The Problem With Democracy..

Haven't read much of this yet, just commenting on the first part until I get a chance to look over it all. In response to the second statement, I was curious what government provided a more equal representation than Democracy. It's obvious that a fundamentalist government would be even less representation AND rights for certain people. I'm just curious as to what you're trying to compare it to?

Just my 2 cents here but not everyone should have equal rights. One prime example is parenthood. People should have to get a license or something along those lines before being allowed to have kids. There are some god awful parents out there that have absolutely no business having kids. The last thing the world needs is another useless, uneducated mouth to feed/breath/pollute the world.

The main problem is our society's growing acceptance of idiocy and laziness.

The downward spiral of our government and nation as a whole is more than enough proof of this.

In years past, the pressure from society (family, neighbors, friends, etc) to be a hard working and loyal citizen was enough of a force to direct many people down a more productive path. But in more recent times we seem to have had a massive shift where society instead preaches a message of "Receive as much as possible for as little work as possible".

As much as I have thought about this situation, I just can't come up with a solution. Unfortunately the only thing that I can think of that will have any affect is one or a series of massive tragedies that snatch away the comfortable life that we have all grown accustomed to, forcing people to once again earn their place.

The vast majority of this country's population are nothing more than sheep consumers who lack the ability to see anything past what they are presented on television by the political machines that are the republicans and democrats.

PATRIOT Act was a response to 9/11 and the public's fear of domestic terrorism. While it does bring about a certain 1984 feel to it, it's there for a similar reason for why the US has a (or should have)military. That reason is for national security.

Now, I'm a Libertarian, so fighting wars for reasons other than a fear of national safety isn't my thing, so I can't wholly agree with the wars we've been involved in as of late. I can see why they were started, mainly out of fear. But my aversion to it was that the media assumed too much of the general public, thinking they were well-versed in Middle-eastern politics, and the people still pushed an agenda to fight for their safety.

Nobody would argue that our involvement in World War II wasn't a noble one. In fact, we took a very libertarian view about that war. We basically stood back until our public safety was endangered by a large event(Pearl Harbor vs. 9/11). I could go into detail about why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, or why Japan was even involved in the war, but that's for another post.

Post WW2, we spent tons of money on Japan to build it a new infrastructure and helped establish a new government similar to our own. This same plan was not executed properly in regards to the war in Iraq. We did spend lots of money, but many military orders were to guard "this oil field" instead of guarding schools and workplaces from dissenting attackers. Also, the citizens of Japan at the time were more willing to cooperate post-war than what we saw in Iraq.

I feel that Bush wanted it to be a situation like Japan, where we fought back, established a government, help build the foundation of a Democracy and then leave them be to establish trade with current 1st world countries. Instead, it seemed to focus more on oil and padding people's wallets instead of what we had seen in Japan decades ago.

This is tl;dr material, I know :(

wow that is just one of the stupidest things I've ever heard....to be able to tell someone that they are not fit enough to raise a child is just stupid... i know a lot of kids who came from ***parents who are in good colleges cause they didn't want to end up like their parents...you sir are a *** retard to even thinking that is a good thing to implement.

secondly i do know a lot of bad kids who had "Good" parents too. your logic is fail because you sir are fail. and who would enforce the law that if you are unfit to be a parent and got pregnant you "Have" to get an abortion?

not only will a lot of religious groups protest because it's against their religion but a lot of teens will protest.

Good grief, if you're going to make an argument here at least present it well. I'll take Oddin's position for the sake of discussion.

Statistically, children of the lower class tend to remain in the lower class all their life. Similarly, victims of child abuse tend to be less successful and more prone to suicide, placing a burden on our economic infrastructure. Given that they take more from the system than they give back, it would be better for the population as a whole if limits were imposed on parenting that reduced the number of children born each year with the odds of success stacked against them.

Nobody cares about protests.

this post makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside

So you think it's ok for the crack addicted prostitute working the corner right now should be allowed to have a baby? You think the uneducated, unreliable, unstable sixteen year old girl still in high school should be able to have a baby? You think it's a good idea to have someone pump out sixteen babies without the financial resources to pay for them all thus making the tax payer have to do so? No, sir. You are made of fail. None of those people need to be having kids.

And as far as your "Abortion" crap, no. I'd say make them go through the pain of child birth and then give the baby up for adoption to fit, stable foster parents.

Teenagers can go cry in a corner until they're 18 and become legal adults.

And eliminating the proletariat is made of win?

How is that a bad thing? If more people are getting better educations and going into non-manual labor jobs, that forces those seeking manual labor to up their wages for employees in order to hire more employees. I'd say that's a win-win.

A capitalist structure is a pyramid, and in order for the pyramid to stand, the base (proletariat) needs to be(will be) maintained. The conditions of the proletariat can be improved, but this will devalue those improvements to society.

In example, our society needs janitors. If we were to provide a college education to everyone (a likely improvement to earning potential, currently) it doesn't eliminate our society's need for janitors, it simply creates over-educated janitors; or we accept an influx of unskilled laborers (which in that case would be immigrants) and start the cycle anew.

Basically the pyramid will maintain it's shape, eliminating the base of the pyramid will only go about creating a new base.

I get that and you're right but as I said in my previous post, having more educated people getting better jobs makes it harder to fill those manual labor jobs thus making employers raise their wages a bit to try and lure those without that education to their business. This in turn improves the livelihood of the lower class and does make things better for everyone in the end.

Every new generation would still generate a lower class populace filling those jobs, they're just not breeding in the event that they're banned from doing so.

In other words, Darwinism with a vengeance.

But those employers will raise the price of their product/service to offset the blow to their bottom line, this market wide increase in prices will also cause those in the middle class who were just getting by to pick up part-time jobs to compensate; thereby driving the demand for the manual labor jobs down. Improvements to the lower class can be made by government forced redistributions of wealth- heathcare, welfare, etc., but the class status quo will be maintained.

Limiting the reproduction of the lower class won't assist in this, rather the traditionally higher reproduction rate of the lower class stimulates job growth, as more goods/services are needed, more manual labor jobs are created, creating more low to mid management jobs and eventually a few higher management jobs.



That is correct, the classes reproduce themselves generally speaking, save for the rare individuals who break their class barrier. But banning breeding of the lower class would only go to harm the middle and upper class as the original lower class dwindles away.

white males age 18-54 obviously

democracy needs one thing...

LU BU

I don't follow. I think I need to redirect this though - my focus is on those not socioeconomically fit to reproduce. Class status is but one variable involved there, albeit a fairly significant one. The idea is to reduce burden on our economic infrastructure by ending the feedback loop that tends to arise once somebody becomes a heavy burden rather than a valuable contributor, not to simply ban reproduction across the entire lower class. If there is a lack of workers in the manual labor pool as a result, the fact remains that those spaces will be filled by the next generation. If you can't get a job elsewhere, you take what you can get; there are also those who may prefer to work with their hands. A greater percentage of upper and middle class children need not lead to an overeducated working population - see the German meritocratic education system. In the proposed system those who do not contribute are culled with each generation, while the rest of the socioeconomic infrastructure remains intact.

Sheeple aren't fit to govern themselves.
Sheeple are governed by emotion masquerading as logic.
Sheeple are lost without a shepherd.
Sheeple are carried away by distractions.
Sheeple say they think for themselves.
Sheeple let their pop stars and lusts think for them.
Sheeple all think alike.
Sheeple use the same buzz words and limited vocabulary bank to pad their mal-logic.
Sheeple Think they are unique and interesting.
Sheeple think they are wise.
Sheeple deceive themselves.

NECRO

Yes. "I agree."

Whoever made this image knows full well what I mean by buzz words and common vocabulary.

Lol. Everyone talks about 9/11 as an inside job. I say this economy is an inside job.

Then again Im not jessie ventura. I dont think it is appropriate to call incompetence an inside job.

You can always tell a fool by the volume of bumper stickers.

Seriously when I am driving down the road and see a vehicle-- often a large van that wants to drive slow as ***.... And I see a shitload of bumper stickers I dont even need to read them. I know what their political affiliation and general ideology is. Only a liberal would be so proud to be a fool as to make an open show of boasting in their idiocy.

Democracy is a joke. For starters you have a majority of uninformed people voting for wealthy people who also receive a lot of funding (lobbing) from corporations. So when these people are elected, it is no surprise they coincidently seem to favor policies that favor those corporations that supported them, not the people. We don't vote for the things that matter most. We think/hope the people we elected to represent us do things in our favor. This should be well known by now that's rarely the case. In fact, when a vote is up and the person that was elected isn't there to vote on it, other elected officials, even those in opposing parties vote for them. Democracy in action. As I said, a joke.

Let's take a look at the economy. Another joke. People are to narrow minded and short sighted. We have a population that is growing, people are living longer and there are less jobs available due to our advancements in technology (and outsourcing). Let's not even go into how we are using more resources then the earth can produce. I would like to see how that one plays out in this current model. There is simply not enough jobs to go around to cover the cost of living for many people in america. The people who are well off don't care and won't until they or someone they care about fall victim to this scenario that is growing. People who have little options are more likely to do what they need to in order to survive. And people wonder why the prison population is growing.

Our culture and society are based on old ideologies that at one point in time were necessary. The flaw is holding on to these outdated methods that paralyzes true progress that no longer fit the modern day world we live in. "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change" Charles Darwin

I think we should vote to decide who writes the questions... oh ***... wait...

True enough. But, is he wrong?

There's used to be tests required to vote but they were used to oppress black voters and were ruled unconstitutional. While it would be nice if everyone was informed and understanding of issues, it doesn't change the fact that everyone in this country is equal.

Really what people should require are that you can not vote without a highschool education(its free no excuse to not have). Graduatation from highschool should require a working knowledge of the Federal and state level government. While you may not know the ins and outs of politics if you don't even know what the person's your voting for job is its hard for you to make a decision.

how do you think obama got elected

edit: agreeing with you btw

I remember I was talking to a group of leftist nuts in a mic based chat client. I told them I think that people should have to take competency tests on the issues and the candidates and who stands for what before they are allowed to vote to eliminate bias for 'pretty faces' and resonances of 'names' in their memory and so fourth.

In other words:

Have a test that says candidate A believes in X Y and Z so that people KNOW who they are voting for.

I mean, I know congress likes to pass ***they don't read, and all so I guess its the American way.

Those liberals became enraged that I wanted reform to allow for 'educated' voting. (Perhaps they rely on the "ignorant voter" demographic?)

They then took up their verbal stones and hurled them at me.

Perceiving their angry sentiment, the spirit of a troll descended upon me:

I said that mentally handicapped people shouldn't be allowed to vote either unless they can demonstrate an UNDERSTANDING of what they are giving their consent to by binding the rest of us to their decision. (Why the *** shouldn't a 15 year old with an IQ of 153 be denied the right but a 48 year old with an IQ of 87 be permitted?)

To this, they ceased throwing verbal stones in favor of shitting into their hands and flinging it at me before pulling the trigger on the 'bounce' button.
I swear liberals are angry hateful people at heart.
It's not that fun trolling when it's this easy.