This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Should We Raise The Voting Age?
Submitted by Mark St. Cyr
Should We Raise The Voting Age?
I know at first blush the above headline reeks of “click bait.” However, that’s far from my intention. The reason why I used it, is exactly for the stopping power, as well as attention grabber I needed during a recent conversation. (If it could be called that)
During a discussion amongst people of varying ages the discourse became heated and focused more on “who was to blame” for the current economic malaise throughout the country. As well as “who the fingers should be pointed at” as to fix it. Neither side seemed willing to budge or relent any ground. Yet, the side that seemed the most adamant was the “younger” of the two sides (although younger was not by much).
They were also the most vocal in professing why “they were correct” as well as the one’s that were listening the least – and talking the most. Countering, or getting a word in edgewise without seeming to (or in reality) yell was near impossible. So I interjected with what I felt was a question that needed to be addressed if the “finger-pointing” argument if either side was to have any validity.
Although I’m not going to touch with a 10? pole the arguments of left vs right. Or, who vs who. Or who should pay more or less. What I am not afraid to state, as well as remind anyone of is this: When it comes to taxes – everybody pays them in one form or another – nothing is free. And just like death – taxes (regardless of age) will at sometime need to be settled with the “ferryman.” Pure and simple. And by taxes I mean all – everything. i.e., taxing in all its forms be it business, personal, wealth, education, speech, freedom, safety etc., etc.
You might want to debate they’re too high, or too low as to influence what one decides in the privacy of the voting booth. There’s nothing wrong with that and ideas should be expressed. However – knowing the implications; where they come from; the potential burdens on the young, old, neighbors, themselves, their families, the country and more is what has to be contemplated. Otherwise the arguments are nothing more than an assemblage of moot points only for the sake of verbal jousting.
It’s not my place to say one is right or wrong. Again, that’s not my gist here. Nevertheless, when the argument falls between two sides and one of those sides has no experience in the effects of their decisions; and can only speak as to why in reasoning’s of platitudes, sound bites, or less? (i.e., Just because they think so.) Someone has to be the adult in the room and stop the merry-go-round of nonsensical reasoning or accusations. Which is where I found myself, as the appointed “ring master.”
So when I interjected with the supposition “Maybe it’s time we need to raise the voting age?” Both sides stopped and took notice. Suddenly there was an argument on the table (which is what I’m known to do as to get to the real issue) neither contemplated. I believed it was a central (as well as clarifying) question that should be addressed by both sides if they were to continue further. For it opened the discussion more towards a tangible cause and effect both sides could, and did, have equal standing. Along with opening (hopefully) more reasoned arguments to answer for.
This question focused and demanded qualitative answers. There could be no “just because” type answers from either side without making it blatantly obvious that’s all one had. (i.e., No real defensible argument. For “just because” type answers are just that.)
I also elaborated the following in a true questioning manner. While at other times some bordered (and some were purely) the rhetorical. Whether or not any side agreed with the premise I stressed was not the case. However: knowing and understanding the intents and consequences contained within couldn’t go unanswered if: they wanted to continue on and try to reach an amicable conclusion. Whether it would be in half agreement, full agreement, or the willingness to agree they completely disagreed till more evidence or facts could be contemplated. But whatever the case: the talking (or half yelling) at each other had to cease. For as I’ve said many times “The best way to stop a headache is not with a stronger aspirin. It’s to first stop pounding your head against the wall.” And I could see the only thing everyone was contributing to was the severity of this “migraine.”
(I started with asking the following as a premise for further insight and discussion. I wasn’t taking one side or another. The premise was purely for pushing the discussion forward where thinking and true reasoning needed to stem from. Nothing more.)
I began with: Currently you can vote at 18. However, some of you are currently still in school (college), while some of you have recently just graduated. Others have since graduated and have yet to enter the work force. And, there are some that have since entered the work force yet, they are working in fields other than their chosen degree. And many combined still live at home. As a matter of fact, statics imply the number of college graduates that go back and live at home (i.e., parents or other family members) and remain there for years for whatever the reasons is quite high.
On average, it takes about 3 or 4 years after the day you leave high-school to obtain and get yourself adjusted to enter the labor force with an associate degree. Yes, it’s a two-year “in school” thing. However, when you total up all the incidental time you’ll spend i.e., the summers in between, then graduate and settle back home time, get your bearings and start applying to businesses. It runs around 3 to 4 years. For a graduate degree, it’s about 5 to 6 when all is said and done.
The average age after high school is about 18. So in essence, after an associates program you’re about 21. After a graduate somewhere around 23-24. And if a post-graduate about 25 or so give or take. The vast majority might not ever had, or may never hold a job of any type during this period.
Not only that, they will live in a sheltered environment where all the rules are known, visible, and the only competition they’ll face is to answer taught, and known variables that will be asked during testing assignments. Where a mediocre score, if not an outright 1 point above a fail allows one to be included, as well as on the same stage or platform, as one who receives above average scoring. (e.g., This can be shown in the old joke that really isn’t: “What do they call a med-student who graduates at the bottom, and is last in their class? Doctor!)
Add too this many of this same group have fought to be classified today as “children” until the age of 26 as to remain on their parents health insurance for the explicit reasoning that they “can’t and shouldn’t be made to afford it otherwise.” Also while remembering one isn’t considered legally as an “adult” to even drink alcohol till they’re 21.
Yet, at the same time many (and many is just that: a vast preponderance) have taken on suffocating amounts of student debt in the pursuit of degrees or studies that when looked through the prism of prudent financial analysis shows; repayment (if even possible) may cripple one’s ability to move forward in pursuit of the things so many take for granted. i.e., Qualifying for a house, raising kids of their own, and more in the not so distant future.
Does it seem this side should have equitable standing at the ballot box when their decisions will have the weight of enforcement by both law, and force under penalties of imprisonment or monetary damage when they may have never experienced a day in the real world outside of school?
Think hard about how you address these points. For they are not only valid arguments – they are also very real. And although one may not feel the ramifications of these decisions today. Rest assured, they will – once they too enter what is known as real life.
From the point of one side vs the other answer this question to yourself: Who is in the midst of what I just outlined? And should they be granted the right without any true understanding of the consequences of their actions? i.e., To vote for candidates, and laws to be passed where the ramifications will be borne by others? Or, those consequences may in fact backfire resulting to be far more devastating to they themselves in the future for they willy-nilly, or haphazardly voted them in – never contemplating the true ramifications.
Again: Should a person or group that has never experienced what is known by all as “real life” while simultaneously being seen by many legal standards as not having the full credentials to be recognized as an “adult” have the ability to vote directly for, or vote for candidates responsible in the setting of the nations wage laws, tax laws, business law, national debt, business tax structures, business mandates, international trade policies, monetary policy, or most importantly – whether to send their brethren off to war where people die for real – not in some video game or movie? All the while they’ve never been responsible for anything more than “school” and in many cases not subject to feel the direct consequences of their votes until some 8 years or even longer after the age of 18?
Not withstanding showing an inadequate fiduciary responsibility to themselves, never mind others, to pursue degrees that may in fact have no value in society for gainful employment? All the while taking on ever more burdensome debt that may never be paid back in their lifetimes without needing their own form of bailouts or debt forgiveness in the future? All this as they rail about “Wall St.” bailouts. Again, both sides should take a real hard look at not only these questions, but also the mirror.
At the end both sides were a little taken back and knocked of their own self-appointed pedestals (which is what I hoped for). For as I stated earlier, The “younger” side wasn’t all that younger than the other. Many fit into the above from both sides. And you could see the wheels turning in their heads as they contemplated what I had just proposed.
So now, with all that said, do I think we should raise the voting age? No. Of course not. Again: That’s not what I’m trying to argue.
What I am trying to bring to light is: Far too many today are acting like children when in fact they are older (I’ll contend much older) than the many that not all that long ago set out and made a life for both themselves, as well as others. If I may be so bold I’ll use an example in which I played my own part.
At 18 not only had the majority left school, many left at 16 or 17 never finishing (which is where I fell) and were out working odd or whatever jobs they could find. And trust me they were scarce in the 70’s. Sometimes we worked as many as we could handle at once with little to no sleep in between because if you wanted to eat – that’s what it took. (Many times I slept in my car, in the parking-lot as to not miss or be late. For a miss could mean being fired.)
There was no “going back home” to live with your parents. Many at 18 were confronted by very loving parents and asked point-blank “So you’re 18 now. Have you thought about where your going to live?” Why? Because you were considered an adult in just about every aspect of life. And you had better of understood that or else life was going to get a whole lot tougher – sooner.
For many by the age of 19 to 21 they were married, and most had their first child. They had apartments they were responsible for paying rent, utilities, food, as well as upkeep in household chores. Whether they could barely afford it or not. Want to eat? You had better learn to cook and make a meal of whatever you had on hand. A lot of times what was “on hand” was more like a finger. But we all did just that. There was no complaining because – there was no alternative. And for every generation going back it was the same if not more harsh. Want an example? Compare today’s employment prospects for a 20 something today as compared to someone the same age in let’s say 1938?
By 25 most were in jobs that would turn out to be careers in one form or another. By 30 you were contemplating school districts for your kids, neighborhoods to raise them through high school and more. Today, there are more just shy of 30 (if not over) still living in their parents home with nothing more intense as to compare against a real word “family life” than a relationship that maybe lasted a year or so since college. The same may be for a job if that. All while under the guise of “Unless they can get a corner office with a title along with a smokin’ hot spouse – there’s no rush because – they aren’t settling.” As they remain in their parents home unemployed – and single.
Before: the case for voting at 18 could easily be argued. For at 18 you were directly at the receiving end of consequences for your votes. Today? At 18? Answer that honestly. Especially if you are one that fits into the above scenario that I outlined in the beginning.
Never mind what many deem as “the older generation.” If you are right now 25-ish. Do you want any 18-year-old today that you know voting into law something that can directly impact you for what ever the reason? Especially if they seem directly indifferent to anything you may hold as dear? And there would be nothing you can do about it (whether you like it or not) because it would be enforced by all the power that comes from being law. Are you starting to understand why knowing the consequences and truly weighing them against alternative scenarios is important? Important as in say…voting?
Again, don’t let this point be lost on you. It truly is the crux of my argument. Think about it because what one thinks today as unimaginable can turn into reality tomorrow. If you think I’m trying to fear monger, or use the ole “when I went to school it was uphill both ways” argument. Think this…
The most influential group coming up the ranks that may contemplate whether or not the voting age should, or should not be raised out of respect for future generations may very well be the next batch of newly minted 18 year old’s. Where they may decide to form a movement pursuing, pushing, and mobilizing their own grass-roots and numbers for its passage. Many think the argument only resides or will be borne from some organizing “old geezers” constituent. But history shows us surprises can come from where one least expects it.
It’s quite possible (and perfectly lawful) it may very well be borne by some active and vocal group of 18 year-old’s the nation has ever seen. Remember, no matter what one thinks, or how hard one tries to escape it. The newest crop of 18 year-old’s at any time may take the sanctity of voting and its repercussions on the future more to heart than any predecessor – and decide for themselves how and when the “ferryman” in both death or taxes will be paid. After all – they will have to live the longest in what ever world they’re in, and may look at today’s constituent of 20 or 30 somethings – in the same light they look at their elders. Changes the whole landscape of who has the moral authority argument when put that way does it not?
At the same time let’s not forget the reason why you or I can even sit here and contemplate these current arguments was made possible in no small part this weekend in history by a group of individuals younger than today’s most recent graduates. Those that stormed into the teeth of a relentless and unrelenting foe with thousands upon thousands of lives lost and even more wounded, so that we can contemplate (as well as vote on) the issues of the day going forward.
If you want to impress upon yourself why voting in this country is looked upon with such reverence. Remembering D-Day should help you in that quest. Don’t take it for granted. Young – or old. And if you want more proof the world at any time could belong to someone 18.
Alexander The Great conquered the known world at about age 18.
»
- 9408 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No, rather, thre whould be a maximum voting age put into place. Only those with a stake in the future get to vote for representatives. If you are old enough to draw on Social Security, then you are too close to death for your opinion to matter.
Although a better solution might be to raise the voting age to 21000 and simply disband the government until someone gets to be that old.
No...what we should do is make all people who receive any government subsidy give up their right to vote. Or you must be a property owner. The main theme would be.. "If you are getting free shit from the government, you can't vote for more free shit." Right? Doesn't matter. We are fucked.
No need to vote, just use a lottery system to pick the rulers/ i mean representatives.
Couldn't do any worse.
Let's go back to the Victorian idea that only wealthy men of property could vote.
I'm not being sarcastic.
If we're going to have voting, it who can and cannot vote shouldn't be based on something that has little to do with understandinig how the government is supposed to work. How about a very rigorous test about what's in the constitution before letting a person vote? Raising the voting age wouldn't help much either, because a majority of the voters are not in the younger age groups.
I say we should lower the voting age.
The day you can use a crayon to color inside the lines is the day you should be considered of legal voting age.
Isn't that basically all we do on voting day is head to the polls, take a pen and ballot and color between the lines. Does it matter whether we color the kitten or the puppy?
I liked the old days when you made a selection and pulled the lever to lock in your vote. It really made you feel as if you were pulling on a one-armed bandit and gambling with your future.
And to make the argument that adults make good decisions when it comes to poitics and voting is facetious at best.
If adults made wise decisions why do we find ourselves in our current prediciment?
Obviously adults learn little to nothing between election cycles. We seem to keep electing the same hacks time and again. They keep heading to office and raping us over and over again.
Maybe if we start letting 4 yr old Sally and Timmy vote we'll get different results, at least it couldn't be any worse than what we've got.
The better question is, why are 15 year-olds paying taxes while not being allowed to vote?
Perhaps an even better question is, does the question the article put forth have any fucking relevance whatsoever to anything important at all? Seems like there might be more fundamental questions like, "Aren't all elections in the US fraudulent and corrupted on multiple levels?" or perhaps "Do ones votes even count or is voting determined by whoever controls Diebold?"
So much bullshit, so little time.
Wait! I got a better one!
"Should people who put out articles that contain diversionary, divisive, irrelevant dribble get slapped?"
I think the answer is obvious...
YES!! Absolutely we should adjust the voting age. Right after we're done rearranging the deck chairs.
yes, raise the age so the boomers can extend their screwing of the young for a few more years. brilliant.
/sarc
what is the difference between a boomer and a hooker? when the hooker dies, she stops screwing you.
You don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote. Period.
Fuck Obama sons and their ilk...
No need to raise the voting age, but there should be an IQ test administered prior to being able to vote... Having a pulse, an EBT card and an obamaphone should immediately disqualify someone from the polls though... Free Shit Americans will always vote for more free shit...
Voting is so 20th century..
We should make genetically engineered presidents with a life span of eight years.
BTW knob... We're already there! Except they BUY them now.
But why not just tell the sheeple the truth that their vote doesn't matter anyway and presidents are selected by the rich and powerful?
What difference does it make now anyway?
Romans voted.
Easy Catch-all solution...
Before voting: CAPTCHA!
GOTCHA!
No vote for you Dumbass!
I think it would work, ne? It definitely kept the level of dialouge MUCH higher on this site when it was in force.
So yes, CAPTCHA your votes!
Only, it will have to be common core CAPTCHA, in which case, a,b,c and d are all valid answers...
the depth of sheeplitude is staggering...
CHA CHA..well not really but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk1TSBW_368
Random selection of candidates for public office - AKA sortition - was utilized extensively by the Athenians; they felt it was a far more egalitarian process than elections, in which the rich could simply buy their way into office.
I guess those old Greeks knew a thing or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
BTW, I just looked in my old European history text book from high school, and there is not ONE SINGLE WORD on sortition in the entire chapter on ancient Greece. Just the word "democracy" over and over. I wonder why that is...
In the modern age, we don't even need sortition. Just some open-source software that will perform the legislative function. Anyone who craves this much power over others is, by definition, a sociopath.
The Heinlein solution. I like it. "The best Presidents were the ones who had to dragged, kicking and screaming, into the White House."
Lewis Black on selecting the next POTUS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuD1zKtyHak
Has to be better than the mega-$$$ billions shit show winding up once again!
Sure. The plutocrat Banksters will give up their complete ownership of selecting the next POTUS.
MLK had a dream - look what happened to him.
Another law to be slectively enforced. Brilliant.
How about upholding existing laws - such a retard nation.
Raise the voting age to 120 and allow motivated individuals to decrease that limit for themselves by contributions of $100,000 per year of age reduction. We'd come up with the same bought out system as we have now but my mailbox wouldn't be crammed full of glossy campaign flyers.
So you hate old people.
Are you one of those younger guys who dreams that his parents die so he can get his hands on their house and their money?
You do realise you’ll be old one day yourself right?
And if you don’t have much it’s because you’re a lazy bum who needs a kick in the nuts every hour.
And yes... even a bum has voting rights. Imagine that...
Don’t pick a group that should be eliminated. Ever. You don’t have that right.
I'm not eliminating them. Nature is. What part of that do you not understand?
Look at the system we have. It was voted in almost entirely by old people. We can't touch any entitlement program despite them being completely insolvent. Why? Old people would be pissed.
I know quite well that I'll be old one day. And I won't really have a personal investment in the future, because it won't be long until I die.
I also don't think that tourists should be able to vote for the same reason.
I agree with the above call to cap the voting age, not lower it. And maybe it isn't because I hate old people.
Maybe some of us younger than the Baby Boomers are looking around the wreckage left to us by that generation (crumbling infrastructure, pointless wars, massive and growing regulation, a shredded education system, a legal system intent on jailing every citizen at least once in their life, etc.), watching the debt burden the Baby Boomers have presided over grow exponentially and knowing what that means for us and our children in terms of taxes and opportunity for us.
Maybe it isn't even ill intent on the part of the Baby Boomers, but it's either that or incompetence. Cap the voting age at 62.
Oh wait, that might mean we'd see some actual positive reforms put in place.
Can't have that now, can we?
Problem is... you "youngsters" think more govt is the solution. Its what you've been taught(indoctrinated).
Wrong.
Voting has an impact how?
Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0
Well you got me there. I just left a comment based on idealism when the reality struck that those who control the electronic voting machines control the election. After careful consideration the voting age should be lowered to 5 years old, non citizens and those who are incarcerated including child molestation. It really doesn't matter at the end of the day the Zionists who control the media, money, congress will have their way.
Gladly forfeit my SSI and my right to vote for a simple exclusion from taxes.
Raise the voting AGE? That won't help.
Try raising the voting IQ and we might be onto something.
That's exactly what I was thinking. The IQ threshold needs to be something higher than being able to fog a mirror. The IQ threshold needs to be something higher than being able to say "gibs-me-dat."
Forward (over the cliff)!
Why not ask if we should be voting at all? What exactly is it that we are voting for in the first place?
After all, the voters matter less than the counters.
I know of quite a few well educated, high IQ liberals that voted for Obama twice. They proudly display this fact with bumper stickers on their cars. I'd take an average IQ person who works for a living and has a pragmatic understanding how life works over them any day. The math is relatively simple but it must add up and people must be accountable instead of rewarded for fraud.
Those who produce should vote. Those who take from the system, should not.
Miffed
Those who produce are considered enemies of the state in todays government culture.
It doesn't matter who can or cannot vote when the polls are rigged.
E voting, no audit trail.
"trust me" - Uncle Sam
Is this part of a conspiracy theory? I'm not interested in anything not associated with conspiracy theories or cover ups of conspiracy theories.
Every crime is a conspiracy. Enjoy your passion!
Just as soon as you raise everything else.
Like the draft age. Allow people to vote on the wars they're being made to be cannon fodder for for profit.
Riase the minimum age requirement for college admission? Say, work from 18-22 years of age and then apply to higher education programs?
Uh oh, I feel an unsavory debate forming around the idea that, perhaps, a problem can simply be solved by raising the age of meeting some cultural standard.
Tobacco? Raise the age!
Alcohol? Raise the age!
Driving? Fuck it! Raise the Age!
I do not belive that the problem is so much age (rather quality of age over quantity); however, I do feel that a major issue is what is to be defined behind the uninformed electorate.
William Binney can offer advise on the matter; the reliable physics, that is.
The day you turn 18 is the day that the law deems you responsible for your own actions.
Therefore, you have earned the right to vote.
And that right to vote was won for, faught for and isn’t only for old men.
What’s the next question? Should you vote matter in the same amount as you pay taxes!?!
THAT WOULD BE CRUEL BECAUSE BILLIONAIRES WOULD LOSE THEIR RIGHTS!
If only those under 20 and over 100 got to vote it would at least be interesting.
Both age groups will likely vote at the same rate.
The problems are not with the electorate but rather with the pond scum and bottom feeders that stand for election.
My favorite bumper sticker:
DON'T VOTE - IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THE BASTARDS!
Who cares? Somehow, I don't think "we" will be doing anything.
It doesn't matter because voting doesn't matter.
May as well let babies vote with a thumprint; they're the poor souls all this chicanery and skullduggery will be dumped upon.
Yes we should raise the voting age AND....
-IQ test should be required and a certain IQ required to vote.
-Pass an English Test.
-Pass a basic US history test
-Prove that you've paid federal income tax for 11 of 12 months in the previous year.
If you've received welfare in between the last cycle and the current one you are automatically disqualified to vote.
dont let people vote till they are 50
.
make them pay for subsidized healthcare and take out $50,000->$100000 in college loans
.
they must first learn why we vote
Should be simple. It's scientificaly known today that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 24. Before 24 humans have trouble identifying risk - a lot of the rogue traders were < 24.
18 was only chosen for historical reasons - male children of 18 were forcibly drafted into the military to fight in often pointless wars. In return these 18 year old males were given the right to vote.
The situation today is very different, 18 has only been chosen due to historical intertia - it should be raised to 24 as a first step.
Yes, raise it to 160.
There's a lot more wrong with our sociopolitical system than the voters. Until it is no longer a system by, for, and of the elite, there is absolutely no sense in casting a ballot. I will continue to decline my ballot and send the message that I have no trust or faith in system as contrived.
http://olduvai.ca
The banks decide who you vote for. Raising the voting age would just mean older idiot voters, electing the same idiot candidates.
So the stupid people will think its great.
Democracy only works if the voters have a f**king clue. They really dont. Hence the problems America now faces.
You should only vote if you know that the people you are voting for will represent your best interests.
Nobody can really honestly and completely represent your best interest but you. Your next door neighbor cant, your parents cant, your wife or husband cant.
That's the point I was trying to make.
Guess I wasn't obvious enough.
Ok I didnt read the whole article but "should we raise the voting age"? Absolutely. Yes. Here's why;
18 year olds today are NOT what 18year olds were 50-100 years ago. People are maturing slower now. Life is easier, and life expectancies are a bit higher. Take a look at some high scholl grads from 1930....now look at modern people of the same age. The older pics look like modern day 30 year olds. In 1930, at age 18, you would probably be married with a couple of kids and holding down a serious job. Your average modern day 18 year old is a child, still living with his parents. He looks soft and he is soft, inside and out.
Times have changed, people have changed, and the laws and values must change with them.
Voting age to 25...possibly 30
No votes, and no taxes, before 21? 24? 26? And no draft, but if you volunteer you also get to vote.
This question IMO, is silly.
It presupposes that the system still has an inherenty civil method of operation.
It does not.
It is a system run as a machine by the elites to enhance their corporate structures.
The candidates are all pre-selected; they come complete with strings and buttons attached and installed.
Who votes really matters very little.
There is a media display of a 'race' or 'contest'.
Who wins has been decided long before it has even begun.
Some keep hoping the fantasy is reality.
We all have to live with the consequence.
+1
+1 x 1000
This comment sould be at the top of the page, before the article.
Agreed. Time to lower the curtain on this shitshow.
We should lower the voting age, and continue allowing the dead to vote. The faster this corrupt system blows itself apart, the sooner we can start over with sound economic and political policies.
Voting?
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Every time I encounter the word "vote" in a sentence, I get the same reaction as whenever somebody accidentally farts in public.
What is the purpose of political representation?
Seriously.... why would any rational man want someone else to spend his money for him?
I find the very notion of voting to be .... well, insane.
For starters, once you accede to voting, you give up all your property rights, there and then.
Used to be that you owned a piece of land, and you decided how to use it. Under democracy, every other voter gets an equal say in the disposition of that property.
That is why you own exactly nothing in a democracy. Everything can be taken at the whim of the electorate. Even your life.
Raising the voting age to 50 might be enough. Of course, a literacy, civics and history poll test should be required. Then limit it to properety owners, with a positive net worth.
Actually, the original Constitution had it about right.
Robert Heinlein (I believe) once argued that instead of age, we should require people to pass tests demonstrating their innate intelligence.
Imagine: you enter the voting booth and you're asked a series of questions. Get too low a percentage correct and your vote will not be counted.
I like that! Among other things, it allows intelligent 18-year-olds to weigh in, equally so for intelligent 75-year olds, and leaves out anyone without the smarts to judge the issues and candidates
Unfortunately, then 'they' (our fearless progressive leaders) would end up changing the test so that everyone can pass. Consummate egalitarianism.
"Should we raise the voting age?" is the wrong question. A more appropriate one: Who should be banned from voting? My answer:
1. Anyone "working" in the public sector and their spouses.
2. Anyone whose salary relies directly on public sector funds (college administrators, aerospace employees, government contractors).
3. Anyone who has received welfare of any kind (food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid).
In other words, end the conflict of interest. if you're a tax eater, you forfeit your privilege (not a right) to vote. Only if you are a tax payer should you be allowed to cast a ballot.
numbers 1 & 2 might be a tough sell since govt has its hands on too much crap now - it's involved in freaking everything in some fashion. but we could bring a lot of sanity back to voting with one simple change: make tax rates the same for everyone. whether you've made $30K or $300K so far this year an hour of your labor gets taxed at the same rate. as it stands, the majority of the voting public never feels any pain from increased federal spending - that's reserved for the tax donkeys making $80K and up - they've never learned to favor limited govt because its never been their ox getting gored.
remember that san fran couple who were huge obamacare advocates, but were later shocked and disappointed when THEIR insurance rates went up? we're talking koolaid drinking, people's-republic-of-san-francisco Obamabots. and yet even they responded adversely to the cost/benefit calculation once they actually felt the 'cost' side of it. we just need to make the 50% of the public who pay no income taxes feel its sting (and even the additional 20% or so who pay just a tiny bit). and there's a strong equal protection constituional argument for this too.
will everyone start voting for limited govt? no, but you could easily flip a third of democrats over to the republican party, despite disagreements over social and legal policies, once they too had to "pay their fair share".
No - but if you receive any form of welfare - individual or corporate - you shouldn't be allowed to vote for any tax and spend position, i.e. legislative bodies.
The unspoken premise behind all "voting" is that the individual does not OWN property.
The Collective gets to decide how "your property" is used ... and how much rent you pay to the State, just for the privilege of that "ownership-in-name-only".
So don't pretend to be a Capitalist ... and then participate in the voting shenanigans. It's all about Collective Ownership.
Does it even matter?
How goes it Man?
Probably not so good as people seem to to think that the voting age is the big problem around here. No it isn't. As far as making money, yep I made bank this weekend. I bought a Jebees Fucking Chrysler Town and Douchebag for dirt from some know nothings for dirt cheap. Cash talk and bullshit walks. I recharged the AC unit and it works perfectly. Everything works on this van. I ran throught usual bullshit and fixed it because it usually something if you have the right tools and I do. I like the van but it is going back on Craigslist not that I spent two fixing on it and had Mr.s M detail the interior. I will ask three times what I paid and take 2.5 time. I'll just push the title to the next buyer and the state state can go fuck itself on fines fees and penalties. I also helped a freind get ready to move and he need to get rid of some stuff. Uncle Mani has cash in hand and I hauled a whole truckload of goodies out his garage including a brand new air compressor, a new small Stihl chainsaw that has still has the barcode on it and runs great. I have even a great easy chair in the back of my truck still. A cooler of beer is nearby and I have a sledgehammer for me throne. I even added some artwork to my garage just to decorate. People slow down or even stop and look when they drive my garages. That is a chrome in there and some things are for sale. I had an offer yesterday of $5K on one of my Harleys. I turned that down though even I only $3365 into that bike. The offer stands and he told that he wants that bike. I told him that I need $5500.
I already have buyer for that fucking Chrysler but he is used car dealer. I will make money form that sale but I would rather sell to someone else so I can make more fiats. On any given day I can make more fiats than I can in a month at my day job. That is because I have the right tools to figure out what stupid little thing is wrong and fix it. Fixed, next please. It gives me something to do. I am not dishonest about how I do things either.
So if anyone wants to junk me for that then go right the fuck ahead. I keep working but I won't do it for free. I have sold two cars in the last five days and I have doubled on that deal. There eventually be an issue with the state about how many title transfers are going on but they can suck their own cocks. I will deal with that when it becomes an issue.
Peace brothers and sister.
Lol, he still thinks that voting matters. I sthe writer still 18? Or maybe 16?
He should not be allowed to vote for sure.
An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people. - Jefferson
Since we're still arguing Creationism in many parts of America, this does not bode well.
Some interesting results on the ignorance of a vast majority of the American populace with regards to the Constitution can be found here.
Vote?
Better yet, let's lower the age for civil liberties. As I recall the years before 18 were severely lacking in legal protections.
Vote?
Make voting mandatory for all three years old and above. That great philosopher George Carlin once said that was the age when a person could distinguish truth from bullshit. And besides, voting is only the panacea for having your legislators et al chosen for you by the invisible hand. That invisible hand is, of course tangibly more real than the Easter Bunny and its ilk.
What does it matter? Voting is an illusion of choice.
Move the age by which one would be allowed to participate in their sheeple censuses?!
That's rich.
Like raising the age for permitting one to go to the theater.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
When I was young, I was idealistic - thinking and believing that politicians were mainly interested in serving in order to satisfy a calling to create a world that functioned largely by the "golden rule". As I got older and wiser, I learned that the naive, young masses are conditioned to be that way by a very small percentage of people who take maximum advantage of this naivety for personal gain. Some are aggressive sociopaths. Most are simply not-so-smart insiders who have gotten ahead by being loyal to their teachers/masters and unable to question both the status quo and the effects of their short-sighted actions and attitudes. Insiders don't criticize other insiders or the system responsible for their livelihoods, right?
No change in voting age on either end of the age spectrum will fix this problem. IQ tests won't fix this either because people with high IQs are some of the dumbest and most easily misled people on the planet, especially if they have lived a totally sheltered life and know nothing except what they were spoon-fed by the system charged with maintaining the status quo. In fact, "smart people" (e.g., Bernanke, Summers) are more susceptible to the kind of self-important, arrogant ignorance that is so effectively exploited by sociopaths. And there is never a shortage of not-so-smart people who are blindly loyal and willing to serve as enforcers for a steady paycheck and a nice looking uniform. No, I'm convinced that human nature dooms any system based on representative voting because there always will be a small number of manipulators who can and will exploit even the best-intentioned system over time to thoroughly corrupt that system for huge personal gains.
We seem to be well past the point where voting is going to change things for the better for most people.
by r101958
on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:24
#1132500
I'll say it once (last year before the elections) and I'll say it again now:
"Current politics is best represented by a two headed dragon. Politicians pay lip service to opposing ideologies but both the Republican and Democratic parties are part of the same big government dragon body. The body is moving in one direction; bigger and more powerful government. More control over the electorate. Having the two parties serves a greater purpose though....it divides the populace (sheeple?) into two camps that are always at each others' throat. I think this tactic is called divide and conquer. Until we wake up and get away from the 'Repubs this....' or 'Dems that....' blame game then we will be slowly boiled...just like the frog in the frying pan...all while the dragon stands by watching and laughing."
And .....the sheep continue bleeting.
I was explaining to my younger kid about the nonsense of left/right, Republican/Democrat.
On a whim I grabbed a strip of paper, wrote left/Democrat on one side, and then right/Republican on the other. I then formed this strip into a mobius band, and voilà, both were now actually on one side, that being the side of money, power, and division.
It still appeared that left/Democrat was separate from right/Republican, but when tracing a finger along the strip, one would come to the other meme, and then back.
I wonder what useful aides I can come up with for my discussions on Zion?
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
The political spectrum is really a mobius strip like propaganda illusion oriented toward taking your money, power, and fostering division.
Repeal the 17th and 19th, you are only eligible to vote if you are over 25 and owe the IRS on a 5 year timeline.
No, because all the students at UCLA and other colleges know that TV is propaganda, the NWO has taken over the United States of America and its military, and that the banksters are preparing to kill us. The foreign students have no plans for staying in the US after graduation. The US student citizens that are remaining in the country are all voting for Rand Paul; except of course for the 3% homos and lesbians and the 1 transsexual.
Return the right to issue money and regulate its value to the legislature, and then we can talk about who ought to be voting.
As long as banksters control the money supply, governments will serve at the banksters' pleasure, not ours.
Once that's settled, restrict suffrage to those white males who:
1. Are of sound mind and possess an intelligence quotient of at least 90;
2. Can speak, read and write English at a 12th grade level (enforceable with literacy tests);
3. Have spent no more than three days in jail since age 18;
4. Have paid taxes to the jurisdiction for the last two tax years;
5. If under 65, have been gainfully employed by themselves or others since age 18, and have never been fired from gainful employment for cause nor left any except to take another job or go into business for themselves;
5. If over 65, can demonstrate a regular means of support.
Sorry, but as long as money lenders, whether Judeo-Bolshevik or otherwise, control LEGISLATURES, they will also control “money creation”, and anything else under the term, ‘government.’
The solution is to abolish privileged monopolies and make everyone accountable for what they do; this includes bureaucrats, generals, politicians, businesses and private individuals… everyone.
Yes. To 30.
The Democrats would love to bring the voting age down to 50. This would eliminate all those crazy old fogeys who don't mooch off the government teet. MOAR Democrat votes is what we need. If you worked hard all your life and prudently saved for your old age, chances are you would be voting Republican.
The American colonies went to war over taxation without representation. But since 20 year olds are to gullible and too cowardly to fight back, then perhaps yes, we should take away their voting rights and raise their tax rate in the United States. We could put together a team called "redcoats" to kill anyone trying to assert their rights.
If I were to write an article on this topic, it would be "Should 15 year-olds mount an assault on those who block their vote?". Yes, they should. Another article could be "Should people who do not consent to taxation be forced at gun point to steal their money?" No. We are supposed to be having some kind of civilization. What we have is a chaotic joke, not a civilization.
Older idiots are still idiots. Raising the age in a population unequipped to make wise decisions accomplishes nothing. Democracy is a dead and dangerous system to begin with, so I'm not sure it rally matters. Then there is the point that voting doesn't change anything, anyway.
“Raise the Voting Age?”
Indeed, why not just abolish the practice of VOTING for public issues?
History has proven that voting always leads to rule by thieves, by those who are willing to lie to gain office.
Instead of voting, office holders should be selected by lot.
This was the practice in Athens shortly after the Revolution of minus 509, and it ushered in the most profound era of man’s story. The Golden Age of Greece was remarkable because it occurred at a time when man was just crawling out of Stone-Age culture; and it produced achievements (literature, philosophy, architecture et cetera) that made so-called Western civilization and scientific pursuits possible – and, in some cases, have yet to be surpassed.
If we are to recover ideals of the American Revolution (which are now dead and forgotten, one and two), current generations of Americans will have to learn the history, law and procedures of redress; and to USE such procedures. This includes numerous reforms that must be made; replacing voting with selecting by lot is one of them. I explain/suggest this procedure in The Lost Right, ed., 3.5.
This practice of choosing public officers by lot is explained by Aristotle in his Constitution of Athens, which was recovered from the dustbins of history in the late 19th century. Had this knowledge been known by American Founders, perhaps things would be different today… perhaps.
Perhaps we can do better at the task.
Long ago we required you to be a landowner to vote. There was probably a reason for this.
Today, it is not AGE that is the problem - it is an overall ignorance of American history and how American government works (or is supposed to) work). Yes this hurts the immigrant and illegal alien voters, but should we even let people vote who have no idea what or why they are voting !
While this will never pass the Democrat side, there should be 5 random questions on every ballot. Answer 4 or 5 correctly and your vote counts. Answer 3 or less and we toss out your vote.
WatersWorld on O'Reilly shows clearly that people under 30 know little about history or civics!
Yeah, raise the age! 30 seems to be a good place to start. Those in the 18-25 range that are freshly indoctrinated by pop media or professors need to get some real life experience before they can vote. Also, being a property owner/taxpayer should also be factored into the eaquation. 35 if your not a property owner and 30 if you are?
Of course that brings into play a MAXIMUM voting age.... to old to work, collecting benefits? A conflict of interest in any case.
Clinton on talking points: 'What difference at this point does it make?'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4 (2:08)
~//~
"If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
Wasn't there an amendment that lowered the voting age to 18? How about we lower the cultural standards for the age at which people are considered grown up? Anymore it seems 35 year olds are still letting mom do their laundry...
You should be barred from voting if you believe voting matters...
Voting is a false paradigm. Do what you want, it won't matter. "If voting mattered it would be illegal" has never been more true than this day and age.
You kids get off my lawn! Jesus, could this place become any more overridden with cranky old white men?
Voting age should not be raised rather voting should be restricted to those who actually pay for the government as opposed to the many who just siphon from its largess. Unfortunately, most have now been directly or indirectly converted into wards of the state...
Moreover, voting is largely that of showmanship as the voters are routinely raped by the voted.
These 18 to 20 yer olds can't drink, can't commercially drive (full USA), in most states they are the inbetween age that just can land them in the prison system as an adult and those that are in the juvinile system are held at times until 21 and are the most retarded voters.
Why are we letting our cannon fodder vote (the legal age of military conscription in the early days of this US repubic was 21)?
JEAN OF ARC conquered the British at age 17.
France had plenty of older men, but none of them compared in WISDOM or COURAGE with this lliterate peasant girl. Including, I imagine, the verbose political pundits whose circular reasoning kept the French Court so paralyzed that it failed to capitalize on her victories.
The old folks are voting themselves trillions in unfunded benefits, putting it on their kiddies' tab, so maybe it should be the other way, restrict voting to ages 35 and under...
I AM AN OLD FOLK. I ALWAYS vote, partly to get back as much as I can of the Social Security payments the government took from me all those years I worked. But I don't want anything back that I didn't put in. And I have put NOTHING on ANY kids' tabs. In fact, I consider it my duty to try to help kids by supporting the library, the Youth Ranch, local kids' sports groups, Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts. It is written: RESPECT YOUR ELDERS. It is also written: LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
How about only allowing Freemen to vote and denying voting rights to the Servant Classes? The Freemen are those not working yet have enough government support and under the table jobs to remain free. Regular working stiffs are merely slaves supporting the Freemen.
Go back to the original standard of being a property owner to vote. This would also take care of the welfare crowd.
If you are old enough to get shot at in the Army, you're old enough to vote.
You want to raise the voting age? The raise the enlistment age with it.
Squid
Reinstitute the draft, and remove ALL exemptions. That will make the D.C.ers and Wall Streeters think before sending military kids all over the world every day.
And when I say ALL exemptions, I mean ALL exemptions. I mean that I, who have already been through the draft, should have to go through the draft again. I may not be able to run and shoot that well these days, but there were some old soldiers in the Continental Army and in both Civil War armies. Or I could at least do some other job, close to the front. And so should every Congressman, Supreme Court Justice, and Cabinet Member. NO exceptions. As long as the USA has any troops in combat, anywhere in the world, EVERY American adult should have to be in the draft.
Yes. Raise it to 100. Nobody younger votes.
#1: Eliminate voting.
#2: Eliminate predators-DBA-government.
#3: Enjoy the unexpected but happy new world order.
honestann, start at home, and have the rest of the world watch and learn
seriously, I think that when you stick to the "governments are fantasy" you are way more coherent as when you start with your lunatic proposals
I was just posting a reply where I linked the wikipedia article about buccaneers. note, they voted and even recalled their pirate captains
explain to me what world order you think we would have without governments... while keeping pirates, warlords and buccaneers in mind
at the end, it's always about the same problem: you are an indoctrinated American
your indoctrination prevents you from considering that republicanism and democracy, if faulty in America, can be in any way working elsewhere or in other times
powerful propaganda sells you one simple message: don't bother, don't vote. and you believe that and the idea that humans would be all lambs, without governments
as if you never even heard of piracy, or warlords. too far away in space and time from you, eh?
sorry to be so harsh, but sometimes it's simply too much, particularly from someone that tries to address the issues with a lot of talk about "predators"
note, in this context, how globalist you are: you address the whole world, with a proposed New World Order of Peace without Government
do you have any idea how arrogant this comes over to those who don't have the luxury of living within the World's Hegemon Sphere like you do?
to come back to voting: buccaneers voted. explain why they cared to vote on such things like who would lead them and what they would attack
Screw it, we need laws written in stone (multiple Places, Decentralized) that required small government, small foreign policy, defense of soil only (like 600-800 mile range), and focus on the effect of banking and federal government influence of power, control and financing. Easy. Make Federal Government focus on quarterly & annual reports, but be small enough to know who is responsible for actions, decisions, projects, influence, racketeering.
FED & Private Banks are Self-Regulatory Organizations(SROs) meaning like Lawyers, the BAR Association, the Stock Exchanges, FINRA... they people can destroy as they see fit.
I wonder how many of my local Libraries contain books by Alfred Owen Crozier that actually become available for check out or reading.
Codifying simple, Streamlined, Standardized rules for a small Federal Government would ensure that with few leaders in government we can hold them responsible for their jobs. But also can provide Mandatory Quarterly & Annual Reports to trace money flows, Growing Wealth Inequality, Sources of Strength in the Economy/GDP, Usury, High Fees, Rent Seeking, Decapitalization, Capital Flight, Wealth moving Off Shore, loss of Full time Jobs, Wage Decreases in Full Time Jobs, Specific Categories of Money Velocity Decreases, Stagnant Capital, High Admin Costs for Corporations/Industries...
** It only Works with a Small Federal Government, so people are held responsible **
** Rules put in stone could prevent attempts by Lawyers & Legislators to destroy them. **
Required Reports from Government is probably a better use of Government time than Perpetual War, Help for Israeli Plans, using the MIC to control global Oil, and corrupt other countries opinions and leadership. They could also demonstrate where power shifts have occurred. Like the Systemic Decrease in the Total Number of Commercial Banks. Like the Gini Coeffient/Rate. Like the Loss of Wealth in Households and shift in Market Share and Wealth of TBTF. You could even force Government to regulate the Overhead Costs for Corporations so that instead of living like Royalty they returned profits to Investors & Stockholders.
** Reduced Federal Foreign Policy should be put in Stone **
Privatization of the Central Bank proves the danger of Privatization. And shows how Privatization leads to increased Federal Contracts, Bigger Federal Budgets, Higher Wages for Government Employees, Bigger Military, and a "Government of the Corporation".
BRAC is another Example of Military Contracting Out and allowing huge Budget Expansion.
You are on the right track, but you missed the crucial issue. Don't feel bad, I've had "things figured out" for decades, yet I didn't fully, clearly identify this issue until fairly recently.
The cricual issue is "no mans land" and "where rules end". See my post just above for how the world should work (billions of tiny settlements, each with their own "house rules").
Back to american indian land before europeans invaded and brought their deadly disease called "huge fictitious nations" that eliminated "no mans land" and "government by house rules". Take a read, you might like it.
I don't think there was ever a time or place which had both overpopulation and many independent nations. Overpopulation always results in empire, which means, enslaving or killing off people next door to get their resources because you have crowded so many people onto your own land that there simply aren't enough resources per person to allow them individual self-respect.
If someone realizes how enormously destructive wars and conflict are, and how production boosting free trade, specialization and division of labor are, they would never imagine in their wildest dreams that warfare against neighbors results in more goods and goodies for the people.
What warfare does do is misdirect lots of goods and goodies to the "leaders" and their cronies... and empoverish the regular-folks and producers of all involved.
Unfortunately, regular folks never bother to consider, or figure-out, the actual tradeoffs. They just obey the predators-that-be. The morons!
People think short-term. It's not survival of the planet, or the species. It's survival of the individual. That's how genes work.
Many people hope that if they support whatever group has power, no matter how bad that group acts, they will at least keep their job. Many people, in order to psyche themselves up to provide that support, will listen to and repeat any obvious lie that justifies the group in power. Therefore, once a group gets power, it doesn't seem that hard to keep power, because many people will bend over backwards spiritually/ethically to support the group in power.
As for destruction, Machiavelli taught (and I believe every modern leader has read Machiavelli) that "the only study of the Prince should be war". That is, the Prince should only study and think about and care about his own grip on power. When I look around the world, what I see is those with power trying to keep their grip on power, and always on the lookout for someone whose power might be waning, and who therefore they could replace, thereby increasing their power.
If regular folks invested 1% as much time, effort and resources into weapons and self-defense preparation/execution against human predators (the "princes" in your example), the princes would all be dead, and everyone would live free.
To live free doesn't mean "life is always easy", but it does mean people have a real prospect at living a fairly good, happy, comfortable life.
First, let's agree that the difficulty of finding a way from the current mess to something sane or even semi-sane is much more difficult than proposing "a good system". That's why so often I end with "humans are finished"... even though I am certain humans can live a very good, healthy, prosperous, enjoyable life without harming the ecosystem.
After decades of thought, I finally realized that the single necessary characteristic that is required for humans to enjoy a successful life is... "no mans land". I have to assume you've read more than one of my posts over the past several months that describe what I mean, and why I mean this.
Let me try to write down a more concise version of those posts here. I'm not sure I can without omitting necessary content, but I'll try.
But before I do, I should say one thing about myself. I was born in China, not the USSA. I did live in the USSA for over a decade in Wailea, Maui, Hawaii... which is a vacation/tourist town not very representative of the rest of the USSA. Plus, I have never identified with any race, any nation, any group or any ideology other than individualism/liberty/freedom (which in some ways is more like absence of ideology than ideology). Since I don't believe america exists, and I wasn't born or raised in america, and I escaped america nearly 4 years ago because it was rotten to the core, I can't see how I qualify as an american, much less an indoctrinated one.
However, let's stick to ideas, okay?
As the term is meant today, I say, and mean, quite literally, that "government" is inherently an invalid bogus fiction, that no government has ever existed, that no government exists now, and that no government can ever exist".
HOWEVER...
For purposes of this specific conversation, I will accept a meaning of "government" that is unlike that anyone else means (as far as I can tell). And that is... you get to "govern" your own self and your own property.
This includes your home, and all the stuff outside and around your home that you have created (or traded your creations for). This includes barns, sheds, fences, crops you've planted, animals you've raised, canals you've dug, tractors, equipment, machines, etc.
For purposes of this conversation, I will call your home and all this stuff adjacent to your home "your home" or "your settlement"... and "your property".
I think just about everyone of almost all intellectual persuasions would agree that you can set the "house rules" for "your home" AKA "your settlement". If some relative or guest or passer-by wants to have any material impact upon "your home" or "your settlement", they must comply with your "house rules" AKA your "settlement rules".
This is fairly simple, standard "civil behavior" I believe, that very few humans would disagree with in any significant way. So I assume we can agree upon this.
Now, I will allow the term "government" to apply to this conversation, but it means precisely the same thing as "your house rules" AKA "your settlement rules". So indeed, you are the ruler in a very real sense, and those who wish to live in your house or screw around in your barn or pick corn from your field or have any material impact on you or your property is "governed by your rules".
I do support this meaning of "government"... though this is not what other humans mean by "government". What others mean by "government" is a totally bogus fiction, which I have demonstrated dozens of times in ZH messages.
But... this is a reasonable compromise, because there is a very real sense of "ruler" and "governed" in this peculiar meaning of "government". And so, now we have a "government" in our conversation, theory and "new world order" if you wish. Clearly not the "new world order" the globalists have in mind.
In fact, this is at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, which is why this meaning is potentially legitimate.
While the conventional globalist "new world order" claims to impose a single set of "planetary rules" upon everyone, my "new world order" imposes a single (and different) set of "house rules" upon whoever is in my house (or "settlement").
The difference between these is utterly crucial and fundamental. The "house rules" only apply to "private property". If you want to take advantage of someone else's private property... you must follow their "house rules".
BUT... only as long as you are within their house/settlement.
Which means, there is some very real, metaphysical basis for "house rules", namely "causality applied to human action". When a human takes actions that produce a configuration of reality that has value (and we thus call a "good" or "goodie"), that human is attached to that good or goodie because he is the cause of that good or goodie, and that good or goodie is the effect of those actions (that are the cause).
So if you go into someone's house, and their rule is "remove your shoes and keep your socks on", then you do so, and you are "governed" by their "house rules".
But you are never required to enter anyone else's house/settlement... AND... you are free to leave at any time for any reason. At which time you are not subject to any of those "house/settlement rules" any longer.
If you go into someone else's house/settlement, you become subject to their "house rules", which will likely share a few items, but otherwise be different. And again, you can leave whenever you wish, and no longer be subject to those house rules.
-----
THIS is a valid, rational, justifiable way for humans to live. THIS would be a very effective, efficient, benevolent "new world order"... if there was any practical way to get from the current state to this state.
What may not be obvious from what I've said so far is this. BETWEEN all "homes" or "settlements" is "no mans land". EVERYWHERE that is not part of an existing "house/settlement" MUST BE considered part of "no mans land".
Everywhere in "no mans land" there are no "house rules" or "settlement rules" because "there is no human-created house, there is no human-created property, there is no human-created settlement".
Which means, not only can any individual leave whatever "house/settlement" he is in to no longer be governed by the currently applicable "house rules", but he can be free of ALL "house rules". In other words, he can enjoy liberty and can literally live free.
Of course, living near or with others can have advantages as well as limitations (rules to follow). Division of labor is one obvious example. Employment is another. Ease of operation and access to workers is another. And so forth.
So everyone has a two-part decision to make. Live free, or live under rules. If one decides to "live under rules", one then must decide "which house rules" will I subject myself to, and when will I enter and leave (which means "become subject to those house rules and cease to be subject to those house rules).
-----
The central INHERENT, IRRESOLVABLE DISASTER of modern mankind was... the utterly unjustifiable elimination of "no mans land". When a pack of human predators sat around a table, smeared ink on paper or parchment, then decreed that "everyone for hundreds or thousands of miles, and for eternity, is part of OUR house/settlement and is subject to OUR "house rules" AKA "settlement rules"
THAT MEANT WAR AGAINST EVERYONE.
THAT CLAIMED EVERYONE WAS A SLAVE.
Unfortunately, humans were too stupid and/or insane and/or meek and/or weak and/or self-destructive and/or something to immediately exterminate those human predators who had no legitimate basis to claim to set "house rules" over anything they did not create.
-----
Amazingly, such perfect did exist on earth. This perfect liberty existed before the original super-nasty pack of human predators created the first notions of "settlements that extend [far] beyond their actual physical settlement". And this perfect liberty existed in north (and probably south) america before the europeans came over and imported their utterly invalid, unjustifiable, aggressive, predatory notion that "house rules can extend for hundreds and thousands of miles beyond any real, physical, created house or settlement".
To be sure, most of those europeans "didn't know better" in the sense that they had never imagined this kind of "perfect liberty". And so, they just willy nilly went about destroying the last expansive vestige of perfect liberty on planet earth. That many of them did not understand what they were doing, did not and does not excuse them, however.
-----
Now I should probably say, pretty much EVERYONE who lived in "no mans land"... as well as everyone who lived in a tiny home or settlement surrounded by "no mans land" FULLY UNDERSTOOD that they must defend themselves against all predators, both non-human and human.
There was no delusion that "some fake daddy will swoop down and destroy all predators who dare attempt to harm me or my property".
Anyone who claims "there must be such a supreme daddy protector IS EVIL"... and/or completely freaking insane.
There is no aspect of reality that makes "living as a slave" superior or safer than "living free". In BOTH situations there will be human and animal predators who attempt to harm you and your family and friends, and/or steal or damage your property. NO SYSTEM can or does exclude that possibility.
The difference is... if you make yourself a slave to some human predators who claim they will "keep you safe in return"... YOU ALREADY LOST. You are ALREADY A SLAVE. You are ALREADY TRASHED, especially by those you subjected yourself to.
There is no possible "system" in which humans can refuse to defend themselves... AND live a happy, healthy, efficient life.
And so the answer to all arguments like "but... but... who will protect me?" is the same. THAT IS UP TO YOU. You can and should buy weapons and ammo. You can and should make the physical configuration of your home/settlement relatively easy and efficient to protect. You can and should remain alert, vigilant and prepared. And if you live near any other settlement, you should install a loud siren, and formulate "mutual aid" agreements with nearby settlements to come defend each other when attacked. And anything else you can think up. Oh, if you are productive enough, pay a few brutes and gunslingers (and/or special-ops retirees) to live in or adjacent to your home or settlement.
Or be a wimp and be consumed by predators. Because THAT WILL HAPPEN if you believe you can be an infinitely meed sheep and just WISH every human and every other animal on planet earth will be "nice". If you believe that, you will die, just as all animals in the forest die who act that way.
It takes effort to live. You need food, water, shelter, clothing and other goods. You also need self-defense, with or without external assistance. Get real and accept this, and STOP TRYING TO CREATE SUPER-TYRANNY BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID, INSECURE, OR JUST TOO LAZY TO DESERVE TO LIVE.
You CANNOT get around this problem. Neither can I. To create SUPER-PREDATORS is not only a VERY STUPID answer, it is CERTAIN DISASTER.
I do not live in the USSA. Almost 4 years ago I moved to the extreme boonies 125km from the nearest human being in a remote place in the southern hemisphere. I live here alone, a 5'5" tall, 105lb wimpy female, with NOBODY to protect me but myself. You accuse me of "enjoying the luxury of living withing the world's hegemon sphere". What I want to know is "what the hell is that supposed to mean"?
In these 4 years I have not seen, contacted or been contacted by any human who claims to be part of government. Nobody cares I am here, and definitely nobody is waiting with bated breath for me to call in an emergency. In fact, I have no phone (cell, satellite or otherwise... unless you count skype on my computer).
If someone attacks me or my self-sufficient equipment, the only human who will stop them from being successful is ME. While maybe a few other humans would come to my aid if I called them and told them where I am... the first of them would not arrive for at least 24 hours! Is that supposed to mean something to me?
If I... a short, skinny female wimp expects to protect herself... then... sorry. So can you. If you choose not to, that is your problem. The earth includes a great many predators, and not only human predators, so you need to be ready.
BTW, I do not feel unsafe AT ALL. In fact, I feel 1000 times safer than living in any city I've ever known, and perhaps 10 times safer than living in that super-safe, super-upscale tourist paradise called Maui.
If you want to create a little settlement, and vote someone "chief buccaneer" of your settlement, you will see that I have no problem with that whatsoever. I have no idea what role that chief buccaneer would serve, or how you would compensate them for his services, BUT YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO.
What you are NOT free to do is... pretend to create some fictional pile of predatory aggressiveness called a fictional "nation", then tell everyone THEY MUST OBEY YOU... or THEY MUST OBEY THE HUMAN PREDATORS YOU VOTED FOR. You can set up ANY scheme you wish WITHIN YOUR HOUSE or SETTLEMENT.
But I do not belong to you. I have no obligation to you or anyone you pretend to elect. And if you attempt to force me into ANY aspect of your setup, then YOU are a human predator, and I will kill you dead.
That is the kind of "new world order" I propose. I hope you like it. At least it has something you can call "government", and you and your predator-addicted friends can do ANYTHING YOU WANT within the boundaries of YOUR settlement, which ENDS where your settlement ends. More power to you.
-----
Why anyone imagine that everyone else on earth must accept THEIR favored way of living is totally beyond me! I leave you... and every other human being on planet earth... to organize and live their lives any way they wish --- within their home and settlement.
They have no basis to demand I obey them when I am in my home, my settlement, or in "no mans land".
That is the only possible workable "new world order".
Sure, it won't happen... except for me.
Because I will defend myself.
Make sense?
PS: I can't imagine why anyone would say that me demanding to be left alone to live my life in the manner I choose is somehow "arrogant". I know better.
I say the human who expects everyone else on earth to live the way THEY DEMAND is the absolute height of arrogant.
Think about those two positions.
Which is actually arrogant?
@honestann : You've written a lot of useless stuff here. If you were a true American you'd understand that what's required is simply to reimpose our actual Constitution as it's written, without "living document" interpretations from the a-wholes in black robes.
Our system, when properly run, will provide you and everyone else with all the freedoms of life necessary. And, what's even better, if the people decide at any point that they want additional/less functions from their fed govt, they get to change the rules with something called amendments!! Isn't that great!
Honestann, what you want, and you don't even know it, is our own, real, Constitutional Republic. I agree.
Why on earth would I want to be slave of ANYONE? Why on earth would I agree to obey ANYONE?
If you read my messages of the past week or month, you'll find out why the so-called "founding fathers" were tyrants, and destroyed that last hope for large-scale liberty on the planet.
The constitution is a piece of paper that weak minded fools imagine will protect them, so they can delude themselves into believing they don't have to protect themselves. Which has made virtually EVERYONE prey to human predators who pretend they ARE the fiction called "government".
Look at what you say! You expect OTHERS (human predators) to protect you! Why? Because they read a piece of paper? Has that ever worked? No! Will it ever work? No! There is no "system", there are just humans pretending they "run a system", while what they really do is... dominate and abuse everyone for their benefit and enjoyment.
What a document says is 100% irrelevant! 100%. The proof is everywhere around you. The predators-DBA-government violate the words and spirit of that piece of paper thousands of times every day. How much evidence do you need?
Furthermore, you expect ME to submit myself to the "system" you delude yourself to believe in. My answer is NO.
I refuse to be governed by anyone, ever.
And you cannot give me or anyone else any good reason they should agree to be governed by anyone else either. You just want it. The answer is NO.
And you, because you are deluded, are willing to support killing me or putting me in a cage because I refuse to be governed by your imagined heroes. Just think about what that makes you. A predator, and totally evil... whether that is your intent or not.
Why does everyone want to be a slave, and support slavery?
Why do you?
The ONE AND ONLY reason the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution was that they were all afraid that a superpredator, the British Empire, would pick them off one by one if they didn't join together for military defense against that superpredator. To them, signing the Constitution was "the lesser of two evils".
They should have joined forces with the natives. They should have pointed out exactly what I said way above... that the invaders want to claim every square millimeter of the entire continent and force everyone to obey everything they demand.
If they had been that clear and straightforward, rather than treating the natives crudely and as "savages", they could have made effective allies. And no need to create a new evil empire to fight the old evil empire.
The goal must be to eliminate evil empires, not to become one.
Slavery is just a form of stealing. Stealing is merely a way of getting more for less, and is therefore an energy-efficient survival strategy. Many (most?) other animals also steal. But with as much science as homo sapiens now has, he doesn't HAVE to steal to survive any longer. But the stealing genes are still in our brains, and until we advance scientifically to the point where we can - and CHOOSE to - change our brains, stealing isn't going to stop, and slavery isn't going to stop.
Yes, indeed. But two things can stop the stealing... a choice to not steal, and exterminating everyone who practices stealing. Once many of those who steal are exterminated you might find many of the rest of them decide to choose not to steal... because they prefer to survive.
Actually, humans have been able to not-steal for a long, long time now. The only reason the human population of earth grew by a factor of 1000 or more was because more and more humans became producers, which exploded the available quantity of goods and goodies available to support a larger population.
The reason humans have no hope is... they don't clearly recognize that human predators WILL NOT STOP being predators until they defend themselves. Only then will human predators back off... in order to stay alive. But humans are so completely deluded that... the hire those very human predators to pretend to protect them against those very same human predators.
Which is STOOOOOOOPID.
Ann, you don't sound at all wimpy to me.
Raise it. Lower it. It doesn't matter. Whoever best sucked dick at the last Bilderberg meeting "wins" the election.
In my opinion, it is not so much about age as having a stake in the results of an election beyond "free stuff". Anyone who has accepted government assistance or grants of any kind in teh last year, should not be allowed to vote. Federal government employees should not be allowed to vote. Employees of subsidized companies, like banks, should not be allowed to vote. Ex-military and current should. Property owners should. People who pay a positive amount of taxes should (sorry Warren, not you). Voting is not a some natural right. It is a decision on choosing a leader. People with no stake in the outcome or any sweat input should not be allowed to cast a ballot.
The voting age should be 25 in order to give these children time to experience the real world before they start supporting idiot leftist causes.
Of course this will never happen because allowing children to vote was one of the necessities required by the one-world-govt crowd, in addition to destroying the nuclear family.