Democracy = Socialism? Conservative Movement endgame in sight.

[Doktor Howl]

I had already merged it, with responses, into this thread (look back a page).

[johnnybrainwash]

OOH GAWD I'M SO CONFUSED

I mean, thanks.

[Doktor Howl]

OOH GAWD I'M SO CONFUSED

I mean, thanks.

No sweat, though you may find yourself in trouble for making a post that actually imparts relevant information.  Enki is the shop steward for Pretentious Pedantic Pricks Local 155, and he's probably gonna file a grievance.

[LMNO]

Yes, but I believe that the "IN THE NADS" rule applies here.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes, but I believe that the "IN THE NADS" rule applies here.

He's gonna need some good targeting software.

[johnnybrainwash]

No sweat, though you may find yourself in trouble for making a post that actually imparts relevant information.  Enki is the shop steward for Pretentious Pedantic Pricks Local 155, and he's probably gonna file a grievance.

He can't grieve me- I'm not management.

[Doktor Howl]

No sweat, though you may find yourself in trouble for making a post that actually imparts relevant information.  Enki is the shop steward for Pretentious Pedantic Pricks Local 155, and he's probably gonna file a grievance.

He can't grieve me- I'm not management.

Point.  This gives you a degree of latitude in dealing with him that I envy. 

[Elder Iptuous]

Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing.  They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice.  (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group...  (at least the ones that i have listened to...)

[Doktor Howl]

I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group...  (at least the ones that i have listened to...)

Half the libertariantards want to restrict the franchise to land owners.

Note that most libertarians don't actually own any land (the majority of them are in college).

[BabylonHoruv]

Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing.  They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice.  (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group...  (at least the ones that i have listened to...)

I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.

[Doktor Howl]

Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing.  They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice.  (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group...  (at least the ones that i have listened to...)

I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.

Pointing out that we've had that (Jim Crow) does no good.  It's a fucking religion to some, and a means to disenfranchize smudgy-skinned people to others.

Another favorite of the "minarchist" crowd is restricting voting to people who pay taxes.  Anyone who can't see the problem with that is either being deliberately obtuse, or would probably fair better in a monarchy.

[BabylonHoruv]

Johnny,
It is my understanding that the 'republic, not democracy' crowd is (at least the ones that i have talked to, and at least overtly) intend to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' type thing.  They say that we are to have democratically elected representatives that are restricted to working within limitations that prevent the trampling of minority rights, regardless of whether the majority of the fickle masses say 'go for it', or not.
of course, that hasn't really worked out too well in practice.  (c.f. the American Japanese in 1940s, etc.)
I've not heard any that have seriously suggested that we remove suffrage from any group...  (at least the ones that i have listened to...)

I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.

Pointing out that we've had that (Jim Crow) does no good.  It's a fucking religion to some, and a means to disenfranchize smudgy-skinned people to others.

Another favorite of the "minarchist" crowd is restricting voting to people who pay taxes.  Anyone who can't see the problem with that is either being deliberately obtuse, or would probably fair better in a monarchy.

They'll also turn it around and try to claim they shouldn't have to pay taxes if they don't vote.  Sort of a twisted version of no taxation without representation.

[Elder Iptuous]

I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.

Oh, i have, too.  i was just saying that from the conversations that i've had with people talking the 'republic, not democracy' thing, they weren't discussing disenfranchising any groups of people...

[Doktor Howl]

I've heard a lot of arguement for tests to determine votor viability, also, like dok said, the ones who want to restrict voting to land owners.

Oh, i have, too.  i was just saying that from the conversations that i've had with people talking the 'republic, not democracy' thing, they weren't discussing disenfranchising any groups of people...

Um, except poor & working class folks, who don't own land.

[johnnybrainwash]

Oh, i have, too.  i was just saying that from the conversations that i've had with people talking the 'republic, not democracy' thing, they weren't discussing disenfranchising any groups of people...

Oh, I don't say they advocate this for the most part, just that if you're against democracy, it's sort of implied. I don't expect most of these folks to get that without being backed into a corner, however.

I'm not offering an academic analysis of their political philosophy. I'm suggesting an angle to attack them that involves backing them into that corner and watching them screw it up.

I would also suggest that for populists to speak out against popular rule creates another weakness to be exploited.