There aren't votes like these taking place in the United States government. No US politician is stupid enough to have a vote that might jeopardize their own seat.
Besides... killing is handled by the executive branch anyway.
If we want to start discussing the Bill of Rights and US Constitution, I think it should be held somewhere else.
Topic: Only significant property owners should be allowed to vote. (Read 4863 times)
If you are a citizen you get a vote.
Here's what your vote gets you, if we fail to distinguish between right and wrong:
The US has the Bill of Rights.
You forgot to put an AR in Bob's hand, the issue would have been 'tabled.'
In your attempts to reject God, you have rejected Bastiat and all of your Western freedoms to boot.
:-)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your children."
Hosea 4:6
:-)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your children."
Hosea 4:6
"My time is destroyed by your stupid posts:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I am ignoring you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the laws of logic,
I will also forget your children."
Me 4:15
If you are a citizen you get a vote.
Here's what your vote gets you, if we fail to distinguish between right and wrong:
The US has the Bill of Rights.
How has that Bill of Rights been working out? An old piece of paper won't protect you from immoral people with power.
In your attempts to reject God, you have rejected Bastiat and all of your Western freedoms to boot.
If I don't accept all of Bastiat's beliefs, then I must reject all of them? False dichotomy.
Quote
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your children."
Hosea 4:6
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your children."
Hosea 4:6
I don't need to resort to mysticism in order to have a moral code. Because of the universal preferences of humanity (typically referred to as human nature) and the universal reality within which humanity exists, one can glean universal truths (a moral code) that are compatible with said human nature and reality. Those who can come to these truths through their own cognizance and reasoning, and not simply rely on the conclusions of others, have a foundation for the most solid, contradiction-free morality possible.
I have a better idea.
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
"In the Country of test takers, the test maker is King" -H. G. Wells
Nice quote...
In order to vote, you must prove P=NP... I have the answer.. to verify your eligibility.. btw: I get to vote too...
"poors shouldn't be allowed to vote. they only vote for things that make their own lives better!! what a bunch of fuck heads."
- atlas
lol - atlas
"poors shouldn't be allowed to vote. they only vote for things that make their own lives better!! what a bunch of fuck heads."
- atlas
- atlas
This ^
I have a better idea.
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
"In the Country of test takers, the test maker is King" -H. G. Wells
"poors shouldn't be allowed to vote. they only vote for things that make their own lives better!! what a bunch of fuck heads."
- atlas
- atlas
ah, read my signature... 
I have a better idea.
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
I don't know enough about IQ tests to go along with this.
If you knew anything about IQ tests and their history you'd scream "hell no" and spank whoever suggested such a bad idea.
I have a better idea.
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
I don't know enough about IQ tests to go along with this.
I have a better idea.
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
Here is a better proposal:
People should vote for policies, not politicians.
Votes should create a contractual obligation for politicians to deliver what has been voted on. If a politician fails to deliver, resignation is mandatory.
Each policy's success should be measured by an idependent "supreme court", according to criteria defined clearly before the voting process.
There should be a "vote deposit".
Votes should be weighed according to how much money each voter deposits for that particular policy voted upon. This deposit will only be returned to the voter after X years if the policy has been deemed successful. If the policy is deemed unsuccessful, the deposit will be used to compensate those who voted against it.
People should vote for policies, not politicians.
Votes should create a contractual obligation for politicians to deliver what has been voted on. If a politician fails to deliver, resignation is mandatory.
Each policy's success should be measured by an idependent "supreme court", according to criteria defined clearly before the voting process.
There should be a "vote deposit".
Votes should be weighed according to how much money each voter deposits for that particular policy voted upon. This deposit will only be returned to the voter after X years if the policy has been deemed successful. If the policy is deemed unsuccessful, the deposit will be used to compensate those who voted against it.
The US has the Bill of Rights.
The USA has a Bill of Rights due to the Enlightenment, and due to its Judeo-Christian heritage.
Stuff like the Bill of Rights was my whole point when I wrote this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.648981
If you are a citizen you get a vote.
Here's what your vote gets you, if we fail to distinguish between right and wrong:
The US has the Bill of Rights.
If you are a citizen you get a vote.
Here's what your vote gets you, if we fail to distinguish between right and wrong:
If you are a citizen you get a vote.
In your attempts to reject God, you have rejected Bastiat and all of your Western freedoms to boot.
:-)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your children."
Hosea 4:6
:-)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you,
that you shall be no priest to me:
seeing you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your children."
Hosea 4:6
Jump to: