NationStates Jolt Archive

"Any Society that would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

I just wanted to know, if this guy help found America, where did it all go wrong?

Where do most ideals go wrong? When they come up against human nature. We suck.

Probably Lincoln, sped up by Roosevelt and given the death blow by Clinton.

Yup, Lincoln did it. He kept the union together at the expense of the ideals the founding fathers fought for.

Yup, Lincoln did it. He kept the union together at the expense of the ideals the founding fathers fought for.
Making money by using slaves to pick fruit and not getting taxed by pesky British people?

No, this whole thing went wrong in the mid 19th century when the Senate betrayed the founding fathers and allowed non-property owners to vote.
The slippery slope only started there because then everyone started thinking about all the other people who could vote. We've been going to Hell ever since.

No, this whole thing went wrong in the mid 19th century when the Senate betrayed the founding fathers and allowed non-property owners to vote.
The slippery slope only started there because then everyone started thinking about all the other people who could vote. We've been going to Hell ever since.
Define property-owning. I own a computer. Does that make me elligible to vote?

Okay getting serious here: I can understand having an unelected body so that they don't worry about political pressure to be re-elected, but just look at the Senate now; without term limits its degraded into massive gerrymandering

Making money by using slaves to pick fruit and not getting taxed by pesky British people?

Nope. Something much more fundamental to America.

The sovereignty of the States.

Define property-owning. I own a computer. Does that make me elligible to vote?
Property as defined by possessing land in sufficient quantity to build a house, $10 and a mule.

The sovereignty of the States.
Meh, I think you're looking at these "founding fathers" with very rose-tinted glasses.
They were petty aristocracy after making more money. Franklin was perhaps one of the very few actual visionaries there, most of them only cared about these ideals insofar no one could hurt their business.

Meh, I think you're looking at these "founding fathers" with very rose-tinted glasses.
They were petty aristocracy after making more money. Franklin was perhaps one of the very few actual visionaries there, most of them only cared about these ideals insofar no one could hurt their business.

Perhaps I am.

I have always fully believed with this statement by the brilliant Dr. Benjamin Franklin.

Also, I'd like to make a point that the states have no sovereignty nor should, as shown under the constitution, because the states having sovereignty really sucked...

Also, I'd like to make a point that the states have no sovereignty nor should, as shown under the constitution, because the states having sovereignty really sucked...

True, the states did do some really crappy things in the past, but todays state governments are often more energetic and flexible than Washington. Why shouldn't they be able to handle their own affairs?

And anyway, the sovereignty of the states isn't something you can take away, just like your rights. They are sovereign the same way you have the right to free speech, it's the natural order of things.

"Any Society that would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

I just wanted to know, if this guy help found America, where did it all go wrong?

Where did it go wrong? When has it been any better? When, in wartime, have our citizens had more freedom? Maybe Grenada?

The Revolution had the draft riots and severe infighting among citizens, same with 1812, the Civil War, etc. Remember the Alien and Sedition acts? Saco and Vanzetti, anything? Or is it George Bush who has suddenly tarnished our pristine history? :p In WWII, we imprisoned many Italian, German, and Jap citizens, as well as draft-dodgers during the Vietnam era... or are extra-legal wiretaps (which we've been doing forever, btw) so much worse than all this? :confused:

I think it's gone beyond who started what and has evolved into a continuous motorcade of shame.

Where did it go wrong? When has it been any better? When, in wartime, have our citizens had more freedom? Maybe Grenada?

The Revolution had the draft riots and severe infighting among citizens, same with 1812, the Civil War, etc. Remember the Alien and Sedition acts? Saco and Vanzetti, anything? Or is it George Bush who has suddenly tarnished our pristine history? :p In WWII, we imprisoned many Italian, German, and Jap citizens, as well as draft-dodgers during the Vietnam era... or are extra-legal wiretaps (which we've been doing forever, btw) so much worse than all this? :confused:

Sorry, but the term extra-legal, although probably correct, makes it sound like it is more legal than normal.

In answer to your question, I'd say it went wrong just about from the beginning, through no fault of visionaries like Franklin.

Aw, Benjamin Franklin, the spiritual leader of America if there ever was one.
No, this whole thing went wrong in the mid 19th century when the Senate betrayed the founding fathers and allowed non-property owners to vote.
The slippery slope only started there because then everyone started thinking about all the other people who could vote. We've been going to Hell ever since.
Precisely. A bunch of people with no stake in society get to decide the fate of those that do simply because there are more of them and the politicians must pander to them to stay in office.

"Any Society that would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

I just wanted to know, if this guy help found America, where did it all go wrong?
If he was alive today, the first thing he'd say is "Thermonuclear bomb? What the hell is that"?

"A jetliner? What the hell is a jetliner"?

"Foreign terrorists can get here in HOW many hours? You're kidding, right"?

"Symtex? Huh"?

Here (http://www.14-18enlorraine.com/DscSarajevo_PetitJournal.jpg) and here (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/911wtcreutersitaly.jpg).

Meh, I think you're looking at these "founding fathers" with very rose-tinted glasses.
They were petty aristocracy after making more money.

eh, there were some actual revolutionaries among them. they typically don't get as much play these days as they more or less uniformly lined up against the counterrevolutionaries and their 'constitution'. hell, the articles of confederation went a bit too far for some of them.

Sorry, but the term extra-legal, although probably correct, makes it sound like it is more legal than normal.

In answer to your question, I'd say it went wrong just about from the beginning, through no fault of visionaries like Franklin.

Yeah, it's a funny term.. however, as long as we're defining legality as adherence to laws - laws that Congress passes - it's kinda hard to describe something that isn't codified law, but that Congress has condoned/endorsed/looked the other way about since before the Cold War as legal/illegal.. :p So.. extra-legal, or maybe non-legal, is the way to go, I think.

When did it all go wrong?
When the sedition act was passed under John Adams. That is the most unconstitutional law I can think of, and it was passed under one of the founding fathers, who was for it! It's actually gone uphill since then, at least nobody else has tryed to pass a law that says you can't criticize the party in office.

Where did it go wrong? When has it been any better? When, in wartime, have our citizens had more freedom? Maybe Grenada?

You must be operating under a different definition of "war" than me. If we're at war, could you please tell me when it was that Congress declared it?

And if you're referring to the so-called "War" on Terror, then by that standard, we've been in a constant state of war since 6 December, 1941.

When did it all go wrong?
When the sedition act was passed under John Adams. That is the most unconstitutional law I can think of, and it was passed under one of the founding fathers, who was for it! It's actually gone uphill since then, at least nobody else has tryed to pass a law that says you can't criticize the party in office.

The Courts have. During time of war, criticism of the government is not allowed.

If he was alive today, the first thing he'd say is "Thermonuclear bomb? What the hell is that"?

"A jetliner? What the hell is a jetliner"?

"Foreign terrorists can get here in HOW many hours? You're kidding, right"?

"Symtex? Huh"?

"And these idiots want to give up how many rights that how many American patriots died for because these terrorists can blow up one building?"

In Franklin's day you weren't a terrorist unless you could raze a whole city.

Probably Lincoln, sped up by Roosevelt and given the death blow by Clinton.

Ever the "centrist", heh?

I'd love to see you show your work.

The Courts have. During time of war, criticism of the government is not allowed.

Um. WTF are you talking about?

Aw, Benjamin Franklin, the spiritual leader of America if there ever was one.

Precisely. A bunch of people with no stake in society get to decide the fate of those that do simply because there are more of them and the politicians must pander to them to stay in office.

Um. People have "no stake in society" unless they own land?

Bullshit.

Um. WTF are you talking about?

There was a case during WWI in which a German-American citizen was protesting America's involvement in the war. The government jailed him. His case was heard before the Supreme Court of the US and they decided that the government had the right to do so. Much as they later ruled that the government had the right to establish internment camps for whomsoever they please.

There was a case during WWI in which a German-American citizen was protesting America's involvement in the war. The government jailed him. His case was heard before the Supreme Court of the US and they decided that the government had the right to do so. Much as they later ruled that the government had the right to establish internment camps for whomsoever they please.

Please provide the name of the case. As I know there are decisions from that era to the contrary. I think you either have the the case wrong or you are leaving out important details.

Merely protesting the war was not held to be sufficient grounds for incarceration.

EDIT: Obviously, you are correct about the Korematsu case, although it was not so simplicstic as you imply.

The Courts have. During time of war, criticism of the government is not allowed.
Ok, maybe I got the details wrong. So what.

EDIT: And yes it is allowed, look at all the people critisising the Iraq war, or the protesters during Vietnam, or virtually any other war.

You must be operating under a different definition of "war" than me. If we're at war, could you please tell me when it was that Congress declared it?

And if you're referring to the so-called "War" on Terror, then by that standard, we've been in a constant state of war since 6 December, 1941.

I was kidding about Grenada, first off.. the War on Terror is a recent political definition, sure.. don't use it if you don't like.. people generally understand it, as it exists as of 9/11 and the following State of the Union address, when the president "declared" it.

In any case, no. I'm not operating under a differend definition of "war" as you. I didn't use the term "War on Terror" anywhere in this thread (until now). By "Wartime" I mean a "time" when the country is at "war." We've got a couple going on right now, last I checked.. One in Iraq, and.. if memory serves.. Afghanistan... ;) Counter-insurgencies, maybe? That might be more accurate.

Please provide the name of the case. As I know there are decisions from that era to the contrary. I think you either have the the case wrong or you are leaving out important details.

Merely protesting the war was not held to be sufficient grounds for incarceration.

EDIT: Obviously, you are correct about the Korematsu case, although it was not so simplicstic as you imply.

I think he's talking about schenck v. US and abrams v. US. I'm not au courant with either of those though, so I could be wrong.

Ok, maybe I got the details wrong. So what.

EDIT: And yes it is allowed, look at all the people critisising the Iraq war, or the protesters during Vietnam, or virtually any other war.

The key word is war. Congress has not declared war since WWII.

I was kidding about Grenada, first off.. the War on Terror is a recent political definition, sure.. don't use it if you don't like.. people generally understand it, as it exists as of 9/11 and the following State of the Union address, when the president "declared" it.

In any case, no. I'm not operating under a differend definition of "war" as you. I didn't use the term "War on Terror" anywhere in this thread (until now). By "Wartime" I mean a "time" when the country is at "war." We've got a couple going on right now, last I checked.. One in Iraq, and.. if memory serves.. Afghanistan... ;) Counter-insurgencies, maybe? That might be more accurate.

You're forgetting about Columbia and the Phillipines (among others).

I think he's talking about schenck v. US and abrams v. US. I'm not au courant with either of those though, so I could be wrong.

I think he's talking about several cases but only through a glass darkly.

EDIT: Obviously, you are correct about the Korematsu case, although it was not so simplicstic as you imply.

If I can make it that simplistic, how simple do you think that Bush could make it, if he got the hankering to?

EDIT: The hell am I talking about? He already has. They call it "Camp X-Ray".

I think he's talking about schenck v. US and abrams v. US. I'm not au courant with either of those though, so I could be wrong.

Schenck is correct. Abrams looks right, too.

In both cases, I don't recall, as I studied it years ago and haven't picked up any book of law (if I can avoid it) since then.

If I can make it that simplistic, how simple do you think that Bush could make it, if he got the hankering to?

The opinion in Korematsu itself makes repeating that type of internment program nigh impossible.

Not to mention the 50-odd years of caselaw since then.

Um. People have "no stake in society" unless they own land?

Bullshit.
Excuse me. That was poorly phrased. The common man doesn’t think he has enough at stake to think about how something will effect him in the long run. They would vote higher taxes for the highest income bracket without realizing that the highest income bracket is what employs them.

The only people that should be able to vote are men and women of property and intellectuals. The people have failed.

Schenck is correct. Abrams looks right, too.

In both cases, I don't recall, as I studied it years ago and haven't picked up any book of law (if I can avoid it) since then.

In Schenk and Abrams, you are talking 1918 and 1919 respectively.

It is true the particular convictions in those cases were upheld, but they also formed bthe basis for the "clear and present danger" test whcih has since prevented such censorship.

Consider, fo example, the Pentagon Papers publication under New York Times v United States.

Excuse me. That was poorly phrased. The common man doesn’t think he has enough at stake to think about how something will effect him in the long run. They would vote higher taxes for the highest income bracket without realizing that the highest income bracket is what employs them.

The only people that should be able to vote are men and women of property and intellectuals. The people have failed.

Goodbye, constitutional republic. Hello, aristocracy.

In Schenk and Abrams, you are talking 1918 and 1919 respectively.

It is true the particular convictions in those cases were upheld, but they also formed bthe basis for the "clear and present danger" test whcih has since prevented such censorship.

Consider, fo example, the Pentagon Papers publication under New York Times v United States.

True. But it's still there, ticking like a time bomb strapped to the heart of the Republic.

Goodbye, constitutional republic. Hello, aristocracy.
As I said, the people have been given their test and they have failed.

You speak of democracy as if it is some sort of goal. It is simply a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Democracy exists to facilitate personal liberty. When it fails, other options should be sought.

Ever the "centrist", heh?

I'd love to see you show your work.
No doubt, Eut, when did you go far-left? I mean, Clinton was a Republican in all but name (http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/460/460_08_Clinton.shtml), so I figured he'd be a big hero of yours.

;)

That said, I wouldn't pin it on "just" Clinton, since he was so similar to Reagan and both Bushes, but he certainly didn't help things any.

No, this whole thing went wrong in the mid 19th century when the Senate betrayed the founding fathers and allowed non-property owners to vote.
The slippery slope only started there because then everyone started thinking about all the other people who could vote. We've been going to Hell ever since.
How can you say that only property owners deserve to vote? property owners arent the only people with a stake in national affairs, or local for that matter. universal suffrage is one of the most important aspects of democracy. that way, all citizins must have a say, not just the upper classes.

You're forgetting about Columbia and the Phillipines (among others).
the phillipeans were pre WWII. Columbia isnt an official "war". we officially sent troops there, but to help the columbians battle something which shared a mutual us interest (in this case, pablo escobar)

How can you say that only property owners deserve to vote? property owners arent the only people with a stake in national affairs, or local for that matter. universal suffrage is one of the most important aspects of democracy. that way, all citizins must have a say, not just the upper classes.
"I reject any form of government where the village idiot has as much say as Aristotle"

Also, plenty of people in the middle class own land.

How can you say that only property owners deserve to vote? property owners arent the only people with a stake in national affairs, or local for that matter. universal suffrage is one of the most important aspects of democracy. that way, all citizins must have a say, not just the upper classes.
Would you give the right to vote to a ten year old? That would be universal suffrage, no? He does have a stake in national affairs, no? And he is affected by the school board (ie local government), correct?
Yet the child is restricted for his own good, because he isn't capable of managing his own affairs. Yet, the tenent of Civilization is that someone has to be responsible, and the tenent of Democracy is that this responsiblity mustn't be given to the people.
So, "people" must run the nation, but not all "people" can because not all are capable or worthy of such power. Which brings us to the point of dispute, where should the line be drawn?
At age? What difference does age make? The 1 second that seperates 17 and 18 bears with it no epiphany, so why should we use a completely arbitrary basis that has no ground in reality?

"I reject any form of government where the village idiot has as much say as Aristotle"

Also, plenty of people in the middle class own land.

So tear up the Constitution. Apparently we went wrong from the get-go.

Excuse me. That was poorly phrased. The common man doesn’t think he has enough at stake to think about how something will effect him in the long run. They would vote higher taxes for the highest income bracket without realizing that the highest income bracket is what employs them.

The only people that should be able to vote are men and women of property and intellectuals. The people have failed.
you sound a lot like hamilton. dont sound so high brow- the people are the one true voice of the nation, and as cynical and satiracal as i may be about the "damned human race" (twain), and "i would still rather entrust the gov't of the US to the first 100 names in the boston phonebook than the entire faculties of harvard and yale" ( William F Buckley)

As I said, the people have been given their test and they have failed.

You speak of democracy as if it is some sort of goal. It is simply a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Democracy exists to facilitate personal liberty. When it fails, other options should be sought.
It's people like you that make the Second Amendment necessary. Are you willing to fight to take my right to vote? Because I'm willing to fight to keep it.

Yet the child is restricted for his own good, because he isn't capable of managing his own affairs. Yet, the tenent of Civilization is that someone has to be responsible, and the tenent of Democracy is that this responsiblity mustn't be given to the people.
Erm, there is a fairly major typo there. It should say that "this responsibility must be given to the people", as opposed to saying "mustn't."
Goddamn Freudian slips.

Would you give the right to vote to a ten year old? That would be universal suffrage, no? He does have a stake in national affairs, no? And he is affected by the school board (ie local government), correct?
Yet the child is restricted for his own good, because he isn't capable of managing his own affairs. Yet, the tenent of Civilization is that someone has to be responsible, and the tenent of Democracy is that this responsiblity mustn't be given to the people.
So, "people" must run the nation, but not all "people" can because not all are capable or worthy of such power. Which brings us to the point of dispute, where should the line be drawn?
At age? What difference does age make? The 1 second that seperates 17 and 18 bears with it no epiphany, so why should we use a completely arbitrary basis that has no ground in reality?

Meh.

You are burning strawmen regarding age at which one should vote.

Your argument is the far more dangerous road of deciding that some adults don't get to vote despite having comitted no wrong.

Please explain why ownership of land "bears with it an epiphany" that should be used as point "where the line should be drawn."

I think it's gone beyond who started what and has evolved into a continuous motorcade of shame.
Ahh, that reminds me of the PMs speeding motorcade that everyone made a big shitslide ut of. Maybe this is plunging NZ into shame?;)

Would you give the right to vote to a ten year old? That would be universal suffrage, no? He does have a stake in national affairs, no? And he is affected by the school board (ie local government), correct?
Yet the child is restricted for his own good, because he isn't capable of managing his own affairs. Yet, the tenent of Civilization is that someone has to be responsible, and the tenent of Democracy is that this responsiblity mustn't be given to the people.
So, "people" must run the nation, but not all "people" can because not all are capable or worthy of such power. Which brings us to the point of dispute, where should the line be drawn?
At age? What difference does age make? The 1 second that seperates 17 and 18 bears with it no epiphany, so why should we use a completely arbitrary basis that has no ground in reality?
well, the age is a generalization. plus, youre making more of that than it is... no, a child cant be allowed to vote, obviously because theyre not at ange when they can comprehend what theyre voting for. not to sa thats always th case, ive seen a lot of kids who are smarter and more mature than many 'adults'. its a formality. you have draw the line somewhere, so the line is drawn at that age. im not saying i think it should be 18, im just explaining it. its not up to you or anyone else to decide who is qualified and who isnt to vote. the way to "filter" out any potential voter who doesnt respect or realize the gravity of the power they (supposedly) have is by requiring registration. the logic being, if you dont care enough to register, you dont care at all.

it all comes down to trust... you have to have faith in fellow man and the good that is the opposite of what we see everyday. i dont like people in general, but to a certain degree you have to trust other people for democracy to work. its the worst form of government, besides every other for (wilde).

if franklin read what some of you where writing, hed turn over in his grave. he was a cool guy, they had a special on the history channel. i also read his autobiography. quite the character.

It's people like you that make the Second Amendment necessary. Are you willing to fight to take my right to vote? Because I'm willing to fight to keep it.
GODDAMN RIGHT!!! im getting all fired up and patriotic here, something which i have never been before :D

Please explain why ownership of land "bears with it an epiphany" that should be used as point "where the line should be drawn."
What you have to lose is far more obvious.
It's people like you that make the Second Amendment necessary. Are you willing to fight to take my right to vote? Because I'm willing to fight to keep it.
Funny. The People are the ones who have been voting to slowly erode your rights to gun ownership.
you sound a lot like hamilton.Although I don’t like everything he did, he is more responsible for the successful establishment of the US than any other single person, with the exception of possibly Washington. I’m glad they put him on the twenty.

Although I don’t like everything he did, he is more responsible for the successful establishment of the US than any other single person, with the exception of possibly Washington. I’m glad they put him on the twenty.

Dude.. that's Jackson on the $20.. :p

Funny. The People are the ones who have been voting to slowly erode your rights to gun ownership.
Funny. You'd support my gun-ownership rights, knowing full well I'd use them to keep my non-land-owning vote.

Dude.. that's Jackson on the $20.. :p
My mistake, he's on the ten.

Funny. You'd support my gun-ownership rights, knowing full well I'd use them to keep my non-land-owning vote.
Which is why the non-land owners should have never been given the right to vote in the first place.

Meh.

You are burning strawmen regarding age at which one should vote.
No, I was proferring an example, and then proceeded to explain it. What if I had said 14? In some ancient societies, 14 was considered the age at which one reached manhood, and even in modern society, 14 is over 3/4's of the way.
Beside that point, the 10 year old isn't a strawman because it is being used to refute a blanket statement. If a man says "All mammals are dogs" and his friend says "Cats are mammals, but aren't dogs", there are no strawmen to be seen.
Your argument is the far more dangerous road of deciding that some adults don't get to vote despite having comitted no wrong.
Nor have they committed any right. They just are, with no achievments to their name beyond "being." Pardon me if I'm somewhat reluctant to put my life and liberty in their hands.
Please explain why ownership of land "bears with it an epiphany" that should be used as point "where the line should be drawn."
I suppose, then, that you can't justify the current age-based system? Cover a weakness with an attack, how very cunning.
In the elder system, which I am defending, a man who owned property would also own an estate or be the head of a household or industry of some sort. Such a person was proving his capacity to properly manage power by governing his own affairs.

Which is why the non-land owners should have never been given the right to vote in the first place.
But we have, which brings us full circle: How prepared are you to put yourself in danger to get the djinni back in the lamp?

But we have, which brings us full circle: How prepared are you to put yourself in danger to get the djinni back in the lamp?
I’m not prepared to personally put myself in danger. Put others in danger? Possibly. Depends. You really can’t see how you would benefit from being ruled by those who actually have the intelligence and foresight to make pragmatic and effective decisions, ideology be damned?

Franklin always was my favorite.

I remember doing a Fourth of July ritual with some of my Wiccan friends to celebrate the freedom that allowed pagans to worship freely. We were all going along nicely, thanking the Lord and Lady for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all the freedoms we still have, when one girl said that she would ask for freedom from hunger, danger, etc. After that, I no longer wondered why we were losing our freedoms, it's because too many people are afraid to take the risks required to keep them.

I’m not prepared to personally put myself in danger. Put others in danger? Possibly. Depends.
Heh, and those "others" would most likely be the same people who you wouldn't let vote. I don't see that working well.

You really can’t see how you would benefit from being ruled by those who actually have the intelligence and foresight to make pragmatic and effective decisions, ideology be damned?
Oh, don't take my posts the wrong way, I'm ideologically opposed to your crass elitism as well, there's nothing mystimagical about land ownership. I just don't see the need to repeat what others have already said.

the phillipeans were pre WWII. Columbia isnt an official "war". we officially sent troops there, but to help the columbians battle something which shared a mutual us interest (in this case, pablo escobar)

No, we're still in the Phillipines. As 'advisors'.

Funny. You'd support my gun-ownership rights, knowing full well I'd use them to keep my non-land-owning vote.

I'd use my gun ownership rights and my land-owning vote to protect your non-land-owning vote.

Heh, and those "others" would most likely be the same people who you wouldn't let vote. I don't see that working well.


Oh, don't take my posts the wrong way, I'm ideologically opposed to your crass elitism as well, there's nothing mystimagical about land ownership. I just don't see the need to repeat what others have already said.
Whatever. Remember this when they vote away your gun ownership rights. If you ever do have property, I sure hope the majority doesn’t want it for something.

Whatever. Remember this when they vote away your gun ownership rights.
Again I call bluff. Why would the government you propose be any better about preserving gun-ownership rights, especially for those who don't own land? From your perspective, what benefit could possibly come from allowing an underprivileged second class to remain armed? Your government would have more incentive to strip gun-ownership rights.

If you ever do have property, I sure hope the majority doesn’t want it for something.
"The majority" as opposed to the wealthy land-owners who already get the government to do this for them under eminent domain? There's no reason to assume a government run by the same people grabbing land now would somehow be less likely to grab land. In fact I'd imagine it would be more common, as it would make for an easy way to strip meddlesome political opponents of their right to vote.

Meh, I think you're looking at these "founding fathers" with very rose-tinted glasses.
They were petty aristocracy after making more money. Franklin was perhaps one of the very few actual visionaries there, most of them only cared about these ideals insofar no one could hurt their business.
i think jefferson also was the exception to the rule. he was sort of and idealist

I don't care if it's inefficient or bad for the People to control government affairs. It is a fundamental right. There is absolutely no street crime in a military dictatorship, such as Stalinist Russia. But, I have no rights in Stalinist Russia. The more rights you have, the more in danger you are. It's as simple as that. The People have rights. All people have rights. This includes the right to Liberty, which includes the right to Enfranchisement (in simpler terms, the right to vote). Benjamin Franklin's first statement if he woke up from a 250-year long sleep and saw the condition of the United States would be "Why do you give up rights for safety?"







Alright, it would probably actually be "Where can I get these "condoms" and drugs that prevent STDs?" But the prior would be his second question.

Excuse me. That was poorly phrased. The common man doesn’t think he has enough at stake to think about how something will effect him in the long run. They would vote higher taxes for the highest income bracket without realizing that the highest income bracket is what employs them.

The only people that should be able to vote are men and women of property and intellectuals. The people have failed.

Well, those two groups balance each other nicely I think. The intellectuals who would be more "liberal", and the property owners who would be more "conservative" - the quotes are because I am using the popular definition of the words, and not the actual definition....check that, intellectuals would be liberals by the classic definition, not the modern one.

You really can’t see how you would benefit from being ruled by those who actually have the intelligence and foresight to make pragmatic and effective decisions, ideology be damned?
I don't see how your suggestion would give us any better leaders. There are plenty of property owners that want to tell me what to do just as much as others.

I suppose, then, that you can't justify the current age-based system? Cover a weakness with an attack, how very cunning.
In the elder system, which I am defending, a man who owned property would also own an estate or be the head of a household or industry of some sort. Such a person was proving his capacity to properly manage power by governing his own affairs.

There is no justification for an age based system. Just as there is no justification for a property based system. I would be all in favor of a merit based system if there was some way to implement it.

I like to think somewhere between 1911 and 1934. Much like Rome and the Cartheginian wars, sucsess in the world wars made america to powerful for its simple governemtn and values system.

I say that anyone who has attained an age where a plurality can make such decisions should be able to vote. I am an advocate for the lowering of the voting age to 13, which is when I think that I was able to make such a decision. However, some persons are NEVER able to make a good decision for themselves, even 35-year-olds (who can vote and in fact be President I might add)