraged to think he knows best, and if he was frequently reminded
why he really has Democracy from kindergarten through his whole life. He
might even be smart enough, if that was done.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 8/5/2011 7:55 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Lawrence G. Holmes wrote:
Non-property owners have no vested interest to ensure quality
representation is maintained in Congress.

They sure do. I do and I'm not a property owner. They have LESS vested
interest. NOT none at all.


Why should a welfare thug, ghetto drug dealer, illegal immigrant or
felon have any say what-so-ever in the conduct of government?

There is a pretty big gap between them and property owners.


Return voting rights to property owners only.

But I do hear you.

People sometimes say that we were lucky to have the Founding Fathers
collected together. Other nations have been lucky to have one such man, and
they see him as a hero. We had a couple of dozen great ones at the same
time.

But they are wrong to say we were lucky. It wasn't luck. Those men were
deliberately chosen by voters. If the voters had included every beggar,
it's quite unlikely they would have made the same choices.

People today have a few good choices in every Primary season, and the best
are almost always the first to be ejected from the race.

People are morons. They think we have Democracy because the people know
best. It pleases their egos to think so. They also vote for the sake of
satisfying their egos.

The reason for Democracy is to protect freedom, because freedom to make
choices is more important than making the right choices. Therefore we have
Democracy in spite of the fact that the people don't know best. But people
don't want to hear that that's the reason.

When they vote they don't keep in mind that they are supposed to be voting
to protect their freedom. George Lukas said he had his Galactic Empire
voted in because he wanted to examine why people vote away their freedom,
but the reason is simple. They don't recall that they are supposed to be
protecting it.

So maybe it just doesn't work. People vote under the fallacious belief that
we have Democracy because it works, and in so doing they ensure it won't
work.

Property owners would do better, I'm certain, but only because they're
smarter. The average slob would be at least a little bit smarter if he
wasn't encouraged to think he knows best, and if he was frequently reminded
why he really has Democracy from kindergarten through his whole life. He
might even be smart enough, if that was done.




so, someone who rents an apartment, but who is an MD and a research
physician with patents and several clinics should not vote because he
does not own real-estate? are you really that biased in favor of the
real estate industry? If you want to rule out those who do not earn
their living, make the requirement "pay income tax".

.. wrote:

so, someone who rents an apartment, but who is an MD and a research
physician with patents and several clinics should not vote because he
does not own real-estate? are you really that biased in favor of the
real estate industry? If you want to rule out those who do not earn
their living, make the requirement "pay income tax".

Dorothy (I don't know you well enough to call you Dot), I didn't say that at
all. The OP did. I said I 'heard him', not that I agreed with him. I'm
sure I made it clear enough.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 8/6/2011 10:23 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
. wrote:

so, someone who rents an apartment, but who is an MD and a research
physician with patents and several clinics should not vote because he
does not own real-estate? are you really that biased in favor of the
real estate industry? If you want to rule out those who do not earn
their living, make the requirement "pay income tax".

Dorothy (I don't know you well enough to call you Dot), I didn't say that at
all. The OP did. I said I 'heard him', not that I agreed with him. I'm
sure I made it clear enough.



my point (amused, I'll accept "dorothy" and click my red slippers) - is
that "property" is not a good test of involvement in the economy - the
paying of federal taxes is a proper indicator of having earned the right
to vote.

.. wrote:

my point (amused, I'll accept "dorothy" and click my red slippers) -

Oh, is that not your name? I thought Dot was always the short form.


is that "property" is not a good test of involvement in the economy -
the paying of federal taxes is a proper indicator of having earned
the right to vote.

Not even that. People voted before the income tax existed, during which
time the government never entered most people's minds when they made any
transaction. Lots of self-sufficient people have voted too.

The current resrictions (some of which I am probably not aware of) are
enough. The only restriction that would result in better electoral results
would be intelligence-oriented, such as poll tests, but they can be abused.

As I said, one single improvement in education that would help a lot would
be teaching that democracy is not a goal (as "Rock the Vote" and other
slogans suggest) but a means to a goal, which is freedom.

I was in a college and saw a stack of textbooks awaiting distribution, and
the subtitle was "Balancing Freedom and Democracy" as if they are both goals
that need to be compromised when they're in conflict. When slavery is
popular you shouldn't compromise freedom one bit for the sake of democracy.

People have to be taught differently. If we don't improve the process in a
way that results in voters making better decisions, then they will
inevitably make fewer decisions, as this author recommends:

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom...2697934&sr=8-1

"Zakaria contends that something has also gone wrong with democracy in
America, which has descended into "a simple-minded populism that values
popularity and openness." The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed
bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which
are effective precisely because they are insulated from political
pressures."

He seems to understand the problem, as in:

"...the United States should...take care to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into
societies that are not merely democratic but free."

But his solution of more power in appointed bodies is pernicious.

The only step in that direction that I would support is the end of primary
elections. Convention delegates used to make much better choices than
voters, who almost always cast out the best people in every primary, and in
some recent cases they chose the very worst. The general election is enough
to retain power in the people's control, but their decision would be
simplified.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

.. wrote:

my point (amused, I'll accept "dorothy" and click my red slippers)

BTW, they were silver slippers in the book, as in the silver standard. Gold
can't be trusted, as you know from the fact that the yellow brick road led
to disappointment. The cowardly banks and heartless industry and brainless
farmers were not much help either.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 8/6/2011 11:53 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
. wrote:

my point (amused, I'll accept "dorothy" and click my red slippers) -

Oh, is that not your name? I thought Dot was always the short form.


is that "property" is not a good test of involvement in the economy -
the paying of federal taxes is a proper indicator of having earned
the right to vote.

Not even that. People voted before the income tax existed, during which
time the government never entered most people's minds when they made any
transaction. Lots of self-sufficient people have voted too.

The current resrictions (some of which I am probably not aware of) are
enough. The only restriction that would result in better electoral results
would be intelligence-oriented, such as poll tests, but they can be abused.

As I said, one single improvement in education that would help a lot would
be teaching that democracy is not a goal (as "Rock the Vote" and other
slogans suggest) but a means to a goal, which is freedom.

I was in a college and saw a stack of textbooks awaiting distribution, and
the subtitle was "Balancing Freedom and Democracy" as if they are both goals
that need to be compromised when they're in conflict. When slavery is
popular you shouldn't compromise freedom one bit for the sake of democracy.

People have to be taught differently. If we don't improve the process in a
way that results in voters making better decisions, then they will
inevitably make fewer decisions, as this author recommends:

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom...2697934&sr=8-1

"Zakaria contends that something has also gone wrong with democracy in
America, which has descended into "a simple-minded populism that values
popularity and openness." The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed
bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which
are effective precisely because they are insulated from political
pressures."

He seems to understand the problem, as in:

"...the United States should...take care to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into
societies that are not merely democratic but free."

But his solution of more power in appointed bodies is pernicious.

The only step in that direction that I would support is the end of primary
elections. Convention delegates used to make much better choices than
voters, who almost always cast out the best people in every primary, and in
some recent cases they chose the very worst. The general election is enough
to retain power in the people's control, but their decision would be
simplified.


certainly, a change to the primary system that reduces the influence of
the far right and left fringes will benefit the country - the gridlock
we see is due to these extremists and we need to purge the system of
them once and for all. There are good and fair arguments over spending,
over policy, and over destiny, but the slavering ideology can only gum
up the machinery of government.

Eliminating primaries might be too confusing because you need to narrow
the field, but a non-partisan primary that passes the top 3 (or 4) vote
getters unless someone gets 2/3 of the vote would probably eliminate the
extremes and give us candidates that we can actually consider as opposed
to candidates that we fear and must choose the least damaging.