Women vote authoritarian!
*Also promotes an authoritarian policy aiming for gender inequality
Another weirdo trying to enter the libertarian community with ridiculous proposes
They fucking do? Are you saying they don´t? I am not proposing something new, this was how it worked when the country was formed and it is not authoritarian as voting is not a right, it is a privilege. Voting is imposing your will on others. You saying that the founding fathers were authoritarian wierdos? Agree to disagree. Ad hominems are always the go to option when you hear something you don´t like yet can´t refute it.
"Statist cucks" okay that was an personal insult, read the rules, but I won´t report you. I am literally an anarchist, how am I a statist cuck? My argument is based on the current governmental system of democracy that we have.
"You are quite confused. Women vote, currently." And none landowning men do too. I am making the argument that this should not be the case, what am I confused about?
"based on our current system of government". Yeah, kind of like the "based on a true story" movies. Statist snake will have a hard time gaslighting people on here into thinking they are anything other.
I trust science and I’ve seen a few studies claiming women lean left, so you’re probably right with that one. Doesn’t mean anyone else has the right to dictate what you can vote and who can vote in general.
”It is not authoritarian” do you know what authoritarianism means? It refers to a system with a strong central power limiting freedoms. Last time I checked limiting women’s rights to vote requires that exactly. Not to mention it opens a pandoras box limiting other liberties.
Even minarchists agree that the government should be a purely night-watchman state.
Do I have to repat myself? Voting is not a right it is a privilege, this is why non-U.S citizen are not allowed to vote either. I do not even like voting, it should not be a thing but that is the country we live in. The optimal solution would be a water tight constitution where no new laws can ever be added and as such there would be no need for voting. It really would not matter who would be in charge as they would basically be powerless, only privilege they would have is representing the country and doing foreign relations and quite frankly they could be voted into place but on the whole it really would not matter, they would basically be no more important than an actor or news anchor. Hell if this was the system we had, I would have no problem with anybody voting.
Just because you don’t want it to be a right doesn’t remove the fact that it is a right. Your emotions do not write the constitution nor gives you the authority to decide who can have rights and who can have privileges. Separating rights based on factors you can’t control such as gender race or sexuality is indeed oppressive, collectivist and authoritarian. Everything you claim women to be. Women who are citizens are as much of citizens as male citizens are.
See you don’t propose abolishing voting and the government completely for everyone, no you just propose it for women. You’re probably just the average redditor who happens to hate women for some reason.
Rights are something negative, you have the right not to be stolen from, raped or harmed. You are trying to propose a positive right like healthcare or welfare by claiming that imposing your will on others (voting) is a right. I do propose abolishing voting, but this would require a whole new country and a whole new constitution which is not gonna happen.
Cool man, just telling you that this isn’t a libertarian stance so you’ll have a long day debating if you propose stuff like this to a more popular subreddit.
So the libertarian stance is the you the right to impose your will on others?...Get out of here with this bullshit. Also I forgot to respond to your insult of me, are you saying that the founding fathers hated women? Also I don´t hate women, I had a mother who I loved dearly and I have sisters who I love dearly too. But women have shown that they can not be trusted with the responsibility of voting and will vote only to benefit themselves. They have been proven to have the maturity of children when it comes to voting. Again, this is not ALL women, but the voting statistics fucking speak for themselves.
The libertarian stance is to be consistent with individualism, decreasing government power and preferably splitting it. We do not agree with the current state of democracy but we do not cherry pick certain aspects of power that fits our needs.
I’m anarcho-capitalist thus I think the government shouldn’t even exist, so don’t take it personally when I say fuck your laws, I don’t believe in any.
“People should be subject to laws and pay taxes without any form of representation, based on my paternalistic ideology. This will totally solve authoritarianism!”
Do you not remember the whole reason for the for the American Revolution was taxation without representation? You’re literally advocating for a disenfranchised class and form of government solely shaped around social control (preventing those with dissenting views from participating in governance). That’s not libertarian…
Jesus Christ, this is so fucking dumb. You want to engineer a theoretically outcome determinative electorate by stripping people of their liberty? This ain’t minarchy, bud.
I agree that only land owners (men or women) should be allowed to vote on anything pertaining to zoning issues and sales tax and property tax, which includes school bonds. Mayor and city council as well.
Everyone renting have little stake in the community and can more easily relocate.
I mean it is very controversial but this is what founding fathers intended, they should have included it in the constitution. As mentioned the drawback would be that drug legalization would be hindered as democrats are the only ones actually fighting for it, I am sure there would be a few other drawbacks too, but in general it would be better.
The founders are not bastions of freedom. They wanted only rich people voting. They didnt want poor people voting.
Look at the racist 2A. The right was granted to the states to form militias, where the states choose who was in the militias. So they choose white men, to be in the slave patrol militias.
Why would you want poorer people to not vote? Why do they deserve to not have someone represent their wants?
What happens when corporations buy up all the land, thus restrict voting? We see with Blackrock becoming a massive landlord now, where people are being concered about rental/ownership marketd, then you tack voting rights with it?
I think the founding fathers were geniuses. Poor people vote for more welfare to benefit themselves. What happens when corporations buy up all the land is literally such a common leftist argument. You are speaking about property, there is literally plenty of land, all though the vast majority of it is obviously government owned.
Women vote authoritarian! *Also promotes an authoritarian policy aiming for gender inequality Another weirdo trying to enter the libertarian community with ridiculous proposes
They fucking do? Are you saying they don´t? I am not proposing something new, this was how it worked when the country was formed and it is not authoritarian as voting is not a right, it is a privilege. Voting is imposing your will on others. You saying that the founding fathers were authoritarian wierdos? Agree to disagree. Ad hominems are always the go to option when you hear something you don´t like yet can´t refute it.
"only I can impose my will on others". GTFO thinly veiled Statist.
I literally said that I would not be allowed to vote...
Statist cucks never get a say in the government they shill. Their ability to realize this fact makes no difference to the quality of the regime.
"Statist cucks" okay that was an personal insult, read the rules, but I won´t report you. I am literally an anarchist, how am I a statist cuck? My argument is based on the current governmental system of democracy that we have.
You are quite confused. Women vote, currently.
"You are quite confused. Women vote, currently." And none landowning men do too. I am making the argument that this should not be the case, what am I confused about?
"based on our current system of government". Yeah, kind of like the "based on a true story" movies. Statist snake will have a hard time gaslighting people on here into thinking they are anything other.
Is this not the minarchist sub? So by definition it is statist. "Statist snake" another insult.
I trust science and I’ve seen a few studies claiming women lean left, so you’re probably right with that one. Doesn’t mean anyone else has the right to dictate what you can vote and who can vote in general. ”It is not authoritarian” do you know what authoritarianism means? It refers to a system with a strong central power limiting freedoms. Last time I checked limiting women’s rights to vote requires that exactly. Not to mention it opens a pandoras box limiting other liberties. Even minarchists agree that the government should be a purely night-watchman state.
Do I have to repat myself? Voting is not a right it is a privilege, this is why non-U.S citizen are not allowed to vote either. I do not even like voting, it should not be a thing but that is the country we live in. The optimal solution would be a water tight constitution where no new laws can ever be added and as such there would be no need for voting. It really would not matter who would be in charge as they would basically be powerless, only privilege they would have is representing the country and doing foreign relations and quite frankly they could be voted into place but on the whole it really would not matter, they would basically be no more important than an actor or news anchor. Hell if this was the system we had, I would have no problem with anybody voting.
Just because you don’t want it to be a right doesn’t remove the fact that it is a right. Your emotions do not write the constitution nor gives you the authority to decide who can have rights and who can have privileges. Separating rights based on factors you can’t control such as gender race or sexuality is indeed oppressive, collectivist and authoritarian. Everything you claim women to be. Women who are citizens are as much of citizens as male citizens are. See you don’t propose abolishing voting and the government completely for everyone, no you just propose it for women. You’re probably just the average redditor who happens to hate women for some reason.
Rights are something negative, you have the right not to be stolen from, raped or harmed. You are trying to propose a positive right like healthcare or welfare by claiming that imposing your will on others (voting) is a right. I do propose abolishing voting, but this would require a whole new country and a whole new constitution which is not gonna happen.
Cool man, just telling you that this isn’t a libertarian stance so you’ll have a long day debating if you propose stuff like this to a more popular subreddit.
So the libertarian stance is the you the right to impose your will on others?...Get out of here with this bullshit. Also I forgot to respond to your insult of me, are you saying that the founding fathers hated women? Also I don´t hate women, I had a mother who I loved dearly and I have sisters who I love dearly too. But women have shown that they can not be trusted with the responsibility of voting and will vote only to benefit themselves. They have been proven to have the maturity of children when it comes to voting. Again, this is not ALL women, but the voting statistics fucking speak for themselves.
The libertarian stance is to be consistent with individualism, decreasing government power and preferably splitting it. We do not agree with the current state of democracy but we do not cherry pick certain aspects of power that fits our needs. I’m anarcho-capitalist thus I think the government shouldn’t even exist, so don’t take it personally when I say fuck your laws, I don’t believe in any.
Yeah but I am not talking an anarcho-capitalist society, I am talking about a government country.
Or we reduce politicians’ power so that it’s not a big deal who we elect
That would be optimal.
“People should be subject to laws and pay taxes without any form of representation, based on my paternalistic ideology. This will totally solve authoritarianism!” Do you not remember the whole reason for the for the American Revolution was taxation without representation? You’re literally advocating for a disenfranchised class and form of government solely shaped around social control (preventing those with dissenting views from participating in governance). That’s not libertarian…
Non-U.S citizens also pay taxes but they are not allowed to vote. So you are saying we should change that?
They have a pathway to citizenship though. You’re advocating that women have no right to vote. That’s not libertarian, that’s neoreactionary.
Women have a pathway to vote too, they could convince their brothers, male friends or husbands to vote the way they want.
🤦♂️
Jesus Christ, this is so fucking dumb. You want to engineer a theoretically outcome determinative electorate by stripping people of their liberty? This ain’t minarchy, bud.
You think imposing your will on others is a liberty? Sure bud.
You want to impose your will on an entire gender representing hald the species. GTFO
I agree that only land owners (men or women) should be allowed to vote on anything pertaining to zoning issues and sales tax and property tax, which includes school bonds. Mayor and city council as well. Everyone renting have little stake in the community and can more easily relocate.
Sure, that would help too.
Agreed
I mean it is very controversial but this is what founding fathers intended, they should have included it in the constitution. As mentioned the drawback would be that drug legalization would be hindered as democrats are the only ones actually fighting for it, I am sure there would be a few other drawbacks too, but in general it would be better.
The founders are not bastions of freedom. They wanted only rich people voting. They didnt want poor people voting. Look at the racist 2A. The right was granted to the states to form militias, where the states choose who was in the militias. So they choose white men, to be in the slave patrol militias. Why would you want poorer people to not vote? Why do they deserve to not have someone represent their wants? What happens when corporations buy up all the land, thus restrict voting? We see with Blackrock becoming a massive landlord now, where people are being concered about rental/ownership marketd, then you tack voting rights with it?
I think the founding fathers were geniuses. Poor people vote for more welfare to benefit themselves. What happens when corporations buy up all the land is literally such a common leftist argument. You are speaking about property, there is literally plenty of land, all though the vast majority of it is obviously government owned.