If you had to pass an IQ test (100+) to vote, would liberals run the country?

[Space]

I don't care if you have a 200 IQ; if you vote for Hillary, and are not one of her insider buddies, then you are functionally retarded.

 

[kpt018]

Precisely, take a look at them. What happened to Somalia after its totalitarian government fell even when it stopped receiving international aid? Were they better off or worse off without a "strong" government? Is the trend that society gets more prosperous as governments become more involved, or less?

I'm not suggesting that you don't think taxation is theft. I'm saying you have yet to articulate a distinction past "they're necessary for society."

We're outside of the original disagreement though. You're saying people should still be able to vote if they have a conflict of interest. Why? Why should the people receiving handouts (i.e. not paid services) have just as much say as the people obligated to pay for them?

I'm saying there is no conflict of interest.

 

[kpt018]

You made a non-point. You can't act like poor people are subsidizing rich people by protecting their property when the rich are actually subsidizing the poor and the poor are taking more out than they put in.

I didn't say the poor subsidizes the wealthy in terms of protecting property rights, reread the post you quoted (are you purposefully framing my point in a way that makes it easy for you to discredit?). It's is a simple fact that someone who pays taxes but does not own a lot property (that doesn't make them poor by the way) is not benefiting directly from a service provided by government, but that is one of many examples. We can't point to tons of things that we pay into but do not receive a direct benefit. It's a major contradiction in Greoric's and other's thinking. In his view it's a conflict of interest if you receive welfare but not protection of property rights...

Again, I am simply pointing out a hole in Greoric's logic and am not arguing against the idea we should all contribute to the system (I am arguing the opposite in fact). He is on the side of an extremely limited government (protect property rights and military only) and I think advanced societies require a shit ton more than that. I support environmental and financial regulations (requires funding), a strong safety net to protect against economic downturns, bad luck, etc. (requires funding), spending on an infrastructure that supports an advanced society (requires funding), a strong education system (requires funding), on and on.

 

[Deleted member 281203]

This thread was made to divide and conquer, right? You guys falling for the same old shit, year after year. Baited, IMO.

I'll take common sense over IQ any day.

Some of you are just throwing out insults. Not even adding anything, just flaming. Lol.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Yes it was. Apparently you saw what you wanted to.

Nope, but you ignored what was written in the post I responded to, and projected your own thinking onto the dude.

 

[Wayweary]

I didn't say the poor subsidizes the wealthy in terms of protecting property rights, reread the post you quoted (are you purposefully framing my point in a way that makes it easy for you to discredit?). It's is a simple fact that someone who pays taxes but does not own a lot property (that doesn't make them poor by the way) is not benefiting directly from a service provided by government,

A non-point. Essentially no one lives in society without any property whatsoever, first of all. If you have any income at all, that income represents property automatically: currency. The very constitution ensures that people are to be secure in their property: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The people with less property have the ability to acquire more property, as everyone does. Ever heard of Locke's "life, liberty and property"? That is the philosophical underpinning of our constitution. People are benefited greatly (whether you want to call it "directly" or not) simply because defense of property is vital to a civil society as I've explained.

but that is one of many examples. We can't point to tons of things that we pay into but do not receive a direct benefit. It's a major contradiction in Greoric's and other's thinking. In his view it's a conflict of interest if you receive welfare but not protection of property rights...

Protection of property rights is not a conflict of interest. You are making no sense on that point. Zero. A conflict of interest involves violating a primary interest in the service of some secondary (illegitimate) interest. In this context means that you have reason to lobby or act to take something from someone else (in this case by voting it into effect) against their interests and only in favor of yours (to which you have no right). Upholding the constitution and rule of law does not in any way fit that scenario since the constitution itself explicitly lists the rights in question and ensuring property rights in general is in the best interest of everyone. Violating property rights actually comes from a conflict of interest, not the reverse. Since the primary purpose of our system of laws and police powers is to uphold the rule of law as constrained by the constitution, doing what is in the constitution is by definition NOT a conflict of interest within the context of the political system. Overturning constitutional protections in service of OTHER interests conflicts with the primary interests of individual rights and a just society.

Welfare can be seen as a conflict of interest because it is an example where the primary interest of upholding the constitution with its bill of rights (including property rights) is in conflict with the secondary interest of getting free shit without having to work for or produce it yourself. If you can just vote yourself into possession of all the creature comforts that you could want at the expense of others and their rights, what in your world view prevents that or makes it illegitimate?

Again, I am simply pointing out a hole in Greoric's logic and am not arguing against the idea we should all contribute to the system (I am arguing the opposite in fact). He is on the side of an extremely limited government (protect property rights and military only) and I think advanced societies require a shit ton more than that. I support environmental and financial regulations (requires funding), a strong safety net to protect against economic downturns, bad luck, etc. (requires funding), spending on an infrastructure that supports an advanced society (requires funding), a strong education system (requires funding), on and on.

Those are things that you are for (and are your opinions) but to what extent? When does it go too far and when should protections of individual rights be taken into account beyond the crude math of majoritarianism? What if you, along with a 51% majority of the population, could vote the property rights of the other 49% of the population away entirely and have the proceeds go into your own pockets? Or if 51% of the population voted themselves to be perpetually taken care of through the efforts of the other 49% without any expectation that they produce or contribute in any way (which would essentially be slavery)? That would only arise from a conflict of interest and is the most extreme version of what is being spoken of. Hell, what if 51% of the population voted that the rest of the population didn't deserve protection from violence or should be deprived of life or liberty, not just property? Is protecting people from violent crime also a "conflict of interest" in your world? Voting is supposed to be about fostering a society in which individuals can prosper, not allowing groups to prosper simply by taking from others. At what point is voting to take resources away from another group no longer legitimate in your mind?

 

[Wayweary]

Nope, but you ignored what was written in the post I responded to, and projected your own thinking onto the dude.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[kpt018]

A non-point. Essentially no one lives in society without any property whatsoever, first of all. If you have any income at all, that income represents property automatically: currency. The very constitution ensures that people are to be secure in their property: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The people with less property have the ability to acquire more property, as everyone does. Ever heard of Locke's "life, liberty and property"? That is the philosophical underpinning of our constitution. People are benefited greatly (whether you want to call it "directly" or not) simply because defense of property is vital to a civil society as I've explained.




Protection of property rights is not a conflict of interest. You are making no sense on that point. Zero. A conflict of interest involves violating a primary interest in the service of some secondary (illegitimate) interest. In this context means that you have reason to lobby or act to take something from someone else (in this case by voting it into effect) against their interests and only in favor of yours (to which you have no right). Upholding the constitution and rule of law does not in any way fit that scenario since the constitution itself explicitly lists the rights in question and ensuring property rights in general is in the best interest of everyone. Violating property rights actually comes from a conflict of interest, not the reverse. Since the primary purpose of our system of laws and police powers is to uphold the rule of law as constrained by the constitution, doing what is in the constitution is by definition NOT a conflict of interest within the context of the political system. Overturning constitutional protections in service of OTHER interests conflicts with the primary interests of individual rights and a just society.

Welfare can be seen as a conflict of interest because it is an example where the primary interest of upholding the constitution with its bill of rights (including property rights) is in conflict with the secondary interest of getting free shit without having to work for or produce it yourself. If you can just vote yourself into possession of all the creature comforts that you could want at the expense of others and their rights, what in your world view prevents that or makes it illegitimate?



Those are things that you are for (and are your opinions) but to what extent? When does it go too far and when should protections of individual rights be taken into account beyond the crude math of majoritarianism? What if you, along with a 51% majority of the population, could vote the property rights of the other 49% of the population away entirely and have the proceeds go into your own pockets? Or if 51% of the population voted themselves to be perpetually taken care of through the efforts of the other 49% without any expectation that they produce or contribute in any way (which would essentially be slavery)? That would only arise from a conflict of interest and is the most extreme version of what is being spoken of. Hell, what if 51% of the population voted that the rest of the population didn't deserve protection from violence or should be deprived of life or liberty, not just property? Is protecting people from violent crime also a "conflict of interest" in your world? Voting is supposed to be about fostering a society in which individuals can prosper, not allowing groups to prosper simply by taking from others. At what point is voting to take resources away from another group no longer legitimate in your mind?

The first paragraph is pointless because you're simply not reading our exchange. You continue to post as if I argued against property rights.

Your 2nd paragraph is hyperbolic, unless you think welfare recipients are living the high life. Context is important here, too. Most of the people on welfare benefits are the elderly, children or are on welfare temporarily (nearly 90% are off within 3 years, something like 70% within one year). And who are these people? They're either vulnerable (children or elderly), unemployed (as a function of the economy) or are actually fucking working and just don't make enough to get by. In other words, they have all paid into the system during their lives, pay into it currently or will pay into the system when they're old enough to work.

If we are going to focus on a very tiny portion of people that game the system because they're lazy then we can agree they're leeches. But they're hardly the only ones and there is a slippery slope here.

Are you at least consistent with excluding businesses that receive government work from voting (exclude their owners)? I guess teachers can't vote? Contractors who do government work? Energy and food companies that receive subsidies? Should freight companies be excluded when they vote for candidates that want to spend on infrastructure? What about people with capital gains as a significant source of income, should they be disallowed if that is on the ballet? Should pharmaceutical companies (anyone who owns shares) be excluded because of the proposed ideas of price controls? All of these groups, and countless others, have much to financially gain or lose.

See, you guys are being stupid. Nearly everyone has a "conflict of interest" because the extent of government is far reaching. Like I said in my original posts, we all have a skin in the game so this idea of excluding others is simply "exclude those that I think should be excluded".

 

[kpt018]

I'm sure it's been mentioned by now but we do have some consensus that the IQ test is pretty meaningless right? It certainly isn't a good measure of whether you can understand the issues.