I don’t think the OP is a paleo-conservative at all.
I think he has some paleoconservative strains to his thought: Very limited government, essentially no Federal government, complete lack of social programs, and, of course, his whole “intelligence” test idea is more than a little redolent of the, uh, anti-multiculturalism paleoconservatives believe in.
And yet:
[ul]
[li]you don’t know that the stimulus helped the economy in a significant way[/li][li]you don’t know that welfare fraud is extremely rare and almost always comes down to fraud at the administrative level[/li][li]you don’t know that the GAO is effective and useful; you think it’s useless[/li][li]you simultaneously think government waste is rampant[/li][li]you don’t think the war on poverty worked[/li][li]you think the gold standard is good for an economy[/li][/ul]
All of these things are dead wrong. And you have been corrected on them at length here, with no move to change your position on any of them. And what’s more, each and every one of these issues is more immediately pressing than who we fought in a war some 70 years ago! These are issues that are seriously discussed in the political sphere right now, with horrible consequences for the economy and the government in general. So should we deny the vote to you? After all, if such trivial, unimportant matters as “who was the revolutionary war against” (and yes, it *is *trivial, because our relationship to Britain and France is in virtually no way shaped by those facts in this day and age) are enough to deny someone the vote, surely such critical matters as “how does the economy work and which party is furthering solutions that will actually help in the short- or long-term” would be enough? Surely “Is this government office effective or useful” would be enough?
Of course, I don’t think people who are ignorant about world affairs should be denied the vote, any more than people who are ignorant about history, science, religion, or which team won the last super bowl. But somehow, the people who demand we limit the vote almost always fall into that category - they’re usually very ignorant of the world around them, usually while thinking that they know everything about everything. After all, they’d never be disenfranchised, right? :rolleyes:
You can do something about it, though! Educate them. Explain your position. Make it clear to them that they are not voting in their own best interests, or in the best interests of the country. Of course, to do that, you’d need to educate yourself first, because you apparently would vote for the gold standard, something that would have an incredibly negative effect on you, your family, your friends, your neighbors, and everyone else in the country.
Besides everything Budget Player Cadet said, you also think the Democratic Party is borderline communist and that the Austrian School of Economics deserves to be taken seriously-yet I think you should have the right to exercise the franchise. The genius of democracy lies in the fact that the majority of people will vote their interests the majority of the time, which is why democracies have generally been the government bringing the greatest good to the greatest number. No matter how intelligent the ruling caste is, basic human nature means that they will be able to rationalize the pursuit of their interests as that of society as a whole which leads to the conclusion that the best way to ensure that the interests of a majority of the people are served is to give as many people as possible political power.
The problem with libertarianism is that most of them are obsessed with the oppression of the State and not the forms of oppression that can be wielded by virtually any other institution (family, church, business, culture etc.) in society. Of course, many “libertarians” really are more interested in defending the interests of Property and Capital, which is why Hayek hailed the dictatorship of Pinochet. Similarly, Murray Rothbard while obsessively complaining over State power had no problem politically supporting David Duke and Strom Thurmond.
The Dark Enlightenment crowd would certainly be more intellectually relevant if they stopped crowing for feudalism, classical liberalism, Manchesterian capitalism, monarchism, and/or combinations thereof and instead looked at actual successful models of authoritarian, hierarchal and industrial societies such as Bismarckian/Wilhelmian Germany, Meiji Japan, and even modern Singapore (which contrary to the assertions of the OP) were not technofeudalist libertarian utopias but rather saw the partnership of State and Capital to develop and maintain prosperity in the economy while appeasing the masses with at least rudimentary social welfare. Hence why I urged the OP to redpill himself by adopting a school of economics with a basis in reality such as the Prussian Historical School.
Based on your posts in this thread, if I were the one writing the voting test, you’d fail.
I’m less concerned with how my fellow citizens did in their history class and how much they remember than I am with how they think about issues like raising the minimum wage, tolerance of other lifestyles and religions, concern for environmental issues such as global warming, murders committed by police, racial and gender equality, wealth inequality, education, etc. I don’t care if you know who fought in the War Of 1812. I do care if you know about what’s happening in 2016.
Everyone who makes the effort to go to the polls is doing so for a reason. Maybe they have a favorite party. Maybe they have an issue of compelling concern for them. Whatever their reasons are, they are just as valid as yours.
If you’re such a fan of gold, you’re perfectly free to exchange all your worthless federal reserve notes for actual gold, and stuff that gold under your mattress, and wait for the hyperinflation that is surely just around the corner.
Of course you do realize that the United States is not the old country in the world that uses fiat money, right? Euros, Yen, Yuan, Canadian dollars, Pounds, and on and on, all are fiat money. There are no gold standard currencies anymore.
And a good thing to. Because now that we’re no longer on the gold standard, we have a free market in gold. You can buy and sell gold whenever you like, at whatever price you can convince someone else to accept. There’s no official government price. Back when we were on the gold standard the government actually made it illegal to own gold! It was only when we finally stopped pretending to be on the gold standard that the government stopped worrying about controlling gold, and made it legal for private citizens to own it.
And I always find it highly amusing when Libertarians hold up Singapore as an ideal society. Seriously? Singapore might be a nice place. It might work better than other countries. But Singapore is decidedly authoritarian. You know, the place that banned chewing gum because The Leader thought it was disgusting? The place where The State has the right to corporeally punish you if break the rules?
It’s one thing to want a system where a strong government has unlimited power to put people to work and ignore the whims of the useless masses in favor of the decisions of the enlightened elite who know better. It’s another to want this system and call yourself a libertarian, since this is the opposite of libertarianism.
I get that not every political philosophy is or can be 100% consistent. I don’t adhere to my personal politics because I agreed with a certain set of moral axioms and ruthlessly derived all socio-politico-economic principles from them, no matter what the result. It turns out that I care highly about the results, and so I don’t support liberal democracy and capitalism because those are the only systems that comport with the axiom of non-coercion, but because when I look around at Earth’s history and see the sorts of crap people have had to put up with, liberal democratic and capitalist societies seem like the best sorts of places to live. I don’t want to be a feudal serf, I don’t want to be a proletarian worker in a communist dictatorship, I don’t want to be one of the volk in a fascist state, I don’t want to be a slave on a plantation. My current happy state doesn’t depend on keeping others at the bottom to maintain my lifestyle, neither do I need to be pushed down into the dirt to support my betters.
But I support these things because empirically they seem, based on my biased and fallible judgement, to lead to more pleasant lives more people. If I looked around and saw other philosophies that seemed to lead to better results, I might change my mind, but I actually haven’t seen any such examples of better ways to live. And since actual human beings have to live in any proposed society, that society has to actually work. So if anarcho-capitalism or syndicalism or what have you was such an awesome system, why hasn’t it taken root and out-competed the current tyrannical non-libertarian world order? If minimal government would inevitably lead to the flowering of human potential that is kept down by fascist tyranny, why hasn’t that actually happened in places with weak states?
A libertarian utopia has to be able to protect itself from the fascist dictatorship next door, or the utopia will be conquered by the dystopia and the libertarians turned into slaves. This is the story of human history since the first guy with a sword forced other people to work for him, or get chopped. We have to be able to protect ourselves from the guy with the sword, and it turns out that we need another guy with a sword to do that, which means we’ve replaced one master with another.
One, Singapore actually didn’t BAN chewing gum. They banned spitting it out on their streets and since they’re a small city state, they have to take what is effectively littering A LOT more seriously. Two, they ban the importation for sale of chewing gum. You can bring in packs for personal use, and you can buy it if it’s prescribed by a dentist.
The offenses that Singapore punishes by caning are in the link:
Three, I believe (quite strongly) in a society of non-coercion. The problem is that the left wing socialists [who didn’t get the memo that Communism FELL under its own stupidity] want to micromanage every aspect of society, brainwash voters into supporting them with flowery words like “equality” and “justice” and “happiness” and “feelings,” and anyone who dares challenge them with things like “logic” and “facts” is denounced in the media in what is disturbingly reminiscent of Stalin and his reign of terror. (The only thing missing is the gulags.)
Four, the libertarian utopia CAN defend itself from the Fascists next door, and they can do that because average citizens, in addition to the organized military, have an INCOMPREHENSIBLE amount of firepower to send those goose-stepping morons to Hell. (One of the benefits of having zero gun control.)
Five, there is still the issue of so-called “democracy” basically constituting mob rule. It’s still wrong when five people vote to invade your house. It’s still wrong when ten people vote to invade your house. It’s still an infringement of your right to security and privacy in your home, regardless of how many people vote to invade your house. That’s why Constitutions exist, precisely to prevent this EXACT scenario. Our founders knew the history of ancient Athens, and they saw how THAT ended. (Hint: Not. Well.) They wanted a system where only the learned men of society could vote, since the learned men were more rational.
Six, as far as “institutionalized racism” goes for the intelligence tests, that is why the courts of law exist, precisely so that if a question is unfairly written, the courts can tell it “Auf Wiedersehen.” (Trust me, no state would want to deal with that.) If there’s a concern that the taxpayers will lose out because they have to pay court costs, ideally, that’ll be taken care of by abolishing sovereign immunity which allows that nonsense.
(Sovereign immunity is a barbaric legal concept that, I think we can ALL agree, needs to GO.)
Wait, what? You want to disenfranchise voters for not knowing their history! How, exactly, does that fit with a society of non-coercion? The entire reason the social contract works is because people are enfranchised to help determine the kind of society they want. If you disenfranchise people of their vote, you are essentially spitting on that contract, and coercing them into laws and rules they have no part in shaping and no ability to change.
See, here we go again. You want to disenfranchise people who lack an understanding of politics, but you seem to think that the Democrats are somehow comparable to communist Russia. By all reasonable measure, this would lead to you not being able to vote, because the comparisons are thin on the ground indeed. Would you please define socialism and communism? Because I think that no matter how you define it, you can’t squeeze the democratic party and communist Russia into the same box. It just doesn’t work. Meanwhile, “socialist” policies like those proposed by Bernie Sanders do work, and work really well throughout all of Europe.
Again, you demonstrate that under your proposed system, you should not be allowed to vote. No, the democrats don’t micromanage every aspect of society. I don’t even know what you’re talking about there. Your post is virtually content-free, as you provide absolutely no citations for what you’re talking about beyond here.
One, it’s a LOT more than just the history, it’s them not knowing the positions of their congressmen on the top issues. (Or even who their congressman or senator even IS.)
Two, even Bill Maher, who is as liberal as a man can be, called B.S. on Bernie Sanders’ insane economic plan. It’s PROVEN that raising taxes on the wealthy won’t pay for Sanders’ 18 trillion dollar hippie boondoggle. There’s simply NO WAY to pay for it.
Three (and I really feel I should have mentioned this a LOT earlier) my voting test plan allows registering voters to take the test once every year until you’re dead. The only restriction is that if you fail, you just wait another year. Failed again? Just get out there and learn about the issues, come back next year!
>Year of Our Lord 2015
>Complains about politically ignorant people
>Cites Bill Maher as an authority
So you are cool with not being allowed to vote, told to go study monetary policy and the war on poverty, and being allowed to re apply next year once you get things straight?
A principle you might consider.
I never called him an authority. I remarked on the fact that Bill Maher pointed out, on national TV, to Bernie “B.S.” Sanders’ FACE, that there was no way to pay for his plan. At all. Tax increases on the wealthy wouldn’t even pay for ONE percent of what is easily the looniest economic plan in history.
You seem to think Bill Maher opposing Sanders’s tax plan as if he had the foggiest notion of economics or anything besides edgy atheist humour for neckbeard fedoras. Please read up on the Prussian Historical School and uncuck yourself.
I find it hilarious that you think I’m the one who has to study monetary policy.
21 1/2 TRILLION dollars (when adjusted for inflation after 50 yrs.) and I’M the one who needs to study monetary policy?
I call it the “Don’t Feed The Bears Principle.” In Alaska, they have a strict policy saying that you CANNOT feed bears in state or national parks. (Similar policies exist in other national parks with bears and elk and such) This is because the bears will become dependent on the handouts from humans and refuse to find food for themselves. Not to mention that when they’re denied these handouts, they WILL attack humans. (Tip: Bear vs. human. How’s that gonna end?)
We’re seeing the exact same thing happening to the poor in America. We kept them dependent on handouts for far too long, won’t find their own food, and now, when someone suggests taking away the handouts, they get angry and verbally attack.
And yet you think the Democrats are borderline communists. You have no idea what positions the political parties take.
First of all: Sanders is an outlier in the democratic party. An extreme outlier. Whether or not his ideas hold up is a legitimate question, but I daresay you should probably do better in terms of sources than Bill Maher, who is not an expert in economics, policy, or pretty much anything else. And speaking of sources: the $18 Trillion figure comes from the Wall Street Journal, and it is, to put it bluntly, complete bullshit.
Why don’t you go out there, learn something about, I dunno, take your pick of any number of issues that people have corrected you on, and then come back and correct your mistakes?
YES! Because regardless of how right you are on the war on poverty (I find your article extremely problematic on a number of levels), you’re *dead wrong *on the gold standard, on the stimulus, and on many other issues.
…Okay, so now we’re dehumanizing the working poor. How pleasant of you! 
This attitude is disgusting.
Wow, what is this Nanny State Big Government Left-Wing Bullshit? Since when should the Federal Government decide what we learn? Do you really trust the DC Dunderheads to make such a quiz, or do you think the GAO is going to do it for them?
Wow. You must be a real Pink Diaper Socialist. I bet you think the Air Force is Constitutional.
…Okay, so now we’re dehumanizing the working poor. How pleasant of you! This attitude is disgusting.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm…They’re. NOT. Working. *That is the problem. *They aren’t working, they aren’t looking for jobs. They are far too dependent on the government (and by extension the taxpayers) handouts, so they keep demanding the handouts instead of finding their own food, leaving working guys (like me) to pay for their lazy rear-ends. Like I said, the “Don’t Feed the Bears” Principle.
At least Maine, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Louisiana have the right idea by passing laws making welfare recipients work for benefits. Forty-six more states to go. This is the modern equivalent of Jamestown:
"You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers.[URL="He who does not work, neither shall he eat - Wikipedia
So, why do I have to pay higher taxes to support MILLIONS of “idle loiterers,” huh? Why should I pay for their laziness?