Feeling liberated?

submitted by weiB from files.catbox.moe

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Zestyclose_Marketing 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (10 children)

one vote per property owning family is the way to go. This is why only men(specifically fathers) should have voted because they are more rational and can discuss who to vote for with the family. The fathers are the representatives of the families vote.

[–]Comatoast 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's not sustainable to only allow those that own property to vote. You're effectively not giving the rest of your citizens full rights at that point. I do believe that unbiased political information should be taught within each household. Maybe even requiring a mandatory course on the country's voting systems, and a separate course each election period on candidates. People need to be very well informed of their options for representatives.

[–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

It's not sustainable to only allow those that own property to vote. You're effectively not giving the rest of your citizens full rights at that point.

It's not sustainable because what?

Rights need to be balanced for the good of society.
Equality is not a virtue because nature is not equal.

[–]Comatoast 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I understand that those with access to real property would likely feel they have a stake in the country and a higher likelihood to defend it. If someone doesn't have a stake in a land, and they're not able to vote what are the benefits to living within that country? Especially if that country is close to other countries that may be wartorn. If women aren't able to vote and are effectively fuck cattle, why stay?

[–]Dragonerne 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I understand that those with access to real property would likely feel they have a stake in the country and a higher likelihood to defend it.

Yes and genetics too. People that own property will likely have better genetics so you concentrate power and wealth in the best of the best. This creates competition which is good for natural selection, which will improve your nation over time.
On the other hand, equality is dysgenic and boost the worst in society which removes competition and it will worsen your nation over time.

If someone doesn't have a stake in a land, and they're not able to vote what are the benefits to living within that country?

Would you rather live in Scandinavia or Saudi? The benefit of living in the country is that it's a white wealthy nation with good genetics.

If women aren't able to vote and are effectively fuck cattle, why stay?

Women having free healthcare, safe streets, food on the table, nice clothes, the best technology available, great infrastructure, lovely kids and a husband that loves you.
Women voting will remove those things long term. But why stay, right?

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

It's better than the current voting system but its still dysgenic and would promote r-selection which is bad in the long run. Because families that get many children (r-selection) will get more votes over time.
You want a voting system that favors k-selection.

[–]Zestyclose_Marketing 0 insightful - 2 fun0 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

What? No what I mean is that one vote, will equal one family it won't matter how many people are in the family as they will be counted as one entire unit.

Also r-selection is people who pump and dump, and k are people who have life long partnerships right?

I don't see how how r-selection people will succeed as all families votes will be equal and only families where mommy and daddy is married will be able to vote.

[–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Family R: 5 kids (1 vote)
Next generation:
Family R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 (5 votes)

Family K: 1 kid (1 vote)
Next generation:
Family K1 (1 vote)

Etc.
After a few generations R-selected families will have a bigger marketshare of the votes which is bad for society.

[–]Zestyclose_Marketing 0 insightful - 2 fun0 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Wait a second I don't get how having multiple kids per family is dysgenic.... Also having one kid per couple isn't sustainable enough to keep the population alive. There would be less and less people each generation, and that would be a bad thing considering how there will be foreign nations that keep on breeding, and preparing for invasion.

[–]Dragonerne 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it gets complicated real fast and R/K is a simplified model.
Having multiple kids per family isn't dysgenic - it's the other way around. R-selected people tend to get more kids which is dysgenic for a society. A K selected family having many kids is great afaik.

You can think of it like this:
Plenty of food => R-selection is "best" because there is enough food to spam lots of kids.
Competition for food => K-selection is "best" because each family needs to compete for the limited food.

K-selected people are better than R-selected. 1 to 1. But here's the thing; a K-selected society would create a paradise which would create an environment where R-selection outcompetes the K-selected individuals (because there would be plenty of food in the paradise and hence competition is not required).

You're right about having one kid per couple isn't sustainable.

K-selected people have higher IQ, stronger, bigger, etc. R-selected is the cheap version.