No.73258
Anyway it literally happened today, when I thought about my ideal system and how I would limit voting rights to only financially independent people (whatever that means) and people who pledge to defend the country.
I already knew that barely any women, would qualify for being financially independent and I admit that It didn't bother me. But then I realized that whether your country still has the draft or not, it would immideatly be re-implemented for all men, if a war ever broke out and necessitated it.
I don't think a civil war against muslims is likely, but I can already see how women collectively would ask the men to fight and die for them to win against the muslims.
I am for equal rights for equal responsibility, but how can women get equal voting rights, if they collectively will never have the same duty as men to fight and die for their country?
PS: This thread was removed and I got banned instantly on /leftypol/.
No.73260
the answer is that voting is shit
No.73262
No.73263
>>73260
>>73262
Limited Democracy > Monarchism, Absolutism, etc
No.73264
might makes right
bullets > ballots
No.73268
No.73269
>>73268
Even if you are right, that's not really an option in our lifetime.
No.73271
>>73269
it is if we stop obeying the state
No.73273
>>73271
But for us all to do that, we need to have collectively solved the moral debate whether a state is legitimate and desireable and I don't see it happening, especially because the self-interest of people overrrides any kind of morality/enforces their morality.
No.73274
No.73275
Women and poor people shouldn't vote be able to vote on how someone spends your taxes.
Because they will vote for a police state that will strangle the farmers to death just to increase their 'free' income.
No.73276
>>73274
But self-interest, breh.
No.73277
>>73276
It is in your self interest to be a free individual
No.73281
>>73258
defending country should be voluntary
No.73284
>>73281
And people tell me I am utopian.
Dude, if you have a gf, you will have to defend her and your home. You are going to defend something, whether you want it or not.
No.73286
>>73284
im not going to defend her if she does not want me to do it
No.73290
>>73286
>im not going to defend her if she does not want me to do it
kek, okay this convo is getting weird and you are just being pedantic
No.73293
>Men are enslaved by the state to die in war therefor women should also have there freedoms reduced for equality.
>Not just disavowing the state as the perpetrator of war and enslavement.
also
>Civil war against Muslims
Even /leftypol/ realizes how stupid you are, you really should re-evaluate your beliefs or at least follow the advice of your picture.
No.73300
>>73258
>I don't believe in voting rights for women anymore.
Why did you ever?
No.73301
>>73293
>>Not just disavowing the state as the perpetrator of war and enslavement.
Okay? Sure. But that argument doesn't work, because society will still urge you to fight.
The men are going to appeal to your patriotism and the women will urge you to fight so they can be protected. If you don't you will be socially shamed and ostracized. Just look at Britain with the white feather movement.
What? I thought you libertarians believed in social ostracization?!
>Even /leftypol/ realizes how stupid you are, you really should re-evaluate your beliefs or at least follow the advice of your picture.
No argument. You aren't a libertarian, just a larper.
No.73302
>>73301
>What? I thought you libertarians believed in social ostracization?!
Of course. Though you are invoking a case in which it's a single Libertarian in a society which isn't. Social pressure is not coercion. Don't assume more outside of context as it no longer applies.
No.73304
>>73302
My point is that social pressure is going to be applied to fight for your country, whether there is a state or not.
No.73308
>>73258
> I got banned instantly on /leftypol/.
You should be instabanned here if you don't believe in equal rights for women.
Kys statist cuck
No.73310
>>73308
t. assblasted roastie
No.73312
>>73310
Go back to r9k and beg for a state appointed gf, faggot.
No.73313
>>73312
>strawman
Neither a robot, nor a Nazbol. What makes you react so furiously to the notion that women shouldn't vote? Are you familiar with history?
No.73322
Removing voting rights for women solves some immediate issues, but those same issues eventually come down the line as…
1. Women are tied to men, and…
2. Even if women weren't involved, men are part of the problem too.
If you insist on having voting rights at all, tying it to property owners is the safest bet (tried and true) with amount or value of property being proportional to voting power (up to a certain extent, as you need certain checks such as the electoral college in place in case of massive land ownership as per the state). A property owner is effectively a shareholder of the national economy/the state, and thus has a vetted interest in protecting the national economy (or at least their portions of it) so as to keep the value of their property high. This naturally leads to infighting/competition between property owners with some areas aligning more readily than others. In the current system of "equal" voting power, a homeless man has the same voting power as an educated man in a "equal" voting system that only bans women or women & minorities, or any other variation of that.
When you realize that an "unequal" system of proportional voting based on power (my personal suggestion being property as this is a lot harder to corrupt as compared to political power or wealth) is corrupt but ultimately able to keep an economy afloat, you'll wonder why it was so important to prescribe to the whole idea of everyone's opinion mattering in the first place. At that point you're one step away from either AnCap or Aristocracy, but if you insist on having a voter base, then you really need to have some sort of check in place to keep the voter interested/invested even if they're ignorant of various facts (since it's easier and more profitable to be ignorant of policy and to break it/ask forgiveness than it is to understand every policy while no one around you gives a shit). Shareholders have an invested interest in things, hence voters should be shareholders of a measurable and "matterable" level. Even if you removed women and minorities, your vote still wouldn't count in an equal system because the vote has been split beyond the magic number. The magic number being the point at which community ties begin to break down and also the point at which your opinions begin to become statistically insignificant. It's approximated as being around 150-300 people.
No.73323
>>73269
Neither is ending the female vote.
No.73324
>>73322
Also it's a lot easier to tell who was responsible in an "unequal" voting system when SHTF or the economy goes to shit. Figured I'd add that little tidbit in. Sage for triple-post.
No.73327
>>73313
>What makes you react so furiously to the notion that women shouldn't vote?
Because it is against basic libertarian principles you fucking incel
No.73332
Women shouldn't vote for the same reason a dog shouldn't vote.
They are nice, but they are pets.
No.73334
No.73355
>>73327
But it absolutely isn't, Doris.
No.73360
>>73343
I hate this pic. If you summarily call women cunts, then you're a piece of shit. Simple as that.
>But anon, women overproportionally vote for liberal candidates, and…
And I fully agree, but the real problem is democracy, not women's suffrage. If we took the vote from women, we'd at best slow the rate of decay. A functioning, stable republic requires more than just limiting suffrage to men.
No.73361
>>73343
Democracy is opresshun
No.73362
>>73308
>>73312
>>73327
>you're ugly
>you don't get laid
>you're bitter
Typical tricks tbh
No.73370
>>73343
Damn women, they choose the wrong kind of statism!!!!
No.73378
>>73370
im not a statist mate
No.73400
No.73513
No.73534
>>73360
This. There's very few excuses to use the term cunt, and all of them involve a woman (not women) who was a serious piece of shit. If you're the type of asshole who goes around calling women cunts, you need to seriously rethink your political beliefs and consider the underlying issue (in most cases, ochlocracy itself).
No.73539
No.73568
>>73539
t. pinkhaired transfaggot
>>73534
t. ned flanders
No.73573
>>73258
>but how can women get equal voting rights, if they collectively will never have the same duty as men to fight and die for their country?
So should men who don't fight for their country not have a right to vote? And furthermore, wouldn't this imply that women that do should? Or are you effectively collectivizing both entities based upon what they're more or less likely to do?
>>73343
tl;dr women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't vote the way I want them to
No.73591
>>73568
Who cares? I do what I want
No.73621
>but how can women get equal voting rights, if they collectively will never have the same duty as men to fight and die for their country?
>I am for equal rights for equal responsibility
lmao I always laugh at these meninists that think that women should be like men but with tits, they realize women are not equal to men but they actually WANT them to be. How stupid do you have to be, amirite guys?
No.73655
As I see it, equal rights for women are a good way to take care of the outliers among them, the ones who have it in them to be scholars or businesswomen. Equal rights, despite the name, are not equalizing, but discriminating. If there are differences between the sexes, as is in fact the case, then these differences will take care of themselves. We don't have to cement them into law.
What we have to do away with is the spirit of egalitarianism, but also the pseudo-reactionary view that women are incubators on legs. The former is so heavily discredited on the Chans that I won't say more about it. The latter is a classical case of two fallacies: Mistaking statistics about a group for descriptions of actually existing human beings; and mistaking the negation of progressivist ideology for genuine conservativism.
When I said equal rights, what I didn't mean were political rights. Extending the vote to women is a mistake, but extending it to men is only a slightly better mistake. In fact, having a republic to begin with is a mistake.
No.73656
No.73675
I don't know about military service unless you want to live in some sort of democratic junta, but it does make enough sense that only taxpayers should have any say in how taxes are spent.
No.73696
>>73675
Unless you make at least 50k/year, you take more in benefits and credits every year than you have stolen from you in taxes. Unless you make at least 85k/year, your tax contributions are.negligible towards overall taxes. At least in America.
No.73697
>>73696
> all that shit
>failing to account for stuff like sales tax
I literally would not see a cent of taxmoney if it were not for neetbux, all they do is try and fail to fix this one shitty road with tar and tons of 20$ an hour man hours of standing around with a sign for about 6 months out of the year when one city over they still have cobblestone and never need to fix it, its especially a pain in the ass because my work schedule has me trying to sleep then sometimes
I want to fucking blow up the road, and I could do it too but not without endangering my house and others
No.73699
>>73258
It`s okay, women aren`t humans anyway.
No.73775
>>73675
this is what korwin says
he says also that taxmoney recipients should not have a say in elections (for example all militarymen and bureucrats and social workers)
No.73776
>>73258
>but how can women get equal voting rights, if they collectively will never have the same duty as men to fight and die for their country?
Because they have feelings too, OP.
No.73781
>>73697
I rounded sales tax into that figure based on the fact that most people spend the majority of their money even if they could save it. Plus sales tax is a state policy and it's pretty easy to change states unless you're like me and live in the middle of the bum fucking nowhere half of the US.
No.73785
>>73696
>Unless you make at least 50k/year, you take more in benefits and credits every year
If you include wasteful government spending as "benefits", then I could agree. Otherwise, for people like me who do not have children, we have to pay $5,000 to $10,000 in property taxes (or indirectly via rent) per year to fund my state's education. Take into account the 20% state/federal income tax, 7% sales tax, and ~8% wealth/income tax from inflation, half my 50k income is taxed.