Should The Government Subsidize Silly Walks?

KaijinDV 

conservative think tanks: believing food, clean energy, and education is the same as silly walks.

4clearsky

You demand you clean energy subsidy—I demand my silly walks subsidy! Your demand is as good as mine in democracy.

KaijinDV
except that in reality i can give good reason why it benefits everyone involved to invest in clean drinking water and an educated populous.
If somehow you were able to give sufficient evidence that your silly walks warrant the price your asking, then we SHOULD invest in your silly walk.

4clearsky

Except that in democracy “good reason” is not a prerequisite for popular demand—the votes are. Majority need only elect those politicians in power who promise to deliver silly walks subsidies. If a legal challenge is initiated by the minority—pro-silly walks majority can defeat it legislatively. If need be the constitution can be amended defining “silly walks” as one of the basic human rights.

Silly walks—not the brightest idea—but neither is democracy!

KaijinDV
and what pray tell is better then a populous being able to elect their own representatives to govern? Since people in your opinion will vote for people who will give them silly walks without giving them a reason that they should want silly walks.

4clearsky

One-man one-vote system is flawed by design. Majority can in theory mandate silly walks subsidies using democratic process. Now, I know they will likely NOT demand silly walks but they will—and DO—demand wealth transfer. The majority can legally capture the wealth that belongs to minority violating their property rights. Legalized plunder is OK in Democracy. Another design flaw is that people can vote their way into slavery—but not out of it. The Founders wisely rejected democratic in favor of the constitutional republic.

KaijinDV

The Founders wisely rejected Democratic for an aristocracy, where only rich white males could vote for other rich white males. As far as wealth transfer goes, money naturally trickles up and it must be transferred back down by artificial means. weather it be through social programs or the guillotine is really up to those in power, no matter what kind of government you have or what you call it.

4clearsky

“The Founders wisely rejected Democratic for an aristocracy, where only rich white males could vote for other rich white males.”

Obama???

KaijinDV

What about Obama? According to the original rules of election that were drafted by our founding fathers Obama wouldn’t have been able vote, let alone become president. Unless you want to rewrite history and ignore the facts, this is something you have to deal with.

4clearsky
I got you now, I assumed you were referring to the system of today. Yes, you are correct, Obama in the White House would have been out of question. Which, in my mind, is another proof that we had a superior system that created the greatest country on earth. The presidency, after all, is not supposed to be an exhibit of an entire collection of the animal kingdom but a post reserved for the best and the brightest.

KaijinDV
Now, I’m pretty sure that not all of Liberty University fans are white premises, but i can’t say I’m all that surprised that when picking one out at random, they turn out to be racist.

4clearsky
“The Founders wisely rejected Democratic for an aristocracy, where only rich WHITE males could vote for other rich WHITE males.”
Who brings the race into any conversation? The same person who is always the first to accuse you of being a racist. Funny how that works.

KaijinDV
are you disagreeing that being a landowning white male was a requirement to both hold office and vote? Do you not agree that restricting political service from women and people of color is a horrible way to govern, and not something to strive to return to?

4clearsky
I reject the notion that good governance is a function of one’s race/gender. It is a function of one’s wisdom and character. At the time when illiteracy and sociopolitical ignorance was a norm, limiting governing responsibilities to an educated and invested populace was  both wise and effective. It is a shallow contemporary interpretation to attribute the Founders motives to the white supremacy.

KaijinDV
You reject the notion that good governance is a function of race and gender yet you agree that it would be a better system were we to use these as a measure for governance even going so far as to say that not doing so today gives the presidency to the “entire collection of animal kingdom”. in any case, a system where only a small fraction of people are allowed to vote isn’t a republic, it was a aristocracy.

I really don’t think you should be using what the founding fathers wanted as an argument on how to run things. since they saw it prudent to deny the ability to vote and lead to 99 percent of people who weren’t land owning white males. and as far as taking away rights, go look up the alien and sedition acts

4clearsky That’s presumptuous of you to say. Never in the course of civilization had there been assembled at one time, in one place, so many men skilled in the art of statecraft. The Constitution they drafted was not a matter of luck. It did involve many compromises, as all government action does. But they were well educated; they knew the classics; and they studied the great political writers of the Enlightenment: John Locke and Baron du Montesquieu were their favorites.

KaijinDV

I’m not sure why you’d think them being educated for their time makes any difference as to if their actions of denying public service and voting rights to all but a tiny percentage of their countrymen. and I don’t PRESUME anything, its a matter of public record that

a) the adams administration made it illegal to speak out against the government during a time of war

b) you could own people as property

c)nobody but the rich could vote

4clearsky

We become geniuses simply by fallaciously judging the 19th century by the 21st century standards

(A quick look into my 23rd century crystal ball confirms my fears: judging by the future societal standards of animal cruelty Obama’s captive possession of his White House dog makes him a savage and a criminal.)

But, we learn nothing and prove less. Advancements in medicine and technology don’t relate to progress in other fields of knowledge—the truth is not linear, i.e., later is NOT always better.

KaijinDV

I’m sure as hell going to judge 18th century to 21st century standards if your arguing that we should govern how they saw fit. we’re talking a time when Jefferson, probably the smartest person in America at the time thought that black people were incapable of suffering as deeply as whites. he was an ignorant man if only because he lived in ignorant times, there is no shame in that.

4clearsky

You say that these men were educated FOR THEIR TIME, implying that the modern day statesmen are better educated. They are not. Politicians of today know less about the wisdom of governance and are less learned. Any one of the Founders could lecture Obama on justice and liberty. It’s like comparing a person holding a doctorate with an ignorant college dropout.

KaijinDV

yeah, modern day statesmen are better educated, things nowadays are common knowledge that back then would have been ground breaking. leeches don’t cure diseases, how economies work, black people are pretty much the same as white people. and I’m not sure how anyone who owned slaves could lecture anyone else on justice or liberty, they only really understand it as an abstract.

Of course this is just a red herring to draw attention from you not being able to adequately as to why we should go back to a system where 99 percent of the populous couldn’t vote like our founding fathers had

4clearsky

Where did you get the 99% from? It sounds way overblown. Keep in mind that America did not pretend to be a democracy until the 20th century.

Another thing that is overblown is the importance of the right to vote. So we get one bogus right but lose many of the real rights—and feel good because we got to vote! The Founding Fathers understood that suffrage means little if our unalienable rights erode as they inevitably do under a democratic system.

KaijinDV

I got the number based on the presidential election statistics found on wikipedia, which had a popular vote of a little under 40K, then a quick google search gave several sources saying that the us population during 1776 to be around 4M, some quick math and that gives 1-2% voting population.

so what rights did we lose when we gained the ability to vote? and please note that none of the rights found in the bill of rights are applicable seeing as they were voted in later, after the constitution

4clearsky

Probably none since you specified a mere 2 year period and because I consider American democracy the 20th century phenomenon.

If I proposed to you an arrangement whereby I am giving you the power over my life in return for you giving me the power over your life, would you agree? You’d probably think I’m nuts and you’d be right. And yet this is what we do in a democracy. We lose our rights to gain power over other people’s rights. Only in the world of politics is a lose-lose proposition glorified.

KaijinDV

so it would be nuts for you to give power to me over your life, but in a system where only the elite 1% were allowed to have say over the law, which then applied to everyone, that is what’s fair to you?

4clearsky

The irony of it is that for all our tinkering with founding principles we are today ruled by the elite 1%. And If this is the case, isn’t it better to have an honest system of minority rule that does not pretend to uphold “the will of the people” but is instead legally limited to preserving our unalienable rights?

I would gladly give up my right to vote if the right to my life, liberty and property was inviolable.

KaijinDV

So you’d give up your sovereignty as long as your masters made a super duper promise not to take other rights from you? You’ve already given up the right to have your say in governmental and civil affairs. you have no mechanism to express your will and no means to change the decisions of those in power. you’ve gladely balance your every right on the whims of your betters under your system

4clearsky

What sovereignty is there out side the right to life, liberty and property?

KaijinDV

part of liberty is agency, the ability for your actions to have merit and weight. without a vote the people, you included, don’t have any weight to their actions, they have lost agency and thus liberty.

its like having the freedom to express yourself in a language only you can understand. it doesn’t really matter.

4clearsky

You can have liberty without the right to vote. You can have the right to vote without liberty.

KaijinDV

as long as your masters allow it. go and argue to someone else that we should give up the freedom to vote for the security of property. I’d end with a quote from Franklin but it would be lost to you.

4clearsky

The right to vote is more important than your the right to keep your property? I think you are being disingenuous.

GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO VOTE—FOR MY PROPERTY I CARE NOT!

A government bureaucrat and two armed agents knock on Kaijin’s door. “We are here to insure your right to vote is duly exercised” they explain.

They faithfully record Kaijin’s vote and proceeds to evict him from his home while they confiscate all of his private property. When Kaijin objects he is reminded that he has chosen the right to vote over the property ownership…

… “What about that guy over there?” complaints Kaijin pointing at the large, impressive house next door.

“We can’t legally touch him” they respond “he has given up voting for the right to keep his property”.

Kaijin’s family goes homeless and hungry but he lived happily ever after knowing his voting rights were preserved. –The End.

KaijinDV

you forgot the part where i beat them up because we have a constitution, protected in part by the will of the people expressed in free elections. also I’m Superman.

also you need to set up the situation in which were’ either given the option to own things or vote. all in all this story is kinda lazily put together. nice propaganda though as long as you don’t think about it for more then a moment.

4clearsky

“…i beat them up…”—no can do, your beloved democratic state has a monopoly on violence.

“…you need to set up the situation…”—talking about a lazy thinker. The situation is already set up by wealth-transferring nature of democratic voting system and your stated preference for suffrage over property. If you wish to backpedal on property—like you did on liberty—at least have enough decency to admit you were wrong.

“also I’m Superman.”—you are sillier than silly walks 🙂

KaijinDV

 there’s a situation in which people are randomly evicted from their housing if they decide to vote? next thing you’ll be telling me that the government puts fluoride in the water to make you gay or that public education and clean water/air is as frivolous as silly walks.

4clearsky

You are changing the subject in order to avoid defending you claim that voting is more important that property right. Do you still stand by your claim or do you concede?

KaijinDV

voting rights are more important then property rights, just like water is more important then food. We need both if were going to actually have a free society.

4clearsky

False analogy! Property—like food—is life’s essential, but voting—UNLIKE water—is NOT essential but a tool for achieving essentials. The right to vote is analogous NOT to water but to a shovel used to dig for water. And just like water is more important than shovels—property is more important than voting. Property is the GOAL—voting is the MEANS. Goals are more important than means. Means/Goals confusion created a contradiction in your thinking: “NONESSENTIAL voting is more important than ESSENTIAL property”

KaijinDV

your fetishizing the idea of property. it isn’t the goal in a free society, at the very least it isn’t an important one. for instance in a free society a homeless/penniless individual is still just as free as someone who was rich. but we can’t say the same if he weren’t able to vote or voice their opinion.

4clearsky

“…homeless/penniless individual is still just as free as someone who was rich. but we can’t say the same if he weren’t able to vote…”

Free to do what? Die of starvation? How is the fact that he has more freedom with than without voting proof that he values voting over property rights? It’s not. He’d gladly give up voting for rich man’s wealth. He doesn’t even bother voting. Ask a homeless—he’ll give you his vote for a sandwich (sandwich=property) You only proved my point!

You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Society is not defined by the rights it gives but by the rights it does not take away. Every individual has nature given right to defend his person, his liberty and his property. Governments are instituted to preserve those rights since these are the three constituent of life each of which is rendered complete by the others. So long as those rights are preserved all is good. Vote, sing, silly walk, be rich or be poor—it’s up to you.

KaijinDV

so, as long as nobody ever asks you to part with any of your property your okay with them having voting/civil/constitutional rights to vote and other things they’ve worked for through voting and democracy.

4clearsky

This “feel good” idea that your vote has a huge effect on your life is nothing but a mass illusion that does not pass a reality check. In reality, your vote has never change a single election outcome. I would give up voting—which has no effect on my life—in exchange for keeping the fruits of my labour—which has a big effect on my life. It’s as if you asked me: would you give up nothing in return for something valuable?

KaijinDV

I don’t think you’ve spoken to many homeless people. they can be a prideful bunch.

now you might be willing to give up your liberty (voting rights) for some assured property protections but then i have to go back to Franklins words that you didn’t seem to pick up on

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

4clearsky

Except that Franklin didn’t see voting as essential liberty—and he was an expert on liberty. So long as we are talking about B. Franklin your homeless guy is out of luck since property ownership was prerequisite for suffrage. And since suffrage is not prerequisite for property ownership guess which one is more essential? And doesn’t your misuse of Franklin’s words not only expose your delusion but prove, once more, that property right takes precedence over suffrage?

KaijinDV

and once again you prove your dogmatic deification of the founding fathers. and your cognoscente dissidence is getting irritating so im going to stop this now. so bend your mind which ever way you wish and while the rest of us are working together to improve the world, you can go and masturbate to Ayn Rand

4clearsky

And now a sore loser enters the scene exposing his vulgarian nature he’s been struggling to conceal all along. You can give him a degree but you can’t turn  him into a gentleman.

Armed with his arrogant statist ideology and delusions of grandeur—instead of wisdom and integrity—he professes to be our liberator crusading against the “burdens” of the unalienable rights that were bestowed onto us by our great ancestors who created the society the likes of Kaijin are incapable of grasping let alone preserving.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s