Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss issues related to government, politics, and law.
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
To understand the folly of allowing grown children, aka women, to vote, it is useful to do a thought experiment about what would happen if actual children could vote.
Since children have a very limited ability to get things on their own initiative, their primary focus is to get stuff from adults. They generally do this by ingratiating themselves with adults, but if they could vote it would be much easier to just vote themselves stuff through the system. This tendency makes them an easy constituency to buy off. Adults would still run things at the top level, but would bolster their own position by pandering to children. Say a politician were to offer adults something - say extended unemployment insurance. Some would support that, but others, figuring that they would be paying for it, would oppose it. However, if a politician offered children free ice creams, pretty much all of them would vote for that. Therefore it would be in the interests if politicians to not care about their adult constituents and instead rob and marginalize them on behalf of children.
Hence you would get all kinds of crazy laws like free candy, bedtime redefined as a form of abuse, imprisonment for failing to buy your daughter a pony for Christmas etc. The children would become arrogant spoiled brats, as they would no longer need to be useful and agreeable to their adult benefactors to get stuff. Ultimately the society would be bankrupted under the weight of benefits to children or foreign adults would come in and take over, as the children would be unable to stop them and native adults would be so marginalized or viscerally disgusted with the situation that they wouldn’t do anything either. If would do no good to argue with the children that the policies they were voting for would ruin society, because being children they would only be focused on having their immediate desires sated and absolving themselves of the consequences of their own bad behavior. Even if they agreed with you, they would not relinquish their freebies until it was much too late.
Replace the words “children” and “adults” in the above with “women” and “men” and this is pretty much what we have now.
Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!
Special Offer! FREE 6 Month Membership on ForeignWomen.com! Sign up here.
Find Your Foreign Sweetheart Now! Try our international Dating Sites and Overseas Romance Tours!
If children could vote, the establishment "liberals" would win all the time(meaning Hillary would win this one for sure), because children typically are brainwashed by what they are taught in school, and can't think for themselves as much.
Why didn't the lower 51% of men vote to steal from the upper 49% of men back when only men had the vote? I'm sure Cornfed will retort that men are able to see long-term cause and effect and show self-restraint, to which I reply Cornfed doesn't know the lower 51% of men very well if he thinks that.
The real question is why mostly male legislators have voted for a system of laws that hurt men. You can't say because they are pandering to women, because these same legislators were outlawing abortion in many states at the same time they were legalizing no-fault divorce, strengthening alimony and child support and domestic violence laws, etc.
Generally because they couldn’t vote. In Anglo countries it was households that voted and there was a property qualification on the vote.
Generally is was pandering to females which actually bolstered the position of elite men. That and the banksters etc.
The common thread is that in any society there are people (well, men) who can acquire resources on their own initiative and win in unbiased competition. Then you have the majority who can’t. Society works when the former group are running the show and can magnanimously give resources to the latter group in exchange for services rendered. This ensures that things are sensibly managed for long term success and everyone does their best. If the latter group can simply use their superior numbers to vote themselves resources then everything turns to shit.
Okay, the lower 51% of those who can vote versus the upper 49%. You always have this conflict, no matter how small the group.
In the past there were forces resisting selfishness, and those forces were much more complicated than what your simple analysis suggests.
My explanation is that, over the course of history, occasionally societies develop irrational faiths of mind boggling complexity. Some of these faiths lead to immediate disaster for the society, which then goes into the rubbish bin of history. Others lead to immediate success, but then disaster latter on. Some are successful for a very long time, but the faith is gradually lost because it requires sacrifice by the individuals who compose society. As the individuals wise up, and realize the faith is irrational and not in their best interests but rather the interests of their descendants, if any, who will live in the future, they become sociopaths and begin to enjoy the benefits of society without making the sacrifices necessary to perpetuate society. Obviously I'm in the category of sociopath myself, but so are you and most everyone else in the modern world. A few fools still have faith, but their efforts will be futile.
Really, liberalism has always been morally bankrupt and lacking any rational justification. If only white households with property voted like in the good old days then there would be no problem. The forces of evil have gained power entirely by enfranchising, breeding, importing and bribing various trash populations along with various forms of censorship and intimidation. The equality bullshit is the only demon we need to slay to put things right.
Any such analysis will of course be simplistic and full of generalisations. But if such generalisations were not true politicians wouldn't spend time and money trying to get the 'black vote', 'the woman vote', the jewish vote etc. But Is there such a thing as the whie male vote? No because white males vote on policy. Poorer white males may vote for more labour favourable policies while richer white males for more conservative capitalistic policies. What will the woman vote be? How the candidate looks or his liberalism. Blacks? how he will increase handouts, and his colour. Jews? his policy on israel. Because this is largely true, even if not 100%, politicians put effort into these issues as they win that segment of the vote.
No one aims at white men as there is no obvious issue; only policies matter.
Check Hilary. Aims at the woman vote by castigating Trump's statements about women; aims for the jew vote by being more pro israel than a Rabbi etc. What does she offer white men? nothing.