American Thinker: "Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American."

[RansomthePasserby]

This might be a good place to stimulate a discussion about a fictional political system...

Opinions?

Let's do it.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This might be a good place to stimulate a discussion about a fictional political system.

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, he created a political system in which citizenship had to be earned. A person became a citizen by, well, the way I'd describe it is "by volunteering to do four years community service". This service could be in the military. (Which caused a lot of people to throw a lot of feces at Heinlein, because they thought he was saying that only veterans should be citizens.) Or people could serve in other ways. Basically, they volunteered to do things that society needed to have done.

Citizenship didn't carry a lot of privileges. They got to vote. And there were certain jobs (like police officer, judge, politician) that could only be held by citizens. And that was about it. In his society, very few people chose to become citizens.

Heinlein's rationale for such a system was that by only granting the vote to people who had "served their time", that you had a better chance of getting voters who would put the interests of the country above their own interests.

Opinions?

Weren't people born into citizenship though? The higher class? (Granted I've never read the book--though I should--and am just going off the movie. Specifically Denise Richards' character.)

Either way, interesting discussion. I've been wondering for awhile if this is it. If the age of competing ideologies died with the Soviet Union. I know there's still liberal and conservative and libertarian and all that, but the differences are minuscule compared to those of the past. Or will something new spring up? If so, I'm not seeing it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Tax his land,

Tax his bed,

Tax the table,

At which he's fed.

Tax the poor at a higher rate

And tell them that it's their priviledge

And then when he manipulates the system to his own end and causes an economy to crash threatening to send their billion dollar banks into the brink they can be sure to get all that tax money back and a nice pat on their back from the people who should be throwing them in jail.

I'll grant that the third line doesn't rhyme, but to me it's the real heart of the poem.

---------- Post added September-3rd-2011 at 10:32 PM ----------

This might be a good place to stimulate a discussion about a fictional political system.

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, he created a political system in which citizenship had to be earned.

He didn't invent that system, it was the Roman system of citizenship where citizenship was earned through military service, bought or if your parents were citizens you were born in. Citizenship in the Empire was taken very seriously to the point that even the Apostle Paul lists it as a list of his pedigree. The problem is that it creates an elitist attitude amongst the citizenry, but then when we're talking about Empire a certain amount of elitism is required to maintain it, and as of late some of my friends have been suggesting that the American Empire is something that should be maintained and grown.

I just find it ironic that the Tea Party which nearly demands populism is now pushing a land owner elitism, seems they just want their populists voting and not all of them.

[Springfield]

This might be a good place to stimulate a discussion about a fictional political system.

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, he created a political system in which citizenship had to be earned. A person became a citizen by, well, the way I'd describe it is "by volunteering to do four years community service". This service could be in the military. (Which caused a lot of people to throw a lot of feces at Heinlein, because they thought he was saying that only veterans should be citizens.) Or people could serve in other ways. Basically, they volunteered to do things that society needed to have done.

Citizenship didn't carry a lot of privileges. They got to vote. And there were certain jobs (like police officer, judge, politician) that could only be held by citizens. And that was about it. In his society, very few people chose to become citizens.

Heinlein's rationale for such a system was that by only granting the vote to people who had "served their time", that you had a better chance of getting voters who would put the interests of the country above their own interests.

Opinions?

Good post. Very thought invoking in my opinion.

I think a system like that is very idealistic, relying on the hopes that the few will serve the interests of the whole. I think it's naive. What would be more likely to happen is the few will serve their own interests. The "non-citizens" in this scenario will be a sub culture. They won't have a say in the direction of the country, and it would be by design of course. The citizens with the voting power will become rich and powerful and the non-citizens will become poor and weak. Years ahead, this would almost surely lead to civil war with the first class fighting for what is already existing and the sub class fighting for something that resembles socialism.

A system like that would also probably have striking results in getting people to serve. Meaning people would more or less be forced to assimilate. I can't think of a better way to control the public then by forcing them serve the public in order to become citizens in order to vote. It's really quite evil.

- As I'm sure we are all in agreement that voting is a "God given" right that everyone born in the United States is born with.

- Make it so voting can only be done by citizens.

- Make it so that citizens must serve the public, via military, arts, etc.

Those that don't serve do not have the power elect people to represent them. Without representation, that segment of the public will feel a greater financial burden. Therefore, in order to equal the playing field, more and more will "choose" to serve. If it goes according to plan, everyone will serve in order to gain their once "god given" rights back. If it goes according to plan the government would accomplish the assimilating of a nation into forced service.

It's devilish.

[twa]

very nicely done Springfields

[AsburySkinsFan]

very nicely done Springfields

Very much so, and it's amazing how closely to the 1st century Roman Empire resembles what he described.

The one thing he didn't mention is that the armed forces would be heavily populated by non-citizens fighting for the citizens, and how much would one really care about sendind non-citizens to their deaths on behalf of the Empi....errr nation.

[Larry]

Uh, actually, it's amazing how much you want it to resemble Rome.

Granted, I'm describing what I remember about one aspect of a book that I read in junior high, but no, citizenship wasn't inherited. (Although I do remember some books, maybe not that one, where it could be bought. The idea being that well, voluntarily donating a pile of money to the government is serving the public, too.)

And I don't know where you come up with this idea that "the armed forces would be heavily populated by non-citizens fighting for the citizens". In Heinlein's system, all soldiers are non-citizens. You become a citizen the day you're discharged.

And anybody who wants to, can become a citizen, simply by performing his community service. (Which doesn't have to be military. In fact, he pointed out that during normal times, the military constituted a small portion of the government. Most people serving their tour, so to speak, served by functioning as low-level government employees.)

----------

Now, would it become like that? Would Heinlein's citizens use the power of the vote to make themselves privileged?

Lord knows that we've seen examples of that in today's society, of groups of voters trying to use their power to vote more goodies to themselves.

I could certainly see the argument that Heinlein's citizens wouldn't be any less tempted by their power than any other special interest group.

OTOH, they can't exactly vote themselves too many goodies. Not when all anybody has to do, to join their "club" is a few years of community service.

It's hard to maintain a privileged class when class mobility is so easy.

[Larry]

Possible variation on Heinlein's system:

Should ONE HOUSE of Congress be elected that way?

Suppose that everybody votes for the House, but only citizens can vote for the Senate.

Under such a system, the citizens really can't vote themselves special privileges, since the House would have to vote for them, too.

Does that work?

[Thiebear]

So we would switch to 1/2 a representative system. of a representative republic - sounds horrible

and the last think we need is a General telling a non-citizen army to crack down on the population. (see every other countries examples in the last 2 years).

Amnesty/Deportation is what fixes the rest of the issues by itself.

[twa]

Amnesty is what your looking for, it fixing the rest of the issues by itself.

Been done before, the issues have come back in greater measure

wrong prescription or incomplete ?

[Thiebear]

Been done before, the issues have come back in greater measure

wrong prescription or incomplete ?

Amnesty one time 30 years ago was of course incomplete. We have 20 million shadow citizens that need amnesty or if felons deportation.

But of course that one happen while we fight over political party wants.

[alexey]

maybe you're right

Tax his land,

Tax his bed,

Tax the table,

At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,

Tax his mule,

Teach him taxes

Are the rule.

Tax his work,

Tax his pay,

He works for

peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,

Tax his goat,

Tax his pants,

Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,

Tax his shirt,

Tax his work,

Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,

Tax his drink,

Tax him if he

Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,

Tax his beers,

If he cries

Tax his tears.

Tax his car,

Tax his gas,

Find other ways

Taxes to pass

Tax all he has

Then let him know

That you won't be done

Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;

Then tax him some more,

Tax him till

He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,

Tax his grave,

Tax the sod in

Which he's laid...

Put these words

Upon his tomb,

'Taxes drove me

to my doom...'

When he's gone,

Do not relax,

Its time to apply

The inheritance tax.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/09/tax-tax.html

I'm more into taxing fewer things, but getting it right.

I do not have a cute song for that.

---------- Post added September-4th-2011 at 10:32 AM ----------

Voters may have short-sighted self-interests. Those may significantly deviate from interests of the nation. Long-term self-interersts, however, will be closer and closer to overall interests of the nation.

Let's say somebody works in the petroleum industry. Their short term self interests may include denial of climate change and generally voting to avoid policies that attempt to move our nation away from fossil fuels. However, in the long term these actions are not good for anybody - they are not good for the short-sigthed voter himself, and they are not good for the nation as a whole.

[twa]

if ya plan to move ya better have a available home;) in mind ya can afford.

the market for affordable energy is kinda tight.

a simpler tax system would be nice and eliminate some of the political games,but that would conflict with self interests.

[techboy]

Granted, I'm describing what I remember about one aspect of a book that I read in junior high, but no, citizenship wasn't inherited.

Actually, it was. Sometimes. As you can see here, it was rather complicated, with a variety of paths to citizenship (one of which, if both parents were full citizens, was indeed inheritance), and even different kinds of citizenship. For example:

Some members of a political community (cives) may have more political rights than others; a principle by the aid of which Savigny (Geschichte des Röm. Rechts im Mittelalter, c. ii p22) has expressed briefly and clearly the distinction between the two great classes of Roman citizens under the republic:— "In the free republic there were two classes of Roman citizens, one that had, and another that had not, a share in the sovereign power (optimo jure, non optimo jure cives). That which particularly distinguished the higher class was the right to vote in a tribe, and the capacity for enjoying magistracies (suffragium et honores)." According to this view, the jus civitatis comprehended part of that which the Romans called jus publicum, and also, and most particularly, that which they called jus privatum. The jus privatum comprehended the jus connubii and jus commercii, and those who had not these had no citizenship. Those who had the jus suffragiorum and jus honorum had the complete citizenship, or, in other words, they were optimo jure cives. Those who had the privatum, but the publicum jus, were citizens, though citizens of an inferior class. The jus privatum seems to be equivalent to the jus Quiritium, and the civitas Romana to the jus publicum. Accordingly, we sometimes find the jus Quiritium contrasted with the Romana civitas (Plin. Ep. X.4.22; Ulp. Frag. tit. 3 §2). Livy (XXXVIII.36) says that until B.C. 188, the Formiani, Fundani, and Arpinates, had the civitas without the suffragium; and, at an earlier time, the people of Anagnia received the "Civitas sine suffragii latione" (Liv. IX.43).

Ulpian (Frag. tit. 5 §4; 19 §4; 20 §8; 11 §6) has stated a distinction, as existing in his time among the free persons who were within the political limits of the Roman state, which it is of great importance to apprehend clearly. There were three classes of free persons, Cives, Latini, and Peregrini. Gaius (I.12) points to the same division, where he says that a slave, when made free, might become a Civis Romanus, or a Latinus, or might be in the number of the peregrini dediticii, according to circumstances. Civis, according to Ulpian, is he who possesses the complete rights of a Roman citizen. The Peregrinus had not commercium and connubium, which were the characteristic rights of a Roman citizen, not viewed in his political capacity; but the Peregrinus had a capacity for making all kinds of contracts which were allowable by the jus gentium. The Latinus was an intermediate state; he had not the connubium, and consequently he had not the patria potestas nor rights of agnatio; but he had the commercium or the right of acquiring quiritarian ownership, as vindicatio, in jure cessio, mancipatio, and testamenti factio, which last comprises the power of making a will in Roman p292form, of becoming heres or legatee under a will, and of being a witness to a will; also he could contract many obligationes which a Peregrinus could not. These were the general capacities of a Latinus and peregrinus; but a Latinus or a peregrinus might obtain by special favour certain rights which he had not by virtue of his condition only. The legitima hereditas was not included in the testamenti factio; for the legitima hereditas presupposed agnatio, and agnatio presupposed connubium, or the capacity to contract a Roman marriage.

I hope you got all that, there will be a quiz next Tuesday.

And, of course, one of the most politically useful aspects of Roman citizenship is that they would give it to important people in conquered regions, which along with absorption of religious practices (you have a new god? Sure! We'll add him to the pantheon!), helped to assimilate new regions.

[alexey]

if ya plan to move ya better have a available home;) in mind ya can afford.

the market for affordable energy is kinda tight.

If ya know you gotta move, ya better not ignore that until it's moving time.

[Larry]

Actually, it was. Sometimes. As you can see here, it was rather complicated, with a variety of paths to citizenship (one of which, if both parents were full citizens, was indeed inheritance), and even different kinds of citizenship. For example:

Which would be real important if I was talking about Rome, instead of describing something different, and having people tell me that I'm describing Rome.

And, of course, one of the most politically useful aspects of Roman citizenship is that they would give it to important people in conquered regions. . .

Actually, that's something I'd wondered about, when talking about immigration and similar topics.

The analogy I think of is the French Foreign Legion.

As I understand it, The FFL isn't open to French citizens. Only non-citizens can join. But if you join, and if you serve your term (which, I think, is fairly long, like 20 years), then when you're done, then they give you French citizenship.

I suspect that there are lots of people who would willingly join the US military, if they got to be US citizens when they were done.

(The drawback is: What kind[/u] of people would you get, joining?)

[Springfield]

Which would be real important if I was talking about Rome, instead of describing something different, and having people tell me that I'm describing Rome.

For the record, I wasn't having any thoughts about Rome when I was replying to your post.

I basically thought about the movie Starship Troopers and applied that to today's America. As it pertains to your second thought, I don't think that we should apply special voting benefits to any facet of the government. The thought of something like that leads me to the thought of, "why did we fight so hard to expand voting in the first place?"

[Larry]

For the record, I wasn't having any thoughts about Rome when I was replying to your post.

I basically thought about the movie Starship Troopers and applied that to today's America. As it pertains to your second thought, I don't think that we should apply special voting benefits to any facet of the government. The thought of something like that leads me to the thought of, "why did we fight so hard to expand voting in the first place?"

Long as I'm throwing out goofball, fictional, proposals for alternative governments, . . .

I recall reading an editorial, decades ago, where somebody was proposing the creation of a third house of Congress, where people, once appointed, served for life, and their seats would then be inherited.

The author's reasoning was that we needed part of the government who would actually consider what the effects of a proposal would be, down the road. A branch tha would care about what a proposal would do to the country, 50 years from now.

[Springfield]

Long as I'm throwing out goofball, fictional, proposals for alternative governments, . . .

I recall reading an editorial, decades ago, where somebody was proposing the creation of a third house of Congress, where people, once appointed, served for life, and their seats would then be inherited.

The author's reasoning was that we needed part of the government who would actually consider what the effects of a proposal would be, down the road. A branch tha would care about what a proposal would do to the country, 50 years from now.

Inherited by whom? Family?

I don't know how well that would work out... once the corruption gets to them. Plus, I think that the Supreme Court serves well enough in that capacity, flawed as it is. The Supreme Court is, and other court systems to a lesser extent, serve very well on judging the validity of a law. I just don't see the need for a third house of congress. Plus, there's that whole problem of the actual Capitol building. It's a historic site, where would this new house go?

[Henry]

Heh, while the college boys were learning how to process,I was making money and applying wisdom....I can hire a PhD to wash my car nowadays(them durn student loans are a ***** I hear)

I have been asked to instruct at college....maybe one of these days I'll get bored enough to give it a go,or grab a degree

You do realize you just made Zoony's point, don't you?

[Jumbo]

I used to have a few outrageous National Lampoon t-shirts I bought in the early 70's (mentioned some on here before) and one of them was "Shoot the Wounded" and if they were around now I'd be buying a "Shoot the Poor" version as I am sure they'd be offering one.

[twa]

You do realize you just made Zoony's point, don't you?

Not a problem to me,we are just biased in different directions:pfft:....just as the article writer is biased in another

Wait....are we keeping score? :point2sky

like Zoony I tolerate what I don't like for the greater good.....while grousing about it

[Jumbo]

like Zoony I tolerate what I don't like for the greater good.....while grousing about it

How about this for a new ES avatar?

I like this version (sage grouse) in particular, not only for the intended double-pun in the name :pfft:, but for the fact that da boid is in Full Feisty mode. :cool:

[Henry]

Not a problem to me,we are just biased in different directions:pfft:....just as the article writer is biased in another

The difference is that while Zoony was being facetious, the writer of the article was not. The fact that you were so easily able to poke a whole into the logic used by that writer (and mirrored by Zoony) proves that bias isn't really the issue. The logic which you provided dictates that the argument put forth by the writer of the article is terribly flawed.

Wait....are we keeping score? :point2sky

Either that or we're trying to decide whose kid is the coolest, making up quotes and spouting poetry. I'd rather stick to discussing the merits and (substantial) flaws of the article in the OP myself.

like Zoony I tolerate what I don't like for the greater good.....while grousing about it

God Bless America.

[Redskin Diehard]

If one should have to own property to vote and thus have a say in how their government allocates and spends tax dollars, then in my opinion only property owners should be obliged to pay taxes under such a system. I would willingly sell my house and give up my right to vote in exchange for not having to pay federal taxes, but something has to give. American fascists... I mean the Tea-Party can't have it both ways.