The right to vote

Oh man, this is too good... Watch the first part of this trailer...

www.youtube.com...

Heinlein... what a genius!

I really like the "FEDERAL NETWORK" with the creepy emblem.


I'M DOING MY PART!

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP.

Just too creepy.

EDIT: Found another link with the explanation of Heinlein's "future" NWO like government. Enjoy!

www.youtube.com...


SECOND EDIT: Sorry, I need to wake up more...

I don't believe in this "future" picture that Heinlein has painted, I've just seen leanings in this direction both in this thread and in society today. I thought it would be interesting to exhibit these examples in film of one man's prophesy.
Thanks for the indulgence, off to my coffee pot...



[edit on 21/4/09 by cbianchi513]

[edit on 21/4/09 by cbianchi513]

Nietzsche on democracy;

To that end it needs to deprive of the right to vote both those who possess no property and the genuinely rich: for these are the two impermissible classes of men at whose abolition it must work continually, since they continually call its task into question.

One could argue the most powerful and successful civilisation on this planet were never democratic and restricted the ability of their citizens in the political arena.

Let me redefine the question of this thread: Can expanding a nations civilian democratic rights weaken the strength.

reply to post by infinite


That's what I was thinking to myself over the past couple of days.

There are two different examples:

Antiquity : Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece were all based on limited franchise systems. There was a correlation between the expansion of the franchise and the waning of the civilizations (though I'm still not sure if we can conclusively say that the prior caused the latter).

Modern times : The USA was stronger when it functioned as a constitutional republic (1776- 1900s). As soon as the franchise was made universal, the strength of America began to decline.

The UK parliament was far stronger in the early 1800s before the great reform acts, and before universal enfranchisement. There were selected issues (such as rotten boroughs) which were cause for concern, but overall parliament was more considered and sturdy. Today's parliament is temporary and fleeting, considering only the short time spaces between elections. Democracy resulted in some great leaders being voted out in favour of charlatans.

It's hard for me not to agree with a limited franchise system. As long as there is potential for people to move into (and indeed out of) the voting bloc, it will be a powerful motivator for people to work for the franchise.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


Here is an stimulating line of decision. The European Union.

The very system is restricted democracy*, with absolutely no one deciding the fate of the Commission or European Council. A President of Europe shall not face a democratic ballot either.

*Oligarchy, most likely.

reply to post by infinite


Ah but of course the problem with any such system is that it treads a fine line between limited enfranchisement and dictatorship.

How would this EU president come about?

The EU parliament at the moment seems to be a bit of a joke. Perhaps it ought to be replaced by a system of ambassadors, sent directly by the leader of each country with a remit.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


The EU President is appointed by the Council. In fairness, it would be difficult for the current European system to directly elect a President - you would have to restrict national influence.

It would be too complex and end in inevitable collapse.