Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[AllAmerican75]

I think that having a voice in your governance is a human right and you don’t have to earn it by scratching the back of whoever is already in charge through whatever arbitrary service requirements they come up with. I also don’t see how having less people voting is supposed to solve the problem of a disengaged population. They’re Americans, not Sparta’s helots.

Well, the Founding Fathers didn't believe voting was a universal human right and as such restricted it to the landowners who not only had skin in the game but also were the most likely to stay engaged in political matters because it was good for business. Also, those same landowners had the means to challenge incumbents for their seat in office.

In modern day America it takes millions if not billions (I believe a presidential campaign costs roughly $2 billion) to challenge any of the incumbents and you have an electorate who only cares about who can promise them more handouts and free stuff. Between re-separating the chambers of Congress and making voters earn their suffrage, those are the best ideas I have. If you have a better fix, then I'm all ears.

 

[croakerfish]

Well, the Founding Fathers didn't believe voting was a universal human right and as such restricted it to the landowners who not only had skin in the game but also were the most likely to stay engaged in political matters because it was good for business. Also, those same landowners had the means to challenge incumbents for their seat in office.

In modern day America it takes millions if not billions (I believe a presidential campaign costs roughly $2 billion) to challenge any of the incumbents and you have an electorate who only cares about who can promise them more handouts and free stuff. Between re-separating the chambers of Congress and making voters earn their suffrage, those are the best ideas I have. If you have a better fix, then I'm all ears.

Yeah if you don’t own land you basically are unaffected by anything happening in the governance of the country. That makes sense.
You’re baffling the hell out of me. One the one hand you’re complaining that only wealthy interests have a chance of gaining power and then you turn around and propose disenfranchisement of some nebulous portion of the people unless they do…something? How is that not going to just make your concerns worse?

 

[IKE]

Zero. Also, the idea of service guaranteeing citizenship is Heinlein's only good idea. Otherwise, he was a sexual deviant and would have weird sex parties with his wife and used his libertarian ideology as a way to justify that.

Was he hurting you or others with this behavior?
Why so angry about it?
Is it even true?

Heinlein's ideas aren't so easily reduced to Libertarianism. He also favored a universal basic income.

 

[sevenhelmet]

You guys do realize that votes aren’t the key to power in this country… right?

 

[Flash]

Heinlein was undemocratic? Literally anyone could earn the right to vote through service. It was explained early on in the book that if you wanted to serve, the government would find a place for you even if all you did was be a janitor for two years. That's no more or less democratic than what we have today. The same people signing up to serve would likely be the same people who already vote today.

Nope, you shouldn't have to 'serve' in order to vote. So many issues with it, to include the very basic issue about those unable to serve? Also, isn't giving anyone a government job that wants one...socialism?

If you feel so strongly, would you support felons voting? What about foreigners here on a visa? How about people in the country illegally? Maybe they don't even need to be here in the US in order to vote. We could send mail-in ballots to everyone around the world who requests one. Where do you draw the line?

After a long and bloody history of trying to ensure that EVERY adult citizen of this country has the right to vote I would think folks would know better. Guess not.

You shouldn't have to serve to vote.. but you should have to pay taxes. If you don't contibute to society, you shouldn't get to participate in it's governance. Just leads to vote buying and corruption.

So exclude stay-at-home parents and retired folks with low incomes?

Well, the Founding Fathers didn't believe voting was a universal human right and as such restricted it to the landowners who not only had skin in the game but also were the most likely to stay engaged in political matters because it was good for business. Also, those same landowners had the means to challenge incumbents for their seat in office.

While very smart and well ahead of their time, the Founding Fathers certainly weren't right about everything.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Nope, you shouldn't have to 'serve' in order to vote. So many issues with it, to include the very basic issue about those unable to serve? Also, isn't giving anyone a government job that wants one...socialism?

1. I think I was clear that we need to find a way for all people to serve if they want to. That's a fundamental necessity under a plan like this, otherwise you shut people out. It doesn't even have to be in the military. I was serious that if janitorial work is all someone is qualified for and they want to serve, then they get to be the best janitor they can be.

2. Socialism? Where did I say I was against accepting some inefficiencies in the market in order to improve the lives of all Americans? I'll have you know I'm also a huge proponent for the rejuvenation of AmeriCorps and the Civilian Conservation Corps to provide jobs and vocational training for Americans. If that makes me a socialist, well. . . ??‍♂️

Yeah if you don’t own land you basically are unaffected by anything happening in the governance of the country. That makes sense.
You’re baffling the hell out of me. One the one hand you’re complaining that only wealthy interests have a chance of gaining power and then you turn around and propose disenfranchisement of some nebulous portion of the people unless they do…something? How is that not going to just make your concerns worse?

The issue is we can never restrict suffrage based upon gender, religion, race, ethnicity, wealth, or education ever again. As @Flash pointed out, it took a long road to get here. The problem is that you need to restrict the franchise to those who care and are motivated enough to make sacrifices for the well-being of our nation and our people. I generally don't count the current crop of politicians in power as part of that group as they are largely corrupt and care only about themselves. People who care and are willing to sacrifice personal gain for the nation's wellbeing would pass better laws, be less corrupt, and would avoid silly things like the shutdown of our nation's government because they refuse to agree on an appropriations bill. If my plan was implemented, nearly all of the politicians currently in Washington would be dethroned.

Was he hurting you or others with this behavior?
Why so angry about it?
Is it even true?

Heinlein's aren't so easily reduced to Libertarianism. He also favored a universal basic income.

Again, I'm not a huge Heinlein fan or some Heinlein-esque Libertarian. Never said I was. And yes, it was true that he was a sexual libertine: https://rsdancey.medium.com/a-strange-man-in-a-strange-land-b6907c4f9391

 

[Mirage]

So exclude stay-at-home parents and retired folks with low incomes?

Yes, if they spent their lives being net contributors, then they still get to vote after retired.

Stay at home parents usually file jointly with their spouse and don't receive any money from the govt in welfare or similar programs.

 

[Average Monke]

topical max performance turns

This gave me a good chuckle!

Guys, we can think up any manor of discriminator policies to derive the "ideal" voter base, but you end up with solution that sounds eerily similar to banning guns to reduce "gun violence". Let's actually address the underlying issues. I actually agree with Ramaswamy on that our country has an identity issue so it's no wonder why so many people do not participate in elections.

Our education system actively undermines our history and values by promoting areas of study like gender theory, critical theory, and postmodern philosophy. Hence the subjectivity and nihilism. There's a place for these, but I think it is currently lack balance. At the same time, we do not promote civics as much as we should and the public's trust in MSM is at an all time low. Many people, primarily those in younger demographics, have reasons to not trust our basic institutions, must less agree on basic truths like what is right and wrong. I am barely scratching the surface and haven't even mentioned the complete lack of positive leadership in the country.

Democracy is dangerous when you have a stupid and lazy population who doesn't believe in the system. The establishment has incentives to keep it that way. Personally, I think our countries needs to place more value on education (not indoctrination) and personal accountability.

Anyways, Jocko for president...

 

[taxi1]

Our education system actively undermines our history and values by promoting areas of study like gender theory, critical theory, and postmodern philosophy.

Do you have actual proof of that? Like, a copy of a syllabus? I hear about it all the time, but never actually see it in the wild.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The Heinlein vein running through this thread made me chuckle. In his socialist utopia, the voting franchise was there to incentivize fodder for the meat grinder of an endless war. I never took the “vets only” franchise as a good idea that could actually work. Nonetheless, it was an entertaining read, and inspired numerous echoes in Sci Fi.

The satirization of the movie was what really made Starship Troopers, in my opinion. Great roll ‘em material there.

 

[Average Monke]

Do you have actual proof of that? Like, a copy of a syllabus? I hear about it all the time, but never actually see it in the wild.

I don't have access to syllabuses, but I can provide you with course descriptions. I graduated from Tulane just over two years ago and it's far from one of the most progressive schools in the country. I also happened to briefly date a gender studies major (oof) so I have personal experience with this topic.

 

[Griz882]

Do you have actual proof of that? Like, a copy of a syllabus? I hear about it all the time, but never actually see it in the wild.

You wouldn’t typically encounter those types of courses unless you were a history major (“insert word here” studies).

Here is one example… https://history.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2023/01/AS.100.396_SP23.pdf

And another….https://history.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/2664%20final%20_0.pdf

The language cracks me up a bit, but academics love to invent or reuse words in new ways.

 

[taxi1]

Who is taking these courses? Are they mandatory, or just for GESS majors? Have you met the prereqs? What's it like to date a gender studies major?

I work at Big State U, and I know there are courses and majors out there. I also have a sense of their popularity. They tend to self-select to the noisy few.

 

[sevenhelmet]

They tend to self-select to the noisy few.

Thanks for confirming that. I’ve long held the theory that these “majors” only came about because those same sanctimonious virtue-signaling types asked for them.

Not because of any defined need by industry or academia.

 

[taxi1]

To caveat that, hiring in the academy if it’s own issue. Saw this today for my hood…