If the federal government dissolved...

[flightsimmer]

I don't know how I feel about land owner voting right concept but I'd support military service voting right and perhaps certain civil service voting right as well. Having some skin in the game defending freedom is a pretty good primer for making smarter decisions in the voting booth. Handing someone a birthright vote does nothing to ensure they value the weight of that responsibility and now we're even trying to give away voting rights to foreigners - how retarded is that?!

I'm afraid that once given away you can't get it back.
Example, try getting women's voting rights back.
Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't have the right to vote, it's just an example.

 

[jake blue]

I'm afraid that once given away you can't get it back.
Example, try getting women's voting rights back.
Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't have the right to vote, it's just an example.

Absolutely agree. It's like all the people whining about the freebie extra unemployment money ending - free money is more addictive than crack! But in the context of a dissolution of federal government thread all the norms become moot and all the rules get rewritten anyways so isn't that basically what the nation's founders did in establishing America? They didn't seek the consent of the majority, they did what they had to do, those who believed and supported their cause fell in line behind them and no doubt there was a considerable portion of the then-population who were either apathetic or actually preferred the protection of the British Empire over the risks of self-governance. That's a perspective you don't read in history books because they're written by the winners.

 

[Bugzilla]

All we need to do is get the republicans back in control. They have said several times they will investigate the corruption going on. I bet the even send Pelosi, Hunter, Joe and others nasty letters telling them they should be less corrupt! Country saved!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Man, this thread delivers.

If we know anything about the wealthy, its that they never use their position to influence the government to maintain or increase their wealth. Let's concentrate power into fewer hands to save us from the rabble. I'm ok with tyrants as long as I get to be one. There would certainly be a more fair system if we had more taxation without representation and society would be so much more stable.

I wonder if some of you see a tyrant behind every tree and a police state behind every bush because that's what you'd do? I need to have a say in government but you don't because I know better than you and it's for your own good...but we don't want a political elite and need term limits because power should be shared among more people. Maybe a nice king, though.

 

[churchmouse]

I don't know how I feel about land owner voting right concept but I'd support military service voting right and perhaps certain civil service voting right as well. Having some skin in the game defending freedom is a pretty good primer for making smarter decisions in the voting booth. Handing someone a birthright vote does nothing to ensure they value the weight of that responsibility and now we're even trying to give away voting rights to foreigners - how retarded is that?!

Totally retarded.

 

[OkieGirl]

Unfortunately this never works because politicians are no different than a large group of whores. They'll do just about anything for the all mighty dollar.

We seriously need to stop electing career politicians. Dropping some term limits in would save a lot of headaches, even 20 or 30 year career politician limits would eliminate a ton of shenanigans we are putting up with these days. If Nancy knew she had to move back to her 'home town' eventually, maybe she would care that it's streets are an open sewer.

We are essentially hiring someone to do a job and the election process is supposed to be their interview. I don't know why we put two jokers on a stage and get so excited to watch them slug it out when really we need to review their qualifications and do a proper interview. I would never hire someone who I had no idea how they would address the work and what experience they had to do the work. As voters, I feel like all we've gotten lately are resumes from the latest candidate that basically say "hire me, I'm not the other guy". The reason 45's policies worked is because he actually ran businesses before. Previously we had hired a community organizer who didn't like the country and that's what we got...a very organized, unhappy group of young citizens who followed him eating out of his hand one minute and wanted to burn down the country the next.

 

[ditcherman]

Man, this thread delivers.

If we know anything about the wealthy, its that they never use their position to influence the government to maintain or increase their wealth. Let's concentrate power into fewer hands to save us from the rabble. I'm ok with tyrants as long as I get to be one. There would certainly be a more fair system if we had more taxation without representation and society would be so much more stable.

I wonder if some of you see a tyrant behind every tree and a police state behind every bush because that's what you'd do? I need to have a say in government but you don't because I know better than you and it's for your own good...but we don't want a political elite and need term limits because power should be shared among more people. Maybe a nice king, though.

I suppose that this is a response in some degree to my post about landowner voting rights; be clear I am not advocating it nearly as much as you are calling out hypocrisy in your post. I completely realize the hypocrisy in it, and there was good reason it was moved away from that method, I’m sure.
That being said, there could be some ownership (no pun intended) to voting, not just a “birthright vote” as someone said above.
No need for a debate, as it will NEVER happen, in fact it will continue to go the other way, at least until after the revolution, if there ever is one, and we won’t be the ones debating.

 

[churchmouse]

We seriously need to stop electing career politicians. Dropping some term limits in would save a lot of headaches, even 20 or 30 year career politician limits would eliminate a ton of shenanigans we are putting up with these days. If Nancy knew she had to move back to her 'home town' eventually, maybe she would care that it's streets are an open sewer.

We are essentially hiring someone to do a job and the election process is supposed to be their interview. I don't know why we put two jokers on a stage and get so excited to watch them slug it out when really we need to review their qualifications and do a proper interview. I would never hire someone who I had no idea how they would address the work and what experience they had to do the work. As voters, I feel like all we've gotten lately are resumes from the latest candidate that basically say "hire me, I'm not the other guy". The reason 45's policies worked is because he actually ran businesses before. Previously we had hired a community organizer who didn't like the country and that's what we got...a very organized, unhappy group of young citizens who followed him eating out of his hand one minute and wanted to burn down the country the next.

Yes that’s exactly what we got from the organizer and that was his intention from the moment he became POTUS.
Now he is living high on the totem pole and laughing his ass off. He succeeded.

 

[ancjr]

Milton Friedman said something along the lines of: "They've created a system that would take angels to run, and now can't find any angels to run it"

 

[Leadeye]

The only problem I have with term limits is that it conentrates more power in the law/lobby firms of the dc beltway. They influence the decisions they are are paid to influence and the people have no control over them unless you are one of those buying the laws.

I haven't seen out favorite border Kentuckian in some time, wonder how he is doing.

 

[Flash-hider]

Before I vote in the poll, define "centralized government." If you're asking to rid ourselves of our Constitutional Republic, then my answer would be no. If you're asking about doing away with our bloated bureaucracy, then I would answer yes.

 

[Flash-hider]

The only problem I have with term limits is that it conentrates more power in the law/lobby firms of the dc beltway. They influence the decisions they are are paid to influence and the people have no control over them unless you are one of those buying the laws.

I see it greatly increasing the power of the intrenched bureaucracy. Legislators lose their control over the State Departments. The career employees wait it out until the "nuisance" legislator is termed out.
How do I know this? This is what has happened here in Michigan over the past 30 years. Term limits is not the answer to your problems. Putting sweat into the candidates campaign to get them elected goes a lot further.

 

[spencer rifle]

Maybe a nice king, though.

Benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. Maybe Washington could have pulled it off, but history shows that benevolent dictators never stay benevolent.

“The worrisome lesson of history is that there is no shortage of strongmen and generalissimos, and their holding power and exercising it ruthlessly is the natural state of human affairs. Nobody has to do anything to make that happen; it’s making that not happen that requires our attention.” — Kevin D. Williamson

“The wave of the future isn’t a wave at all, but an eternal tide that champions of freedom must fight against, constantly. For if they stop, even briefly, the tide will push them back to the shores of the natural human condition, and the state of nature is not liberal-democratic capitalism but tribal, thuggish authoritarianism.” – Jonah Goldberg, 2014

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted." - Frank Herbert

 

[Ingomike]

Another part of the problem was senators were no longer appointed by state legislatures. No one to look after state interests anymore.

The dumb masses have no idea how big of a deal this turned out to be. It is shocking that once no one represented the states, the fed took their power…

 

[HoughMade]

I don't know how I feel about land owner voting right concept but I'd support military service voting right and perhaps certain civil service voting right as well...

Wait...are you one of the people who think that the Bugs were the bad guys in "Starship Troopers."

 

[Route 45]

Wait...are you one of the people who think that the Bugs were the bad guys in "Starship Troopers."

Would you like to know more?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Man, can you imagine the howling and gnashing of teeth at this proposal?
I was first exposed to the idea that only property owners should be able to vote 20 years after I graduated high school. I did take history, but the history teacher is the winningest football coach in the universe or some crap like that, so it was football films.
That was an amazing and offensive idea at first, but I've definitely grown to see how much better it could work.

I don't know how many here may have read Robert A. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," which was written in 1959. Many people who weren't raised in the '50s & 60s have called the "Federation" described in the book "fascist" because the book itself is a coming-of-age story of a soldier in an interstellar war of survival. Its main relation to this topic is that, in the Federation, in order to be a "citizen" and be able to hold political office or to vote for people aspiring to political office, one must first complete "a term of service" of a minimum of two years. The service may be in the military (which is what prompts the "fascism" label) or in any other position - but that service, if not in the military, will be at some job which is dirty, tedious, or dangerous.

The underlying idea behind this concept is that if one wishes to have a say in government, one MUST first show that one is willing to put some skin in the game - be willing to be of service to the State; not just a consumer of the State's benefits. What many people miss in reading this novel is that, while the protagonist joins the military, many civilians have no desire nor see a need to become "citizens."

I think the concept of requiring anyone who would be entitled to vote - or to be a candidate for election to political office or to work in government - to do SOMETHING to "put skin in the game" is a sound one, because it would bring with it the recognition that "representative government" isn't "free"; there is always a price to be paid for letting others make the rules.

Michael Z. Williamson - local SF author - also has an interesting take on "citizenship' in his FREEHOLD series, where, to become a "citizen" and therefore hold a position in government, one must first amass a medium-sized fortune (if I remember correctly) and then give it all to the government before becoming a "citizen." Again, it demonstrates a willingness to put service before reward and is a counterbalance for the human tendency to vote for bread and circuses.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Wait...are you one of the people who think that the Bugs were the bad guys in "Starship Troopers."

Great book, lousy movie. I enjoyed the depiction of Combat Engineers in the sci fi world.

 

[HoughMade]

The dumb masses have no idea how big of a deal this turned out to be. It is shocking that once no one represented the states, the fed took their power…

Some of the dumb masses still think the Senate is "anti-democratic"....which it is...but not nearly enough.

 

[BugI02]

I vote yet but I believe the core of the problem is a simple one, and more easily resolved than most would believe.

The problem is democracy. Full franchise democracy.

The constitution was written for a far smaller segment of the population to exercise voting rights. It fails to work as intended when everyone can vote for their own personal benefit at the cost of their neighbor.

But this is a taboo topic, so I don't think humanity is mature enough to handle it anymore. We'd be best off devolving our form of government until the population is mature enough again to handle big boy issues with some maturity rather than inject social politics into it.

If you want evidence of this, all you need to do is look at 2020.

We need a common belief in what path is best for America

Perhaps when the Chinese attack us, we will be able to unify America First and the non-communist left - if there are any still unco-opted