LostArtist wrote on 03/18/19 at 10:20:58:a thought:
This thread took a tangent from talking about the differences in "socialism" to democracy and voting... and originally, arguing over who gets to vote seems fairly semantic.
To me, I think the underlying idea of democracy is that people, the average person deserves some kind of say in how they are governed. And sure, you can argue about well, what conditions you want to put on those people, citizenship, property ownership, etc.... but isn't putting those conditions on voting, doesn't that lend itself more to what conservatives are so afraid of about "socialism?"
No, I don't think so Lost. I would say look at a household family. When the kids are young, they have no say so in how the household is run. However, as they get older and demonstrate some type of understanding of ramification of one's decisions, they get to weigh in on decisions that affect them. As they get older and 'wiser', they add more input. For example, we had a chance to move for a job when my son was 4. He had no input. We had a chance to move again when he was 9 and in school. Again, he had no input but we weighed his well being into the decision. At 12, we had another opportunity and again we took his well being into account and asked for his input. He didn't get a vote, but he weighed in with his opinion. That's how a society should work. No, everyone doesn't get to vote, only the ones who demonstrate "ownership" of the nation. 16 year olds don't have enough life experiences to vote, non-citizens who broke in don't get to vote, felons who committed violent crimes, financial crimes etc.. give up that right.
how does an 18 year old with no job, living at home, obsessed with the Kardashians, Basketball and pizza have "ownership of the nation?" vs a 30 year old who at age 19 decided to take their hard earned money and move to America and has worked, paid at least sales tax, participated in a vast exercise of personal responsibility, (taking the risk and all upon themselves to come here to better their lives) this person CHOSE to come here, taking very little for granted, has shown an interest in America, enough to pass a voting test of some kind not taken "ownership of this nation?"
This idea that only these people are qualified.... doesn't that sound like it leads to a path of limited involvement, less say... and the smaller a group of governing people, isn't that the path towards authoritarianism? the path towards Venezuela and Cuba.... towards dictatorship? '
No, it's the opposite. It relies on those most able to formulate their own opinion.
so you feel only an special select few (those that are most able to formulate their own opinion, judged by you of course) should be given that power..... do they get an extra vote?
and maybe that's why there are 2 different interpretations of "socialism." You'll notice Bernie and his progressive followers always say "Democratic Socialism." and Conservatives don't seem to hear that first part, the Democratic, part, cause they don't really like democracy.... as shown by this last few elections, they suppress the vote, want only people with skin in the game to vote, etc... so to them, yeah, if we start going down the "socialist" path, we'll end up like Venezuela, despite our many, many, many differences in almost every area..., While progressives, want to expand the vote, to give power to more and more people, to dillute the power of the rich at the top, yes, redistribute wealth... etc...
well, thanks for participating in this thought experiment... and yes, some things are overstated... so let's not get too hung up on what anyone here actually believes in this thread, it's just some thoughts
Thank you for the post and interesting responses Lost. Clearly we are on opposite ends here but it was a useful exchange at the end.