Uniquement les Veterans devraient avoir le droit vote.

KossaK

New member
Voting and science fiction almost inevitably brings up Robert Heinlein’s novel “Starship Troopers.” In that novel, the voting franchise was limited to “veterans”. A “veteran” was not necessarily someone who had been a soldier, but rather someone who had volunteered for a two-year stint in “Federal Service”. Whether a soldier or not, these service jobs were apparently all fairly hazardous. Only after retiring from federal service could you vote or hold public office. The book focuses mostly on the soldiers, so both fans and critics tend to look on the rule as “only combat veterans get to vote,” even though the book made it clear there were non-military paths.

The argument for this was that the responsibility of voting should be reserved for those who have demonstrated an understanding of individual sacrifice for the greater good, i.e. voting is not about getting something for myself but about getting something for everybody else. Whether or not Heinlein himself felt that the voting franchise should be so restricted, the book makes a fairly passionate argument for it.


discuss
 
The lack of spelling mistakes was a dead giveaway that you didn't write this.

BAoD.gif
 
Awful concept. The last thing any country needs is the male equivalent of "fuck it i'll just be a stripper" to make all it's decisions.
 
Awful concept. The last thing any country needs is the male equivalent of "fuck it i'll just be a stripper" to make all it's decisions.

No need to put down soldiers because of a post on a random forum. I know a couple and although some match your description, most do not. Ironically you're giving op an extra argument even though there are fewer ways to do that than to didmantle a weak, half-baked idea like this one.
 
Je voulais just copy past une description rapide une des partie des livres.
mais c est plus complexe que ca.


Mais les livres de science fictions offre toujours des vision du futures imaginative.

Mais les evenements du livre il y a une parallèle a faire avec aujourdhui.
 
No need to put down soldiers because of a post on a random forum. I know a couple and although some match your description, most do not. Ironically you're giving op an extra argument even though there are fewer ways to do that than to didmantle a weak, half-baked idea like this one.

My experience is the opposite. The ones that go to a Military school, become officers, rank up, sure they tend to be well educated people. But there is also a reason why the average walk in is known as a grunt.
 
We've been through this before. Ideally, voting should be for people who own property and pay taxes, you know, people who actually have skin in the game. The 27 year old soy boy with a BA in gender studies who lives in his mother's basement who has a vote that counts as much as P-K Péladeau is laughable.
 
I think we're voting wrong?!?! In the sense that we should vote more in regards to our values, like let's say for you education/transport is more important than healthcare/climat change you'll vote for the candidate that represents that, and on that I think "everyone" or close to should be able to vote, and it's pretty important to allow that, I don't think P.P. values are any better than mine or vice versa... than the one that ends up in power should take decisions that would tend to go towards the values that he portrayed, respecting that, not being corrupt and doing a good job shouldn't be influencing your voting, like to go for the less corrupt of choices, those are things shouldn't be debatable, any candidate that ends up in power should respect those, the voting should be more about "values"/ethics, etc... anyway my opinion *edit: and in theory obviously reality doesn't work like that....
 
We've been through this before. Ideally, voting should be for people who own property and pay taxes, you know, people who actually have skin in the game. The 27 year old soy boy with a BA in gender studies who lives in his mother's basement who has a vote that counts as much as Pierre Péladeau is laughable.

It the books Before the veteran take power.

the elite scholar had the power. They implement a Plato's political philosophy.
In the Republic, Plato's Socrates raises a number of objections to democracy. He claims that democracy is a danger due to excessive freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_political_philosophy

Exactly The soyboy of today try to push. Remove freedom remove right to people who do not share their view.
Lets say it was a failure in the book. like it become a failure in real world now.

Long really long story short. The veteran took power. the democracy was restore. But only the people who did contribute and understand the sacrifice and the value of democracy exercise the privilege of voting.
 
We've been through this before. Ideally, voting should be for people who own property and pay taxes, you know, people who actually have skin in the game. The 27 year old soy boy with a BA in gender studies who lives in his mother's basement who has a vote that counts as much as Pierre Péladeau is laughable.

Maybe we should make it a minimum. Only people who pay at least 30% income tax should vote, so millionaires playing tax schemes have no say in their future as well.

Maybe unmarried people shouldn't have a say either, they obviously aren't family material, and don't have a skin in the future game.
 
Je voulais just copy past une description rapide une des partie des livres.
mais c est plus complexe que ca.


Mais les livres de science fictions offre toujours des vision du futures imaginative.

Mais les evenements du livre il y a une parallèle a faire avec aujourdhui.

ok, je trouve ca juste un peu bizzare... pour ce qui est du film par exemple d'accord avec toi la dessus, j'ai bien aimer, pas une mauvaise facon de voir la societee, en bout de ligne ya pas de perfection, ou peut-etre que la perfection c'est justement evoluer continuellement
 
ok, je trouve ca juste un peu bizzare... pour ce qui est du film par exemple d'accord avec toi la dessus, j'ai bien aimer, pas une mauvaise facon de voir la societee, en bout de ligne ya pas de perfection, ou peut-etre que la perfection c'est justement evoluer continuellement

Je ne comprend pas pourquoi tu parle de la perfection?
 
Maybe we should make it a minimum. Only people who pay at least 30% income tax should vote, so millionaires playing tax schemes have no say in their future as well.

Maybe unmarried people shouldn't have a say either, they obviously aren't family material, and don't have a skin in the future game.

Today life is easy. Back in the middle age the strong rich people do fuck and reproduce more.
that why we do have a little bit of Charlemagne in us.

No like in idiotcracy. anyone can reproduce and the state will take care of your mistake.

Maybe you right only people with no dead end relationship should vote. But having a family need to stay an achievement.
But. Just a example. Isaac Newton was a ****** who too nerdy for girls.

It was a genius. his legacy was real even if his contribution to gen pool was a dead end.
people like him too need the right to vote.
 
everyone has the right to vote.

but i feel like everyone needs to take a class in economics, environment, history and politics as well as how their municipal, provincial and federal government are currently handling the situation (and pass a test) before they can cast a vote. that'll likely kill off 95% of the voters from the polls but we need to be informed voters before we make decisions that impact everyone and everything for decades or more.
 
Removing a vote from a person is a hard sell but I think the solution is a weighted vote. Everybody gets a base vote but you gain votes by being a contributing member of society.

Homeowner? Extra vote
Volunteer? Extra vote
Net positive tax payer? Extra vote

I would keep it to no more than 10x votes per person but basically it would still give the social parasites their vote without letting them vote in politicians that will steal on their behalf with promises of free everything.
 
Removing a vote from a person is a hard sell but I think the solution is a weighted vote. Everybody gets a base vote but you gain votes by being a contributing member of society.

Homeowner? Extra vote
Volunteer? Extra vote
Net positive tax payer? Extra vote

I would keep it to no more than 10x votes per person but basically it would still give the social parasites their vote without letting them vote in politicians that will steal on their behalf with promises of free everything.

Homeowner? Extra vote >> you got money and can afford property? vote. you don't? no vote.
Net positive tax payer? Extra vote >> your business is not doing as good this year as in the past? screw you, we'll take your vote away.

sounds fair.

volunteering is the only one that makes sense, and even there it gets complicated fast. someone who voluteered 2 hours gets the same as a firefighter?
 
We should limit votes to the amount of fingers we have on our hands. Someone with 9 fingers gets a vote removed, penalized for having made a wrong decision in life.

Also if you only speak one language, -1 vote. Only logical.
 
Back
Top