[teh_skeeze]

*You may need to shorten the title when you replay. Not in the mindset to count characters or think of a shorter thread title


A relatively big trend in the masculine corner of the internet right now is women's suffrage. Personally, I lean on the side against the 19th amendment. However, it's not going anywhere; so I don't see the point of even thinking about it. Just hear me out.

The main issue that brought the American Revolution about was taxation without representation. Women want to vote, and I assume most of us have don't want our wages garnished by the government. So there are two solutions that I see. (Race trolls you can also replace women with [insert race here])

1. Women give up their right to vote, and in return, their income wouldn't be taxed.

2. Men give up their right to vote, and in return, their income wouldn't be taxed.

Personally, I would go with option 2. I could use the $90/wk that I'm taxed, and I know that the powers that be could give two shits about me. They just want my vote so they can be in power. Give me the money all day, everyday. Also, it would teach the strong and independent women a lesson on privilege. However, it has the potential to backfire. The shit wouldn't hit the fan until we are dead, if we are lucky.

Option 1 is interesting because of the dynamics involved. Women would have more economic power because they'd earn a majority of the money. However, without the right to vote, they'd have to put a beta on lock in order to have any political influence. It seems at the very least a fun question to troll feminists with.


Edit, Another thought that just popped in my head: I wonder how many people when posed this question would give up the right to vote to not be taxed. At that point, would the government have any power?
Which would you choose an why?

[lavidaloca]

I wouldn't pay taxes and thus save more allowing me to move away faster and easier plus make higher rates of investment income.

[MHaes]

Free rider problem.

[teh_skeeze]

(11-20-2013 11:37 PM)MHaes Wrote:  

Free rider problem.

Care to elaborate?

[MHaes]

Obviously people would choose to stop paying taxes, women would not be cutting down goverment services anytime soon so you would still receive those benefits without having to pay for them. Even if they do cut services to non voters there are still public goods that are non excludable.

[teh_skeeze]

I see what you are saying. That's why I said option 1 is more interesting. If my vote became twice as powerful, I'm not sure I would feel the same way about politics as I do now.

[Agent 47]

You know, there have been MEN far smarter than us that talked about the same issues we are dealing with today and did not let Betty and her WOMYNS C1UB tell them what to do.

There are plenty of statements by these men that they DO NOT support women's suffrage.

Bring up these wise men who passed away long ago and what do you get? Their work laughed at and twisted.

"Such antiquated thinking LOLZ! These MEN were so sexist, OMG"

Repeal womens right to vote. Let rational men handle such matters. Ask history if womens suffrage was a good idea.

[j r]

(11-20-2013 11:51 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

I see what you are saying. That's why I said option 1 is more interesting. If my vote became twice as powerful, I'm not sure I would feel the same way about politics as I do now.

Two times zero is still zero. An individual vote is meaningless. It's mathematical probability to affect an election is zero. I'd give up my individual vote for never having to pay taxes.

Once you're talking about whole groups of people, however, things change. I would not want to be part of a group that loses voting rights, because that group is going to get the shaft sooner or later.

I just accept universal enfranchisement as the basis for democracy. It's appealing to think that if we only stopped X group from voting, everything would be great. That is illusory though. In reality, all that would happen is that the group not voting would just become the official scapegoat of the society and that would distract us from focusing on our real problems.

Also, the idea that men or white men don't vote for more government is demonstrably false. Most people want more government in some areas and less government in others. The problem is that government is really good at getting bigger and really bad at getting smaller, so inertia is always favoring the growth of government. We just don't have an effective means of shrinking government. For instance, does anyone really believe that four years of Romney would have left us with smaller government?

[Pyre]

This is a purely fiction. Luke the saYing goes the only two sure things in life are death and taxes

[JackDavey]

If men gave up the vote, but paid no taxes, women would quickly find a way to get that money from them regardless, so the net savings would be zero.