What is your ideal political structure?

[jamil]

I think it was fine the way it happened, personally. They had a tax advantage that they should have never had and when they got to uppity they were smacked down. Yes it was by government, but no one else could have done so in such a manner.

It’s satisfying. And I am pleased that they’re no longer getting that tax advantage. I’m not sure it does any more than that.

 

[DadSmith]

I think I would support military service or certain civil service as a prerequisite for voting right. If you have no skin in the game why should you get a say?

I can understand the sentiment but I take it a big step farther.

Actually this was the original way we determined who voted in this country.
Those who owned land were the only ones allowed to vote. Let's go back to that.


As to my political system I'm calling it 1791. Can we just go back to the way it use to be? The way it was supposed to be?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[BigRed]

I've spent about 20 years now, trying to figure out where I REALLY stand politically.

I don't fit in well amongst progressives (at all) but I don't fit in amongst conservatives either once we get past the first level of "small gov, low taxes" talk.

In college, I was pretty intrigued by the "crunchy con" movement. (Conservatives that care about the environment etc). I also read a lot of Pat Buchanan during this time, thinking myself to be a paleocon...but what exactly are we conserving at this point?

Ron/Rand Paul made a lot of sense to me with some of the libertarian arguments, although amongst hardcore libertarians...they viewed me as too conservative (I'm like...kind of against people murdering their unborn children you know).

Once I came to saving faith, I started exploring theonomy/theocracy but didn't really fall cleanly into any of those camps either.

What I have resolved...we shouldn't all be voting equally, that much I'm sure of. I'm 100% against pure unfiltered democracy.

What I'm left with is kind of oscillating between a sort of republican monarchy and a Christian libertarianism. (yeah I know)

Your thoughts?

I can think of no political structure I would deem ideal to live under.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Those who owned land were the only ones allowed to vote. Let's go back to that.

I don't think I could agree with that. Back when we were an agrarian nation, maybe? But now, there are a lot of people that are hard working, contributing members of society that happen to find renting to be preferred to owning. I don't think they should be excluded. It kind of smacks of "I've got mine!"

 

[DadSmith]

I don't think I could agree with that. Back when we were an agrarian nation, maybe? But now, there are a lot of people that are hard working, contributing members of society that happen to find renting to be preferred to owning. I don't think they should be excluded. It kind of smacks of "I've got mine!"

That's where we will disagree then.
If they are that great of a contributor why don't they have enough to own their own land?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That's where we will disagree then.

Fair enough, but what about a young professional that is going to be changing jobs frequently (at first at least) and is going to be moving around a lot? They're paying (in some cases more than you or I) taxes and contributing to society. Why should they be excluded? Not everyone can buy their 40 acres and a mule you know?

 

[DadSmith]

Fair enough, but what about a young professional that is going to be changing jobs frequently (at first at least) and is going to be moving around a lot? They're paying (in some cases more than you or I) taxes and contributing to society. Why should they be excluded? Not everyone can buy their 40 acres and a mule you know?

I imagine someone would come up with a solution and start selling 1 Sq foot of land with a deed and a few dollar property tax so they could vote lol.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I imagine someone would come up with a solution and start selling 1 Sq foot of land with a deed and a few dollar property tax so they could vote lol.

I would build a really TALL skinny house on that. Of course if the .gov was involved, they would probably require a 6" easement on each side of the property.

 

[BugI02]

It’s satisfying. And I am pleased that they’re no longer getting that tax advantage. I’m not sure it does any more than that.

It shows Disney that there is no force field around them, that actions have consequences

If they still want to dance, then send in the environmental inspectors and OSHA etc. Beat them so bad there won't be a next time because they won't want it again

 

[wtburnette]

It shows Disney that there is no force field around them, that actions have consequences

If they still want to dance, then send in the environmental inspectors and OSHA etc. Beat them so bad there won't be a next time because they won't want it again

I notice that they've been very quiet since then, so there's that...

 

[DadSmith]

Fair enough, but what about a young professional that is going to be changing jobs frequently (at first at least) and is going to be moving around a lot? They're paying (in some cases more than you or I) taxes and contributing to society. Why should they be excluded? Not everyone can buy their 40 acres and a mule you know?

You also forget that there was no income taxes back then. So if we revert to 1791 type government there will be a huge amount of income immediately avaliable or very soon after for those living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[BigRed]

You also forget that there was no income taxes back then. So if we revert to 1791 type government there will be a huge amount of income immediately avaliable or very soon after for those living paycheck to paycheck.

Indeed.

Confiscation of ones' labor is nothing less than slavery.

 

[Jeepster48439]

It wouldn't be a bad thing at all, IF the people actually elected the candidates based on the character and views of the candidate themselves. These days, people "pull the lever" for a party, not a person. I think 12th is effectively meaningless at this point.

I'd prefer to get rid of the parties altogether!

Prior to the 12th Amendment, Senators were elected by the State they represented.

The House is the voice of the People. The Senate was the voice of the State.

 

[jamil]

I can understand the sentiment but I take it a big step farther.

Actually this was the original way we determined who voted in this country.
Those who owned land were the only ones allowed to vote. Let's go back to that.


As to my political system I'm calling it 1791. Can we just go back to the way it use to be? The way it was supposed to be?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We moved away from that. Everyone who is subject to the authority of elected leaders has a fundamental right to participate in electing that leader. Period. End of story. There are other ways to have a stake in a society than owning land. Or even being employed.

 

[jamil]

It shows Disney that there is no force field around them, that actions have consequences

If they still want to dance, then send in the environmental inspectors and OSHA etc. Beat them so bad there won't be a next time because they won't want it again

yeah, that's the satisfying part.

 

[Twangbanger]

It shows Disney that there is no force field around them, that actions have consequences

If they still want to dance, then send in the environmental inspectors and OSHA etc. Beat them so bad there won't be a next time because they won't want it again

You are not running for President of the Chamber of Commerce, are you?

 

[DadSmith]

We moved away from that. Everyone who is subject to the authority of elected leaders has a fundamental right to participate in electing that leader. Period. End of story. There are other ways to have a stake in a society than owning land. Or even being employed.

And the start down the path we are on now.

 

[jamil]

And the start down the path we are on now.

That’s not what started us down the wrong path.

 

[Ingomike]

I love to see this garbage corrected. Afraid of a few vocal morons in your company? Time to decide if you want to capitulate to them and lose money, or stick to your core values and **** off those whiney b*tches. I don't understand why corporations are quaking in their boots and making horrid business decisions based on the clamoring of a few people. Fire those idiot employees and get new ones that can do their jobs without injecting politics into everything and don't cave to the woke customers. Since they are a small minority, it's better business to snub them than the majority.

You need to review my post in the twitter thread, it answers why this occurs, and that is because of the power that a few have harnessed in the form of Blackrock and Vanguard. That is really who is calling the shots.

 

[Ingomike]

It's because of ESG. While everyone was happy and comfortable making stuff, selling stuff, buying stuff, and using stuff, NeoMarxist ideologues were inserting themselves into every institution. Finance, media, manufacturing, religions, education, and whatever else I didn't think of. So now we have ESG infecting every boardroom. It's a social scorecard for business. All the major companies have it. And I think that's what the left hates about small businesses. It's too hard to make them do all that nonsense. Easier to have a few big corporations they can control than to have 10's of millions of small businesses they'd have to infiltrate to control.

So now that ESG is a thing, to be rid of it, it would take them all coming together to agree to get rid of it. That's not gonna happen. So probably, and I hate to say it, but it would probably take government to get rid of it. And that's definately a sticky wicket too.

ESG is pushed by those in control of Blackrock and Vanguard…