Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
I believe the exercise of all of our civil liberties benefits and/or contributes to society.
Universal citizenship a bad idea?
- Thread starter Owen Sparks
- Start date
- Status
I believe the exercise of all of our civil liberties benefits and/or contributes to society.
That's pretty easy to refute.
Is it a contribution to our society when someone forms a religious cult, recruits members, and they all commit suicide, as happened in my area?
It's a First Amendment civil right, but it's not necessarily a contribution to our society. Well, I guess it does help clean up the gene pool, but still...
Is it a contribution to our society when a journalist knowingly lies about a politician, in order to impact an election?
Freedom of Speech and the Press...
Voting by randomly filling out boxes is our right as Americans, but a contribution?
There's a difference between civil rights and contributions. And it should be that way.
Civil liberties are inherently good. They need to be upheld whether or not they're used constructively all the time.
Is it a contribution to our society when someone forms a religious cult, recruits members, and they all commit suicide, as happened in my area?
It's a First Amendment civil right, but it's not necessarily a contribution to our society. Well, I guess it does help clean up the gene pool, but still...
Is it a contribution to our society when a journalist knowingly lies about a politician, in order to impact an election?
Freedom of Speech and the Press...
Voting by randomly filling out boxes is our right as Americans, but a contribution?
There's a difference between civil rights and contributions. And it should be that way.
Civil liberties are inherently good. They need to be upheld whether or not they're used constructively all the time.
FortyCalGlock
Member
Let's face it! We are on the downward slide. We have lasted longer than most other forms of democratic governments in history, yet we are doomed to fail. Income tax is an absurd, slavish idea. Actually we're more like sharecroppers in that for allowing us to work the US government asks for 0-50% of our gross earnings. You cannot legally work without sharing with the government, even if it's a barter system. I read somewhere recently that at the time of the American Revolution, tax rates were nowhere near what they are today.
I believe our only hope to revive this country is by adopting an isolationist government. Across the board tariffs on imported items, elimination of FDR's experiment in socialism, as well as a mandated end of income taxes(20-30years). This would cut FedGov spending dramatically and after a couple of decades, hopefully our national debt would be greatly reduced. Right now on 7/18/07, each citizens share of national debt is $29,409. A family of four owes $118,000. That is ridiculous and it gets larger every day. By the end of the year we will be 9,000,000,000,000 in debt. If we don't do something soon, someone is going to cut up our credit card. When that happens, we will make history.
I believe our only hope to revive this country is by adopting an isolationist government. Across the board tariffs on imported items, elimination of FDR's experiment in socialism, as well as a mandated end of income taxes(20-30years). This would cut FedGov spending dramatically and after a couple of decades, hopefully our national debt would be greatly reduced. Right now on 7/18/07, each citizens share of national debt is $29,409. A family of four owes $118,000. That is ridiculous and it gets larger every day. By the end of the year we will be 9,000,000,000,000 in debt. If we don't do something soon, someone is going to cut up our credit card. When that happens, we will make history.
I believe this country tried no income tax. The first continental congress failed since government had no power and no money. They had voluntary "donations" to fund a national congress. They had a volunteer rag shag army. It was an absolutely useless setup. The states basically ruled themselves. Then the states started levying taxes against each other and making their own currency.
wheeler, you're completely off-base. I'm not military, active or otherwise. I would be disenfranchising myself, most likely, if my theory were instigated.
What you're missing out here is the meaning of the words "community" and "society". If there is no cohesion, there is no society. There is no community, either. Just a bunch of people living in the same place with nothing to keep them together.
Do you suppose the people who do nothing but leech from a society should be allowed to vote, particularly when all they will do (as proven through their past records) is vote themselves into affluence off the backs of others? Because that's the way it is now. Do you think anyone should be able to come into this country and vote? Well, that is the general principle behind allowing anyone natively born here to vote, too. Allowing all native-born people to vote (and possess citizenship) solely on that basis is internally inconsistent with the attitude of keeping those outside this country on their side of the line, and disallowing them from making our laws for us.
Quite simply, because it's their society, their culture, and their country. They have made the personal investment in it's well-being, and therefore should get a say in what happens to it. Voting itself is not so much a contribution or investment in and of itself that it qualifies a person as "contributing positively".
Phrasing your rhetorical question another way, does it seem reasonable to you that those who have done nothing to contribute towards the group should reap any benefits along side those who have? Have you ever worked in a group project where half the team does nothing whatsoever, but then criticizes what's being done and still reaps the benefits of whatever is finished (or not finished, as it often is), such as a pay check? That's not exactly fair, either. In fact, it's quite a bit less "fair".
And also note: there has been nobody saying that those who are not citizens should be exempted from civil liberties/rights. But voting and possessing the privileges of citizenship - such as voting representatives - are not a rights inherent to human nature. They are more than free to go about their own business, possess and utilize free speech, property, firearms, enter legal contracts, and do whatever else they please.
And there is absolutely nothing from preventing a layabout from picking up his arse and finding a way to contribute in a manner which benefits society/community and to stop being a leech. There is almost infinite opportunity to do so, and would be even more if we instigated any one of these proposals.
The machine isn't the problem, it's the centralized, democratic nature of it that is.
I guess that's why there are massive lines at voting stations in urban areas, and why such demographics continually vote the option for more handouts, huh. Because it's hard-working, productive members of society who want universal healthcare, welfare stamps, subsidized housing, and the like...
What you're missing out here is the meaning of the words "community" and "society". If there is no cohesion, there is no society. There is no community, either. Just a bunch of people living in the same place with nothing to keep them together.
Do you suppose the people who do nothing but leech from a society should be allowed to vote, particularly when all they will do (as proven through their past records) is vote themselves into affluence off the backs of others? Because that's the way it is now. Do you think anyone should be able to come into this country and vote? Well, that is the general principle behind allowing anyone natively born here to vote, too. Allowing all native-born people to vote (and possess citizenship) solely on that basis is internally inconsistent with the attitude of keeping those outside this country on their side of the line, and disallowing them from making our laws for us.
Quite simply, because it's their society, their culture, and their country. They have made the personal investment in it's well-being, and therefore should get a say in what happens to it. Voting itself is not so much a contribution or investment in and of itself that it qualifies a person as "contributing positively".
Phrasing your rhetorical question another way, does it seem reasonable to you that those who have done nothing to contribute towards the group should reap any benefits along side those who have? Have you ever worked in a group project where half the team does nothing whatsoever, but then criticizes what's being done and still reaps the benefits of whatever is finished (or not finished, as it often is), such as a pay check? That's not exactly fair, either. In fact, it's quite a bit less "fair".
And also note: there has been nobody saying that those who are not citizens should be exempted from civil liberties/rights. But voting and possessing the privileges of citizenship - such as voting representatives - are not a rights inherent to human nature. They are more than free to go about their own business, possess and utilize free speech, property, firearms, enter legal contracts, and do whatever else they please.
And there is absolutely nothing from preventing a layabout from picking up his arse and finding a way to contribute in a manner which benefits society/community and to stop being a leech. There is almost infinite opportunity to do so, and would be even more if we instigated any one of these proposals.
The machine isn't the problem, it's the centralized, democratic nature of it that is.
I guess that's why there are massive lines at voting stations in urban areas, and why such demographics continually vote the option for more handouts, huh. Because it's hard-working, productive members of society who want universal healthcare, welfare stamps, subsidized housing, and the like...
Joe Demko
Member
Please give a citation to back this up, since you are saying it is proven through past record. Everything I have seen indicates that welfare recipients as a group don't vote.
You may be forgetting, but the founding fathers were not against taxation. They were against repressive behaviors by a government which they could not petition as well as the taxation. They were being taxed without any representation.
Which is why I think that, under a system of "earned citizenship" (as opposed to universal), only citizens should pay taxes. It's the "petition of redress" in miniature, minus the prior requisite to pay taxes.
This is not an idea fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution (yes, it's in contrast with the later bill of rights, but...). Take a read sometime...
Joe Demko - I can't immediately find anything; the only thing I could find was the voting records for various congressmen and representatives. Maybe you could provide a like-reference to your supporting material?
Meanwhile, I'll break down my side of things.
- Inner-city people are more likely to be on welfare and consume more state/city services than those outside inner cities/ghettos.
- The larger the city, the more likely it is to have ghettos.
- Larger cities have a much more extensive underclass populace due to the need of the rich for services (in part).
- The larger the city the more likely it is to vote a Democrat into power.
- Democrats traditionally have supported more welfare, more omnipresent social and state programs, and cater to the "under trodden" more often than their competitors.
Do you challenge any of these assertions outright, or did you disagree with them on principle?
(Yes, it could be suggested that I'm saying large cities are generally lecherous to society as a whole... interesting coincidence.)
Meanwhile, I'll break down my side of things.
- Inner-city people are more likely to be on welfare and consume more state/city services than those outside inner cities/ghettos.
- The larger the city, the more likely it is to have ghettos.
- Larger cities have a much more extensive underclass populace due to the need of the rich for services (in part).
- The larger the city the more likely it is to vote a Democrat into power.
- Democrats traditionally have supported more welfare, more omnipresent social and state programs, and cater to the "under trodden" more often than their competitors.
Do you challenge any of these assertions outright, or did you disagree with them on principle?
(Yes, it could be suggested that I'm saying large cities are generally lecherous to society as a whole... interesting coincidence.)
DRZinn
Member
Guys, GUYS, GUYS!!!!
Why are we worrying about who gets to redistribute the wealth?
How about no-one?
Why are we worrying about who gets to redistribute the wealth?
How about no-one?
DRZinn, who said anything about wealth distribution? I don't know about everyone else, but I'm talking about a Social Security and Medicare (for older people) type, community-level voluntary system. Don't want in the program/invest in your community, don't want to have to vote, don't want to have to pay taxes? Don't become a citizen. (Someone spoke about "general welfare" in a document I recall reading once... that's what I've got in mind.)
Basically, an opt-in membership. Pay taxes, show up and do your part, and you'll be treated in same. Anyone who doesn't want to do their share of things, doesn't get your share of things just because they're a deadbeat.
There's still plenty of room for the people who want to make it completely on their own, who don't want community support in any guise, and tend to think they're a one-man island. That does work for some people, but the majority of people prefer some sort of cohesive social contract. Not all of us can be loners.
Basically, an opt-in membership. Pay taxes, show up and do your part, and you'll be treated in same. Anyone who doesn't want to do their share of things, doesn't get your share of things just because they're a deadbeat.
There's still plenty of room for the people who want to make it completely on their own, who don't want community support in any guise, and tend to think they're a one-man island. That does work for some people, but the majority of people prefer some sort of cohesive social contract. Not all of us can be loners.
Joe Demko
Member
Caimlas,
Here are some studies about welfare recipients that might interest you:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1898/tb1898h.pdf
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/families.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/recipients.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/caseload.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6090_ch2.htm
http://www.msu.edu/user/skourtes/myths.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/files/govtsoclaw.html
As you will see from the statistics, a small (and shrinking) percentage of the US population is on welfare. Even if they all voted as a block_which they don't_you are still looking at 6% or less of the total population. Do you really believe this small % (many of whom don't have even a high school diploma) are somehow running the show and "voting themselves into affluence?"
I'm going out of town for the next three days and will have little or no computer access. Will supply further data when I get the chance.
Here are some studies about welfare recipients that might interest you:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1898/tb1898h.pdf
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/families.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/recipients.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/caseload.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6090_ch2.htm
http://www.msu.edu/user/skourtes/myths.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/files/govtsoclaw.html
As you will see from the statistics, a small (and shrinking) percentage of the US population is on welfare. Even if they all voted as a block_which they don't_you are still looking at 6% or less of the total population. Do you really believe this small % (many of whom don't have even a high school diploma) are somehow running the show and "voting themselves into affluence?"
I'm going out of town for the next three days and will have little or no computer access. Will supply further data when I get the chance.
DRZinn
Member
It's all about people "voting themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." It's all about voters deciding on what useless boondoggles the government will spend my money and yours. Even though I have a vote, I can still be overruled and my money taken for someone else's benefit. In fact, it happens every day. That's wrong. I don't care how many or how few, or how shiftless or how productive the people are who decide how to spend my money, if it's anyone but me it's wrong.
Caimlas, The problem with your "theory" if "instigated" is that, as I stated earlier, once again you have a group in society assigning value to contributions. Generally those values weigh more in favor of the contributions of a similar demographic to those assigning the value. The problem with that approach is that the other contributions to society are given less weight, thereby effectively disenfranchising those different from the "group" that evaluates said "contributions"
Case in point:
This statement illustrates the point that I am trying to make. You see cities as lecherous (Funk and Wagnalls desk dictionary: Lecherous adj. Given to lewdness or inciting to lust.) I don't think thats exactly what you mean but I think you mean that cities are a drain on society's resources, correct me if I'm wrong.
Boil this statement down and I get that you support giving full citizenship rights only to people that live in rural communities and have served in the military.
Finally, taken in context, I agree with one of your statements. If only people that live in rural communities and have served in the military are afforded full rights of citizenship then all we have are "a bunch of people living in the same place with nothing to keep them together."
Case in point:
Inner city people rarely get farm subsidies, a form of welfare.
I'm not sure how to address this other than to ask if there are no lower income areas in the community where you live, because there is in the small city(Population 4000) where I live.
Funny, here in the west there is a huge influx into farming communities of the very poor working class. They seem to be there to provide services to the farmers.
please cite the studies that support this statement.
While that may be true in a general sense I'm sure that "their competitors" have traditionally supported more corporate welfare, and have supported the "military industrial complex" which is another form of welfare (read: Halliburton's no bid contract for war support services)
Both.
This statement illustrates the point that I am trying to make. You see cities as lecherous (Funk and Wagnalls desk dictionary: Lecherous adj. Given to lewdness or inciting to lust.) I don't think thats exactly what you mean but I think you mean that cities are a drain on society's resources, correct me if I'm wrong.
Boil this statement down and I get that you support giving full citizenship rights only to people that live in rural communities and have served in the military.
Finally, taken in context, I agree with one of your statements. If only people that live in rural communities and have served in the military are afforded full rights of citizenship then all we have are "a bunch of people living in the same place with nothing to keep them together."
Last edited:
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
The reason tax consumers (the welfare class) are drawn to cities is because that's where ths social service offices are located.
The same thing happened in ancient Rome. People were drawn in to receive "free" grain. In the end they rioted in the streets demanding more free bread and circuses.
OS
The same thing happened in ancient Rome. People were drawn in to receive "free" grain. In the end they rioted in the streets demanding more free bread and circuses.
OS
Huh?
Thats like saying that the reason farmers live on farms is to get farm subsidies.
There are plenty of senior citizens that live in rural communities and they seem to be recieving Social Security and Medicare, both of which are forms of welfare.
Alphazulu6
member
I have one last remark about "Universal Citizenship" and how it will impact our country.
Joe - Hmm. Well, that's disturbing. It goes against what I'd understood (albeit much of which from stereotypes). Now I've got to reconsider my ideas on the matter.
I think the suggestions made by someone about the "self-interest" aspect of a person's vote might be considered. Will this person benefit from their vote? Ok, it's only worth one vote. Will they be penalized? Two votes. Et cetera - and make sure they know which way it will be beforehand, so at the least they can make an intelligent vote.
But that'd probably be a bit more complex still.
I think the suggestions made by someone about the "self-interest" aspect of a person's vote might be considered. Will this person benefit from their vote? Ok, it's only worth one vote. Will they be penalized? Two votes. Et cetera - and make sure they know which way it will be beforehand, so at the least they can make an intelligent vote.
But that'd probably be a bit more complex still.
Cosmoline
Member
Actually, it was set up without one, and it ran fine that way for a long time. The income tax was first introduced during the Civil War, and was curtailed afterwards. The dramatic expansion in federal taxation authority in the 20th century after the 16th was passed and FDR's socialists came to power is what allowed our federal gobment to get so enormous.
Wait a minute. You're equating the feds with society. Those are two very different things. I could care less who leeches from those nogoodniks. The government is not the nation, it is not the people, and it sure as hades ain't "society." Besides, the welfare queens you people complain about are a joke compared with the contractors, companies and old layabouts who leech trillions from the federal coffers every year.
Glock Glockler
Member
Joe Demko,
Do you know where one can find the raw data those statistics are based on? Seeing how that info is coming from the govt itself I am a bit skeptical, Mark Twain had a good point about statistics.
Wheeler44
There are plenty of senior citizens that live in rural communities and they seem to be recieving Social Security and Medicare, both of which are forms of welfare
SS and medicare are Federal and can be distributed regardless of one's location, the relevant point is whether or not cities have additional welfare programs on their own.
Thats like saying that the reason farmers live on farms is to get farm subsidies
Some do, I think if we eliminated all farm subsidies we'd see some farmers doing other things.
Do you know where one can find the raw data those statistics are based on? Seeing how that info is coming from the govt itself I am a bit skeptical, Mark Twain had a good point about statistics.
Wheeler44
There are plenty of senior citizens that live in rural communities and they seem to be recieving Social Security and Medicare, both of which are forms of welfare
SS and medicare are Federal and can be distributed regardless of one's location, the relevant point is whether or not cities have additional welfare programs on their own.
Thats like saying that the reason farmers live on farms is to get farm subsidies
Some do, I think if we eliminated all farm subsidies we'd see some farmers doing other things.
Glockler,
But this is again a digression from the thread.
It does show however, a prejudice or bias which is why it is utterly ridiculous to say that someone has the right to determine anyone elses contribution to society and the rights (remember rights are God given) that each contributor should have.
How is this relevant to the thread? Most (social ) welfare is administered by the state. Most counties have offices for the administrating agencies. Even if someone had to travel to a city to apply for (social) welfare they could still recieve food stamps etc. in their home locales.
But this is again a digression from the thread.
It does show however, a prejudice or bias which is why it is utterly ridiculous to say that someone has the right to determine anyone elses contribution to society and the rights (remember rights are God given) that each contributor should have.
Glock Glockler
Member
Wheeler44,
I didnt say it was relevant to the thread as a whole, the reason I brought it up was was because I thought it was relevant to his point.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/hra/html/home/home.shtml
From this link it seems that there certainly is welfare administered by the city itself.
It does show however, a prejudice or bias which is why it is utterly ridiculous to say that someone has the right to determine anyone elses contribution to society and the rights (remember rights are God given) that each contributor should have
We do it all the time, do children vote, what about mentally retarded people, what about people who are just visiting the country? Should a foreigner who is just here on vacation be able to vote if they're here when we have an election? We decide standards on what others can do regarding voting all the time.
I didnt say it was relevant to the thread as a whole, the reason I brought it up was was because I thought it was relevant to his point.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/hra/html/home/home.shtml
From this link it seems that there certainly is welfare administered by the city itself.
It does show however, a prejudice or bias which is why it is utterly ridiculous to say that someone has the right to determine anyone elses contribution to society and the rights (remember rights are God given) that each contributor should have
We do it all the time, do children vote, what about mentally retarded people, what about people who are just visiting the country? Should a foreigner who is just here on vacation be able to vote if they're here when we have an election? We decide standards on what others can do regarding voting all the time.
That's right the thread was started by a new member that floated the idea that some citizens should be stripped of their right to vote because he (the OP) didn't see or appreciate the contribution to society they(the citizens) made. The thread evolved into a discussion of the relative merits of someones contribution to society and then on to who should have the greatest vote or amount of votes or some such nonsense.
Thats right. Voting Rights Timeline from the LBJ Library and Museum
1789 Ratification of the U.S. Constitution; first elections held
1807 Women lose the right to vote in all states
1830 Most states have abolished property and religious voting tests
1838 Kentucky reintroduces women's suffrage for widows
1855 Blacks can vote in only 5 states
1870 15th Amendment enfranchises black males
1876 Black voters in the South denied participation
1889 Wyoming allows women full voting rights
1915 Grandfather Clause used to disenfranchise black males declared unconstitutional
1920 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote
1924 Indian Citizenship Act provided for suffrage for Native Americans
1944 "White Primary" declared unconstitutional
1961 23rd Amendment gives vote to citizens of Washington, DC
1962 New Mexico was the last state to extend the right to vote to Native Americans
1964 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax for federal elections
1965 Voting Rights Act outlaws literacy tests and sends federal registrars to the South
1971 26th Amendment gives 18-20-year-olds the right to vote
1975 Amended Voting Rights Act enables poor speakers of English to participate in the political process
1993 National Voter Registration Act makes registration more uniform and accessible ("Motor Voter")
Judging by the above timeline we as a nation have done a good job of eventually letting just about everybody that is a citizen vote for the people that make and enforce the laws of the the land.
It used to be you had to be a male,free, white and 21 plus own some land and some education to vote.
I have to agree with the way things have turned out on that score.
And yes, I am all of the above.
One more time, let me say that I don't think that anybody has the right (and I can't believe that many have the gall) to decide who has contributed enough to society to vote.
Glock Glockler
Member
Is the idea that someone shouldn't vote because they 'haven't contributed enough' the same thing as saying that if you're getting more in doles than you pay in taxes you don't vote? I don't support the Starship Trooper's bit about having to serve in the military to vote but I also don't see someone should get to dictate policy if they're not even pulling their own weight.
Glock Glockler, I tend to say no. I also support it being an all or nothing. Of course, I'm not too sympathetic for those on the dole, I support things like mandatory birth control while on it. Even for the men, if they ever come up with a good temporary sterilization technique.
First, farm subsidies, especially if paid directly to the farmer would count against him. Besides, I doubt that a farmer who's activly farming will end up negative when you consider his property taxes, self-employment taxes, income taxes, etc... I remember hearing somewhere that most farmers that receive subsidies receive less than $2k. I paid more than that in federal income tax last year, and I'm not that high of a wage earner.
In short, all I'm considering is indeed, that the person not be a burden on the state to retain the right to vote. Not that he gets more votes for contributing more, or has to pay 'his or her fair share'. Just not be a negative.
Thing is, it's not that small of a %.
Let's do a little checking here: The NRA has ~4.3 million members. The population of the USA is 300 million. That's 1.4% of the population.
The NRA is considered to be a big scary special interest group, with a 'mere' 1.4% of the population. You're talking about 6% being small? That's larger than many election margins today!
As for not voting - the Democrats tend to send busses and vans around to collect them for voting. If even 1 out of 5 of the 6% on welfare get out to vote, that's still enough of a groupd to be noticed and pandered to.
Sure, it'd be a marginal effect in many ways - but it wouldn't take much of a shift to have a much leaner government over time.
First, farm subsidies, especially if paid directly to the farmer would count against him. Besides, I doubt that a farmer who's activly farming will end up negative when you consider his property taxes, self-employment taxes, income taxes, etc... I remember hearing somewhere that most farmers that receive subsidies receive less than $2k. I paid more than that in federal income tax last year, and I'm not that high of a wage earner.
In short, all I'm considering is indeed, that the person not be a burden on the state to retain the right to vote. Not that he gets more votes for contributing more, or has to pay 'his or her fair share'. Just not be a negative.
Joe Demko said:
Thing is, it's not that small of a %.
Let's do a little checking here: The NRA has ~4.3 million members. The population of the USA is 300 million. That's 1.4% of the population.
The NRA is considered to be a big scary special interest group, with a 'mere' 1.4% of the population. You're talking about 6% being small? That's larger than many election margins today!
As for not voting - the Democrats tend to send busses and vans around to collect them for voting. If even 1 out of 5 of the 6% on welfare get out to vote, that's still enough of a groupd to be noticed and pandered to.
Sure, it'd be a marginal effect in many ways - but it wouldn't take much of a shift to have a much leaner government over time.
- Status
