| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Eating in the Britainlands.; What? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 23 2012, 01:36 PM (6,951 Views) | |
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 04:01 PM Post #151 |
![]()
|
Wait.... the brits are disagreeing with each other.... this topic just took a serious turn. |
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Mar 28 2012, 04:10 PM Post #152 |
|
He rules
|
I know! We are renowned as being a united people! No HoL at all? I can sympathize more with that, but there would be less of a check on government that way. And that logic, where a rich man is likely to vote against something that would negatively impact him, is soo one sided. Are you saying that a lower class lord would be a greater "champion of the just"? |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 04:16 PM Post #153 |
![]()
|
A poorer person is less likley to be negetivley effected by raiseing the taxes on the 1%. You could do what America does. A senate and a House of Representatives. Edit: I assume yo have a 1%. Edited by Grey, Mar 28 2012, 04:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Mar 28 2012, 04:19 PM Post #154 |
![]()
|
True, true. Oh no, I mean the same for the lower class. They will obviously vote for good policies that benefit them. The problem I see with this is that it is utilitarian, yet it gives everybody a fair say. But then I suppose why should I have the same voting power as a neurobiologist or a street cleaner? It's very hard to balance |
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Mar 28 2012, 04:21 PM Post #155 |
|
He rules
|
Im not sure what you mean, unless your talking about the top 1% of rich people? And we would end up with two equally powerful chambers which would result in hardly anything getting done. The second chamber, in my opinion, should be like a scrutiny body to the main chamber, and not its equal. |
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Mar 28 2012, 04:26 PM Post #156 |
|
He rules
|
Thats a very difficult question, as to how to make the perfect government, but i can answer your second question. You would be in your right to have an equal say as a neurobiologist or a binman because the vote would go towards deciding how your life would be impacted. You have just as much of a right to vote because you, the neurobiologist and the binman will all be affected, one way or another, by who is in power. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 04:27 PM Post #157 |
![]()
|
In America people have recently started protesting the benefits given to the 1% of Americans that control something like 90% of the nations wealth. Occupying wall street and such. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 04:30 PM Post #158 |
![]()
|
(Dantos explains it much better then I do.)
Edited by Grey, Mar 28 2012, 04:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Mar 28 2012, 04:32 PM Post #159 |
![]()
|
Yeah true, governmental perfection is almost impossible. Surely there is a better way than what we have now, though? True, it may impact my life. But what about something which impacts my life, but not yours. Do you have a right to vote when it doesn't affect you? Also, isn't a neurobiologist's expertise more valuable, and possibly worth more votes, if it's a policy regarding neuroscience? A guy like me could just vote, but not 100% understand it, if you know what I mean And I agree with the 1% thing. This is what I'm against, the 1% of people controlling the wealth and power and the other 99% being sheep to slaughter Edited by Dantos4, Mar 28 2012, 04:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Mar 28 2012, 04:37 PM Post #160 |
|
He rules
|
I suppose a poorer person wouldnt be so hesitant to raise taxes on people like that, then. In Britain, to my knowledge we dont have something like that, unless their much more secretive over here ![]() In response to your other question: A neuro-person may have a higher IQ than a RUBBISH ( ) man, but does that mean that they would know how to run a rubbish collection unit? A binman would, meaning that his area of expertise would be represented when he voted, just as the neuro-persons expertise would be represented. If a neuro-persons vote was worth more than anyone elses, how can a government have the legitamcy to make any laws about something other than neuro-stuff?
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |






3:21 AM Jul 11