A democracy is only as good as its participants.
In the United States, voting did not start out as a right. It was a privilege bestowed upon landowners. So what you had was essentially those who were the most invested in society making the decisions on its behalf.
Now, the majority of the voting public doesn't even marginally contribute to the tax revenues the federal government raises. In fact, the top 5% of income earners contribute over 50% of the revenues that the government brings in. I think that it only makes sense that they have more say in the discussion on public expenditure allocation, but that will never happen under our current system of law.
When you have a government that produces nothing (is that not the very definition of government?) coupled with a majority populace that produces nothing for it, the only losers are those who are forced to contribute to such a system. Eventually, it becomes a rat race to the bottom.
It's sort of symptomatic of our culture, like "player" shaming to a certain extent. The more you hate on players, the hungrier the sluts are going to get because there is now a fewer supply of players on the market. Only the top players will survive, and for how long?
We're facing this problem economically now. The cries of the weak and incapable are being rewarded by punishing the productive and successful. The middle class is being squeezed out, and income inequality in this country is rising to an unprecedented rate. (as measured by the gini coefficient) The demand for increased taxes and regulation is not going to go away, it's just going to get worse. It is going to pull down those few who can produce and disincentivize those who WANT to produce.
If we're going place faith in a solution to these problems, I think that we must realize that the solution is not going to be democratically solved. You have the vested interests of the poor and disenfranchised coupled with the hyper-competitiveness of the well off who would rather cannibalize their competitors and constituents for personal gain, than come to a general consensus on how a solution/compromise can be made for all. (The Dark Triad may not be long-term net positive, remember...)
Would fascism work here? There is a day and time for everything, I suppose, but I think there are systems of government that are far more efficient and long-term effective than that.
In the United States, voting did not start out as a right. It was a privilege bestowed upon landowners. So what you had was essentially those who were the most invested in society making the decisions on its behalf.
Now, the majority of the voting public doesn't even marginally contribute to the tax revenues the federal government raises. In fact, the top 5% of income earners contribute over 50% of the revenues that the government brings in. I think that it only makes sense that they have more say in the discussion on public expenditure allocation, but that will never happen under our current system of law.
When you have a government that produces nothing (is that not the very definition of government?) coupled with a majority populace that produces nothing for it, the only losers are those who are forced to contribute to such a system. Eventually, it becomes a rat race to the bottom.
It's sort of symptomatic of our culture, like "player" shaming to a certain extent. The more you hate on players, the hungrier the sluts are going to get because there is now a fewer supply of players on the market. Only the top players will survive, and for how long?
We're facing this problem economically now. The cries of the weak and incapable are being rewarded by punishing the productive and successful. The middle class is being squeezed out, and income inequality in this country is rising to an unprecedented rate. (as measured by the gini coefficient) The demand for increased taxes and regulation is not going to go away, it's just going to get worse. It is going to pull down those few who can produce and disincentivize those who WANT to produce.
If we're going place faith in a solution to these problems, I think that we must realize that the solution is not going to be democratically solved. You have the vested interests of the poor and disenfranchised coupled with the hyper-competitiveness of the well off who would rather cannibalize their competitors and constituents for personal gain, than come to a general consensus on how a solution/compromise can be made for all. (The Dark Triad may not be long-term net positive, remember...)
Would fascism work here? There is a day and time for everything, I suppose, but I think there are systems of government that are far more efficient and long-term effective than that.
"Despite their numbers, their pussyness means I was barely hurt. 2 black eyes and a cut nose, no big deal. I could sense the fear in them so as they were walking I chased them down and told them to "go home". They all left like little girls." - Revelations 21:4