DEMOCRAZY is a fatally flawed concept, even in civilised countries. Last night I watched in disgust as Billary blatantly bribed the MORONITY with freebies and subsidies and suchlike.
But as bad as it is in the West it is an unmitigated disaster for white people in African countries. And yet, if you were to ask them, 99% still claim to believe in it. Whites have truly become tragic victims of their own well-intentioned propaganda.
The only way out of this bind is for like-minded people to seek out under-populated land in friendly host countries that would be willing to offer very long leases in which to create new city-states and mini-states from scratch.
Many South/Central American countries have vast swathes of under-utilised territories and might be amenable. Such enclaves/colonies would offer many advantages for the host country too.
But as bad as it is in the West it is an unmitigated disaster for white people in African countries. And yet, if you were to ask them, 99% still claim to believe in it. Whites have truly become tragic victims of their own well-intentioned propaganda.
The only way out of this bind is for like-minded people to seek out under-populated land in friendly host countries that would be willing to offer very long leases in which to create new city-states and mini-states from scratch.
Many South/Central American countries have vast swathes of under-utilised territories and might be amenable. Such enclaves/colonies would offer many advantages for the host country too.
Qualified franchise seems like a good idea, but qualified by what parameters?
This is a subject I’ve put quite a lot of thought into because I have long believed that, in an ideal society, citizens should be able to earn additional votes by virtue of one’s commitment and contribution to society, etc. This does not nullify the basic democratic principle of One Man One Vote, but rather extends it in acknowledgement of the obvious fact that some individuals are more worthy than others, and therefore SOME MEN deserve MANY VOTES..!
Listed below, in ascending order of importance, are what I have nominated as the qualifiers for CommonSense Democracy. (note that with our existing IRRATIONAL system “Citizenship” is the only qualification, which is rather like passing a driving test by merely knowing which side of the road to drive on.) Under CSD, Citizenship will remain the basic qualification but, in terms of an individuals voting power, it will be the least valuable of 5 qualifiers. Note that people will vote for ISSUES, not POLITICIANS..! In the future (as in the past) there will be no need for Politicians as we know them, by which I mean PROFESSIONAL (ie, highly paid) POLITICIANS.
QUALIFIERS FOR COMMONSENSE DEMOCRACY (CSD)
1) CITIZENSHIP – basic single vote for all citizens.
2) CONDUCT – eg, temporary suspension of voting rights for misconduct.
3) COMMITMENT – length of residence in a particular community.
4) CONTRIBUTION – taxes, rates, etc, contributed to the community.
5) COMPREHENSION – an individuals knowledge of the issue he is voting on.
In our existing hyper-capitalistic societies, a very clever chap is one who earns big bucks but withholds as much as he legally can from the state. In a decent society, this would amount to unethical behaviour but, Arsezania being what it is, I am of course 100% in agreement with this!. But in a society of our own making, tailored to our own specifications, there can be no better incentive to not dodge ones taxes, etc, than to be able to boast “I pay $xxx in taxes, so I qualify for maximum votes in the legislature..!”
How many additional votes one might qualify for under such a system would obviously be a matter for furious debate, but in order not to concentrate too much power in any one individual there should be an upper limit.
An average worthy citizen might qualify for between 10 and 30 votes (depending on his/her score in category 5) and a maximum of 50 or 100. As I said this is highly contentious topic.
Also note that, in principle at least, any individual could qualify for maximum votes. Nobody is penalized on account of his/her lowly heritage, education, or IQ. Neither would one be disadvantaged by colour or creed.
This is a subject I’ve put quite a lot of thought into because I have long believed that, in an ideal society, citizens should be able to earn additional votes by virtue of one’s commitment and contribution to society, etc. This does not nullify the basic democratic principle of One Man One Vote, but rather extends it in acknowledgement of the obvious fact that some individuals are more worthy than others, and therefore SOME MEN deserve MANY VOTES..!
Listed below, in ascending order of importance, are what I have nominated as the qualifiers for CommonSense Democracy. (note that with our existing IRRATIONAL system “Citizenship” is the only qualification, which is rather like passing a driving test by merely knowing which side of the road to drive on.) Under CSD, Citizenship will remain the basic qualification but, in terms of an individuals voting power, it will be the least valuable of 5 qualifiers. Note that people will vote for ISSUES, not POLITICIANS..! In the future (as in the past) there will be no need for Politicians as we know them, by which I mean PROFESSIONAL (ie, highly paid) POLITICIANS.
QUALIFIERS FOR COMMONSENSE DEMOCRACY (CSD)
1) CITIZENSHIP – basic single vote for all citizens.
2) CONDUCT – eg, temporary suspension of voting rights for misconduct.
3) COMMITMENT – length of residence in a particular community.
4) CONTRIBUTION – taxes, rates, etc, contributed to the community.
5) COMPREHENSION – an individuals knowledge of the issue he is voting on.
In our existing hyper-capitalistic societies, a very clever chap is one who earns big bucks but withholds as much as he legally can from the state. In a decent society, this would amount to unethical behaviour but, Arsezania being what it is, I am of course 100% in agreement with this!. But in a society of our own making, tailored to our own specifications, there can be no better incentive to not dodge ones taxes, etc, than to be able to boast “I pay $xxx in taxes, so I qualify for maximum votes in the legislature..!”
How many additional votes one might qualify for under such a system would obviously be a matter for furious debate, but in order not to concentrate too much power in any one individual there should be an upper limit.
An average worthy citizen might qualify for between 10 and 30 votes (depending on his/her score in category 5) and a maximum of 50 or 100. As I said this is highly contentious topic.
Also note that, in principle at least, any individual could qualify for maximum votes. Nobody is penalized on account of his/her lowly heritage, education, or IQ. Neither would one be disadvantaged by colour or creed.
2 comments:
In the US in the early days of the Republic there was a property requirement to vote in state and federal elections.
Also, in the South where the majority of the Blacks are located the local White politicians in league with the Klan would charge a poll tax in order to disenfranchise Black voters and keep them from skewing the results.
So your thinking isn't completely new, but definitely worth thinking about.
Also, an American economist has written a book called Democracy: The God That Failed. I haven't read the book it sounds like something you would like.
"Democracy, the God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (2001).
He's a prof at ULV. I heard of this book through Amren a few years ago, and I've glanced through it at the library. A heavy read - loads of facts and lengthy notes and page-footers, etc, but very wide ranging. His economics chapter is worth its weight in gold alone.
One thing that caught my eye was the enormous number of countries, free cities, and other semi-independent territories that Germany consisted of in the late 17th century. I'd certainly like to know more about that. As I said in a recent comment on SAS it was a tragedy for the Germans and Italians that their countries were ever unified.
His main thesis is that in principle monarchy is a much better system than democracy, and he makes a very strong case that it indeed is. Of course the critics focussed on this and claimed, wrongly, that he was advocating monarchism.
Post a Comment