Universal citizenship a bad idea?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man you guys are whacked. Determining who "gets" to be a citizen based on what you see as "important" contributions to society. Indeed. Funny how each and every suggestion is tailored to fit the same general demographic as the person who proposed it. "Only I (and those like me ) should get to vote." "Only I (and those like me) should reap the full benefit of society" add in that everyone one else is a socialist or a "sheeple".
Now stand back and hear " I am the only one here in this room qualified to handle a GLOCK fotay" and then listen carefully........ the laughter you hear is every one else laughing at you the way they laughed at that over stuffed, self important DEA agent as he shot himself in the foot..... HaHaHaHaHaHaHa
 
Every time this brought up, it comes down to the same thing "Here's a way to disenfranchise those with whom I disagree!"

When property owners run the show, it won't be long before the laws start skewing to benefit property owners. Whichever group has a hold on power will always use that power to benefit themselves.
 
Actually Wheeler, you're quite wrong there.

As a non-veteran, I would support if only veterans had full citizenshiop rights, although i think civil service of other types could be viable.

Therefore I might indeed support disenfranchising myself based on principle.

What you hear is based on what you choose to hear, not what has been said.

there is a risk of people involved in making decisions in a system without any commitment or attachment to the system. That's explains a lot of the issues with this country.
 
And what gives <veterans/taxpayers/property owners/etc.> the right to enforce their will on those that haven't made any contribution?

Most of the proposals in this thread could be rephrased as saying that all residents of the nation should be slaves until they earn their freedom through military service, paying taxes, buying property, etc.
 
Slaves?

So you figure that the 50%+ of Americans who don't vote are slaves?

My opinion that citizenship is too easily granted is shaped by my parents having to earn theirs. It means a lot more to someone who has had to actually apply for and get citizenship.

My opinion that there's no great way to do this for those born here legally is shaped by pragmatism.

However, there really ARE people, in some places many, who run across the border illegally to give birth. This shouldn't be a way to get citizenship. It's bad for everyone concerned.
 
By that same argument, eveny illegal allien should have citizenship as they are already an present underclass. The same holds true for felons in prison.

the same argument could be applied to those too young to vote.

If we maintain the current system, the state encroachments on individual rights may end up with most of us as little more than virtual slaves to the state as it is.

Explain to me why someone with no contribution should have the right to be a full citizen, to direct the course of the nation and the lives of those in the nation?

Fundamentally, i believe contribution is a form of ownership. If the people who built the house (or nation) can't say who lives in the house, or set the rules of the house, then why bother at all if some random layabouts decide to wander in and change all the rules without doing the work?

That's like living in your parents house, mooching their food and board and then telling them they have no right to make the rules - it is childish and irresonsible.
 
Man you guys are whacked. Determining who "gets" to be a citizen based on what you see as "important" contributions to society. Indeed. Funny how each and every suggestion is tailored to fit the same general demographic as the person who proposed it. "Only I (and those like me ) should get to vote." "Only I (and those like me) should reap the full benefit of society" add in that everyone one else is a socialist or a "sheeple".
Click to expand...

This Country's light bill isnt paid from people that sit on their ass collecting a welfare check.

So why in the hell would anyone think for a minute that they should be able to determine who spends tax payers money if they themselves do not contribute? Yeah, only ones who would disagree are those who themselves .... well anyway piss on em.

EDIT: Screw it I am a Libertarian and feel that anyone that does not put in the pot shouldnt be the ones to determine who controls it or where the $$$ goes. Its all about $$$ because its MY $$$ that comes out of MY paycheck. Damn hippies and gang bangers dont understand that and never will.
 
So you figure that the 50%+ of Americans who don't vote are slaves?
Click to expand...

Not so long as they have the right to vote. It doesn't matter if they actually vote or not. I would have thought this was a rather obvious distinction.
 
As a non-veteran, I would support if only veterans had full citizenshiop rights, although i think civil service of other types could be viable.

Therefore I might indeed support disenfranchising myself based on principle.
Click to expand...
I think that I hear OK. Power corrupts.... absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I don't think anyone has the right to determine who should have more rights than anyone else. Does the hippy tree planter get the same vote as the military veteran? How about the liberal public school teacher? The lady that runs the local food bank? The mother of 5 raising her kids on her own? Each of the above examples feed from the public trough to some extent. Which one gets more "Citizenship" than the others? Who gets to decide?

We all do. We can vote for lawmakers that most closely share the same values that we do. But only if all can vote.
To keep this gun related, If private persons don't "need" firearms for protection why should politicians enjoy the protection of armed bodyguards. After all, they are less likely to have to walk home through bad neighborhoods late at night than any of the above examples of American citizens. They are certainly less likely to live in those same bad neighborhoods.
Yet those same politicians are the same who can pass legislation making it more difficult or impossible for the others to own and carry firearms for their protection. Do you see? An elite group deciding how someone can or can't protect themselves from harm when they (the legislators) will probably not be exposed to the same peril as the legislatee.

I personally think that the best way to address the situation is to outlaw lobby groups and Political action committees. Both effectively give those with the most money the most access to the people who are supposed to represent the people.

I also believe that we need to eliminate campaign contributions, another form of buying access to legislators.

I think that term limits should be explored with a mind to limiting each and every legislators exposure to the power that will surely corrupt them.

And finally, this country really needs a multiple party system to reduce the neccessity of voting for the lesser of two evils. Multiple party systems give the opportunity for candidates to choose the planks in their platform and run on their merit as opposed to "holding the party line" as the only way to political success
 
Joe Demko,

How are the laws right now not skewed so that the welfare trolls of various sorts can't vote themselves a dole provided by everyone else?

If net tax comsumers can vote themselves a helping at the public trough that system will eventually crumble, at the very least anyone that is taking out more tax money than they're paying in their vote should be suspended.
 
I was making the point that everyone keeps saying that "Since they don't contribute, they should have no say on how to spend MY money."

Well what about someone who pays more taxes? Wouldn't it then be "Since they only make 1/5 of the contribution I make, why should they have the SAME SAY on how to spend MY money."

Someone pointed out, people are quick to include themselves, but exclude others. If citizenship is going to be based on contribution to society to exclude non-contributors, how is it any more fair to say someone who contributes 1/5th as much as someone else should have the same power?
 
I skimmed this absurd thread, but did anyone think there might be a third way here?

Instead of deciding who gets to control the machine, simply dismantle it.

Ah, so you like the machine as long as it's in your hands. I see.. :)
 
people are quick to include themselves, but exclude others
Click to expand...

That's not surprising at all. The whole idea of forming any kind of group, be it a country club or a country, is to include themselves and exclude others.
 
How are the laws right now not skewed so that the welfare trolls of various sorts can't vote themselves a dole provided by everyone else?
Click to expand...

Leaving aside what exactly constitutes being a welfare troll, I think you will find that people on public assistance are largely non-voters.
 
instead of deciding who gets to control the machine, simply dismantle it.
Click to expand...

In order for anything to change, the current system would have to be radically changed.

That said, there's certain principles of representative/democratic government that simply need to be kept, as they form the skeleton this type of government. One of the core issues would have to be of citizenship.

The issue is not of ruling over people. The issue is of not rewarding those who do not make an effort to contribute to society by their own choices.

Military service is an easy benchmark, but it is a clear example of a type of civil service. Law enforcement is similar, in that there could be no society without order. Other civil services could be included. I don't agree that the criteria should be based on posessions (ie land owners), as it disqualifies those who are willing to contribute but lack certain financial resources.

Not that it matters anyway, but it is a nice thought.

"If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it better work this time!" - Dave Mustane, "Peace sells, but who's buying"
 
First: Heinlein's vision in Starship Troopers had federal service being a qualifier for citizenship, not just the military.

Second: I believe that I actually posted something like this a while back, didn't get this many responses though.

I have to say that I agree about the universal franchise actually having some downpoints. My proposal - You get to vote if you have even $1 positive in paying taxes, after you subtract welfare stuff. Now, this ends up being very complicated with all the different types of welfare. Food stamps would be easy. The old government cheese deal, a little harder. And how do you rate school subsidies, artificial employment, farm subsidies, etc... Would you consider a federal job a subsidy? While there are many real federal jobs, there are also cases where it's used more or less as an upscale welfare system.

My general thoughts would be to include direct payments, including payments in kind(they do attach a value to that government cheese...). I don't think that I'd count public school, as that goes to the school district, not the parents or child.

Of course, it'd be enshrined in the constitution that any man can refuse direct payments, to not take payments in kind. If he does so, it doesn't count against him when the time to vote comes due. He can also pay extra taxes if he so chooses. Every adult will get an annual statement of taxes and benefits, probably sometime after federal income taxes are filed, but long enough before elections to send in a check if he or she chooses.

This does a couple of things: It helps to eliminate people who can't balance a budget from the system and the worst of the leeches* who'll vote to have more bread and circuses. The rest of the population knows that the government is a net drain on their pocketbooks, and they get a statement each year that makes that rather stark. They are far more likely to vote to control spending.

Thirdly, however, I've thought about having a rite of passage, an ordeal, if you will. Before you pass the ordeal, you're considered a child, and are more protected than children are now. After you pass the ordeal, you're an adult. Ideally it wouldn't be easy, but attainable by most anybody willing to work at it. The downside of remaining a child? You can't enter contracts as an adult. You have to have a guardian. You can't vote. Downside of being an adult? You have to pay taxes. Upsides? You can drink, smoke, sign contracts, control your own finances, etc...



*Yes, I know the teacher's unions would still be able to get the teachers out to vote in more or less a block.
 
You get to vote if you have even $1 positive in paying taxes, after you subtract welfare stuff
Click to expand...

Why should I have to pay in more than I receive? Is the goal to ensure that the federal government turns a profit?? Tying citizenship to taxes is about the worst idea I've ever heard. The accountants will get to decide who's an American. Good lord, people. Have you READ the IRC? It scares *ME*, and I'm a lawyer. Burn it. BURN IT ALL. Don't prop it up.

As far as creating a "positive" balance, to heck with that. I want to take as much as possible from those jerks in DC so the whole vile enterprise will collapse as soon as possible.

In order for anything to change, the current system would have to be radically changed.
Click to expand...

Don't bet on it. The current system is driving itself into the ground. It's gotten so huge it no longer has control of itself. It can't stop. The government is in so deep in the red, and so reliant on foreign investors to prop it up, that any major financial collapse (in China, for example) and the federales will start bouncing checks. That will be the end of that. The best and maybe only way to go back to a small and meek federal government is to let nature take its course. The bigger it gets, the harder it will fall.

Anyway, any attempt to eliminate citizenship for all or some of us would require a massive amendment to the Constitution and overturning a chunk of the 14th at the very least. Do that and you might as well destroy the whole country.
 
Hear, Hear, Cosmoline.

Well said Cosmo. Sit back and wait. Get some popcorn, lots of it. It should be interesting, to say the least.
 
Why should I have to pay in more than I receive? Is the goal to ensure that the federal government turns a profit??
Click to expand...

Are you really going to throw a snit over a measly dollars difference?

There's plenty of non-direct payment stuff the government spends money on that's arguably for the public good. I could of just as easily also subtracted a person's share of military, police, and roads, just to name some examples.

Anyway, any attempt to eliminate citizenship for all or some of us would require a massive amendment to the Constitution and overturning a chunk of the 14th at the very least. Do that and you might as well destroy the whole country.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anybody's trying to eliminate people's citizenship. I think that they're trying to think of a way to get a more enlightened voting public. Now, right now most people have the right to vote, even if they don't have a high school degree and live on the government dole, screaming for more aid if the .gov doesn't help them to their satisfaction.
 
I don't think that anybody's trying to eliminate people's citizenship
Click to expand...

Actually, there are a number of posts calling for just that--an end to birthright citizenship.

I think that they're trying to think of a way to get a more enlightened voting public
Click to expand...

I wonder why anyone thinks an "enlightened" elecotrate would be good for the RKBA. In many nations of Europe, an enlightened, hyper-educated elite DOES run the show. I don't think it's been a positive experience for people interested in preserving liberty.

Are you really going to throw a snit over a measly dollars difference?
Click to expand...

I'm going to "snit" about the concept of doing the math to begin with. I don't have to give DC money to justify a right to vote. The concept is completely vile.
 
According to a 19 August 2000 NewScientist article, national wealth follows Pareto’s Law. From that article, in the US, approximately 20 percent of the people own 80 percent of the wealth. The richest 40 people in Mexico own 30 percent of all the money. Wikepedia has a section on Pareto, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto

So here you run into a problem, if the vote is mean tested, then maybe 200 people in the US get to unilaterally decide everything for 300 million. And then there is no way to outvote those guys. Which leads to revolution.

Here is our Faustian bargain, we the little people agree not to mount the heads of the super rich on poles, because we think we have a voice in Government. And we do, when things get too bad, we can have a bloodless revolution by tossing the bums out. The rest of the time, we the little people, just don’t vote. We are not interested in the day to day management of the Government, and the ultra rich get to rob us legally.

Also, by removing the vote from certain types of people, the Super Rich get to create “Jim Crow” laws and force the disenfranchised into wage slavery. Which is bad for the entire population as the labor of higher status people will not be able to compete, on a salary basis, with the lower wages of the disenfranchised.

If you look back at the history of this country, the poor whites of the South were unable to push for higher wages as the Slave Owner Class, later the post Civil War Ruling Elite, could always buy or hire a minority for less. And, funny enough, many of the poor whites who were in the Confederate Army were not able to vote, as most States had means tests, which of course, excluded them. Many fought and died for a Political structure that excluded them.
 
How are the laws right now not skewed so that the welfare trolls of various sorts can't vote themselves a dole provided by everyone else?
Click to expand...


Joe Demko earlier answered essentially as I will: the welfare trolls just simply DO NOT VOTE, PERIOD.

Well, more precisely, the only welfare trolls that consistently vote themselves more from the public largesse are our congress people.

Also, I find it interesting that no one seems to understand that voting is, in itself, a contribution to society. If voting is seen in that light, perhaps someday people will use that as a basis for participating more fully in our country.
 
voting is, in itself, a contribution to society
Click to expand...

That's funny.

Voting for the candidate who promises to give you something for free at someone else's expense is a contribution to society?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Something About Kerry I didn't Think Of
Replies
6
Views
663
R.H. Lee
R
D
  • Locked
Tancredo almost single-handedly fighting illegal alien voter fraud
Replies
23
Views
1K
Biker
Biker
M
  • Locked
Why Libertarians Suck
Replies
2
Views
2K
Marko Kloos
M
D
  • Locked
Our US Tax Dollars Going To Help Rebuild Iraq...and Europe ???
Replies
4
Views
434
David
D
D
  • Locked
GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
142
Views
4K
RealGun
RealGun
Back
Top