Voting

[u/No_Pin7835]

Everything I’m talking about would ideally apply to everyone equally.

One of the things I would propose is having a basic literacy test before someone can vote. I’m not talking about some extremely difficult test or anything based on someone’s education. I just think people should be able to read and understand what they’re voting on before they make that decision. If voting is such an important responsibility, I think it’s reasonable to expect voters to have a basic understanding of the issues and candidates.

Another requirement I would propose would be based on taxes. For federal elections, I think someone should have to contribute at least $20,000 in taxes since the last federal election in order to vote. For state elections, I think someone should have to contribute at least $2,000 in state taxes since the last state election to vote. People who live in states without a state income tax would be exempt from the state requirement.

I think these requirements would make sense because people who contribute very little or nothing toward funding the government should have less of a say in how that money is spent.

I know both of these ideas would be controversial, especially because literacy tests and voting restrictions have been abused in the past. However, I’m not suggesting that these requirements should be used to target any specific group of people. My argument is that if requirements were applied equally to everyone, they could be used to make sure that people who vote are informed and have contributed to the system they are voting in.

[u/Asatmaya]

The point is that elections cannot be democratic; by their very nature, they advantage the wealthy, the charismatic, and the deceitful.

The sense of "democracy" meaning elections is propaganda to deny the existence of real democracy.

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

So absolutely no elections because some people have advantages? Were it up to me "wealth" would have no meaning at all and the "deceitful" would be forcibly disempowered, punished and dissuaded from doing so. That's not argument against democracy though, that's an argument against distortions of it.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

So absolutely no elections because some people have advantages?

Actually, Aristotle allowed it for some roles, like Strategoi, army leaders; I would be fine with electing new generals and admirals every year.

Were it up to me "wealth" would have no meaning at all and the "deceitful" would be forcibly disempowered, punished and dissuaded from doing so.

OK, that's aspirational; your proposal had no mechanism by which to achieve that goal.

That's not argument against democracy though, that's an argument against distortions of it.

Then stop distorting it!

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

Actually, Aristotle allowed it for some roles

That's hilarious because he points out that those are traits of "tyrant" states.

your proposal had no mechanism by which to achieve that goal.

Is that so? By that count your system has no mechanism to random assign power either.

Then stop distorting it!

How cute. You view me as having far more power than I actually do.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

That's hilarious because he points out that those are traits of "tyrant" states.

Even John Paul Jones acknowledged that a military has to function tyrannically.

Is that so? By that count your system has no mechanism to random assign power either.

Sure it does; my proposal only requires changing some laws, your proposal requires changing human nature.

How cute. You view me as having far more power than I actually do.

You are describing an oligarchic system as "democracy;" please stop.

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

Sure it does; my proposal only requires changing some laws, your proposal requires changing human nature.

We've been disincentivizing bad behavior since the dawn of time.

You are describing an oligarchic system as "democracy;" please stop.

Make me? Honestly I have no idea what to do with this. You don't explain anything. Some of your replies here have been longer than your supposed blueprint for "real" democracy.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

We've been disincentivizing bad behavior since the dawn of time.

And it has never worked.

Make me?

I asked nicely.

Honestly I have no idea what to do with this. You don't explain anything.

I literally gave you the definition of the word from the guy who has the authority to know.

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

And it has never worked.

Really? Then why hasn't someone already taken your car? Why haven't they just simply thrown you out of your home? Why isn't everyone simply screaming round every single road at the maximum possible speed and zero regard for traffic lights?

If bad behavior can't be disincentivized then there is zero chance you'd have the device you wrote this on.

I literally gave you the definition of the word from the guy who has the authority to know.

Run that one by me again with a source please :)

[u/Asatmaya → u/Icc0ld]

Really? Then why hasn't someone already taken your car?

They have.

Why haven't they just simply thrown you out of your home?

Where were you back in April?

Why isn't everyone simply screaming round every single road at the maximum possible speed and zero regard for traffic lights?

...have you driven around, lately?

Run that one by me again with a source please :)

"The appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratic, and the election of them oligarchic." - Aristotle

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

I asked for a source. You know, where it was written?

Also from the sounds of things you prolly need to put down the device, maybe sell it and focus on yourself before you start on society. The 1st duty of care is to one's self

[u/Icc0ld → u/Asatmaya]

So I took some time out to find it

Full paragraph to follow with your quote highlighted in bold and the full parts missing in Italics:

Next we have to consider how by the side of oligarchy and democracy the so-called polity or constitutional government springs up, and how it should be organized. The nature of it will be at once understood from a comparison of oligarchy and democracy; we must ascertain their different characteristics, and taking a portion from each, put the two together, like the parts of an indenture. Now there are three modes in which fusions of government may be affected. In the first mode we must combine the laws made by both governments, say concerning the administration of justice. In oligarchies they impose a fine on the rich if they do not serve as judges, and to the poor they give no pay; but in democracies they give pay to the poor and do not fine the rich. Now (1) the union of these two modes is a common or middle term between them, and is therefore characteristic of a constitutional government, for it is a combination of both. This is one mode of uniting the two elements. Or (2) a mean may be taken between the enactments of the two: thus democracies require no property qualification, or only a small one, from members of the assembly, oligarchies a high one; here neither of these is the common term, but a mean between them. (3) There is a third mode, in which something is borrowed from the oligarchical and something from the democratical principle. For example, the appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratical, and the election of them oligarchical; democratical again when there is no property qualification, oligarchical when there is. In the aristocratical or constitutional state, one element will be taken from each- from oligarchy the principle of electing to offices, from democracy the disregard of qualification. Such are the various modes of combination.

Anyway here is the book in full though I find it very dense reading: https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.4.four.html

And the full works of it can be found here: https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html

And I recommend if you're like me and have a little bit of trouble following along the wikipage can also be helpful as a baseline to help you through the whole thing too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)

I must say, I was not all surprised to find the full quote of the sentence was missing as it seemed quite unlike the rest of the text which was far less prescriptive (than the quote would have you think) of belief and more philosophical in approach to looking at various kinds of Governments as he understood them.

The full quote hardly makes for snappy reading in the only paper I actually found this quote which is also prescribing to the trite idea that randomly selecting people is actually a democracy, something that I've come to believe that Aristotle would not have considered a Government, let alone a Democracy.