Is the fact that under 18-year-old's are not allowed to vote justifiable within the philosophy of democracy...

Is the fact that under 18-year-old's are not allowed to vote justifiable within the philosophy of democracy? I think not.

Why don't you vote on it?

>Is the fact that under 10-year-old's are not allowed to vote justifiable within the philosophy of democracy? I think not.

If the majority voted for women not being allowed to vote, would this be allowed within the philosophy of democracy?

Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote

oh yes, the common debate of when an individual has matured to the point where their ideas and beliefs are trust-able to be productive towards their society

let the shitflinging ensue

Under 18-year-old's include 10-year-old's as well, yes. I'm not advocating for it btw, i'm just saying that it isn't 'right' from a democratic perspective

>oh yes, the common debate of when an individual has matured to the point where their ideas and beliefs are trust-able to be productive towards their society

Not my point and not what i intent this thread to be about.

Well that's the thing, most democracies are really republics

Democracies exist to protect the people by giving them political power. It is generally not necessary to protect children against oppression against adults. Social services serve the original principles of democracy much better than letting children vote.

>Democracies exist to protect the people by giving them political power

That is an extremely shallow reasoning why democracy is used, and not really all encompassing. But i'll grant you, that is one perspective how you could justify kids not being allowed to vote.

>Democracies exist to protect the people by giving them political power.

Democracies give some made-up entity known as 'the people' political power but it doesn't give people political power.

The odds of one individual changing the outcome of an election are so miniscule that there might as well be no elections.

Suppose it would.

Yes
Universal suffrage is not synonymous with democracy
Why do people think that 'democracy' means 'my opinion matters the most'?

>The odds of one individual changing the outcome of an election are so miniscule
Because it's not about single individuals. You rally support for your cause and smash your numbers against the opposition.

I always thought democracy = will of the majority

>Democracies give some made-up entity known as 'the people' political power but it doesn't give people political power.
>The odds of one individual changing the outcome of an election are so miniscule that there might as well be no elections.
What the fuck am I reading?

But it is about individuals. It's about giving individuals a say in how their government is run.

And besides, the odds still say that if you form a group to 'smash the opposition', the group would still have to be so big that it doesn't matter wether you join or not.

If a clear majority of the population, including the women, would rather have women being destitute of voting rights, then barring women from voting wouldn't in itself be undemocratic.

But such a policy wouldn't get the female votes, so it's moot.

Why would you think that?

That would not be undemocratic. It's all about the majority will of the citizens, and realistically, the will of the citizens that vote.

Because that's the Webster dictionary definition of democracy.

So what are you purposing? A system where 1 individual can change the outcome of an election?

It's about collectives. Only shared interests get the spotlight, otherwise you'd never get anything done.

>the group would still have to be so big that it doesn't matter wether you join or not
The group doesn't get big if people don't join. You don't have to cater to every one guy. Just get a message that will draw the most active citizens. The non-voters don't matter, it's pointless to cater to them and you don't have to worry about them supporting the opposition. So, it's not so hard see?

Also, outside referendums and elections, you can have your representatives address issues that concern your group through petitions.

>That would not be undemocratic.
That's what I said.

Nobody is proposing anything.

i am to ur mom

Only property owners should be allowed to vote or hold office because they are the only people invested in the development and continued improvement of the nation.

I'm not proposing anything. I find it interesting that people are pro-democracy because it's meant to be a system that gives them a voice yet they will recognise that they don't actually get a voice in a democracy. It's hard to be heard when everyone is yelling.

Also, outside referendums and elections, you can have your representatives address issues that concern your group through petitions.

But you, as a member of a group (that we will assume uses democratic decision making), have little to no say in what the group as a whole petitions, or even if it does.

>The group doesn't get big if people don't join.

But you don't want the group to get big. If it does your voice gets diluted to the point of insignificance.

You mean landowners? Because every bucktoothed hooker from Florida to Alaska owns property.

True. Yes, landowners.

The age at which an individual has matured enough to have a say in society is limited to that individual alone, so we just generalize at 18. We can't go around evaluating every individual on earth.

How much property to qualify? If you don't specify then you'll just have everybody buying 10x10 parcels out in the desert.

True democracy is like true communism. It's not practical.

Then we'll cross the bridge when we get there. I was just laying out a broad idea. Ideally, having a home or business deemed legitimate on the property would be a qualifying factor in voting rights.

>But you, as a member of a group (that we will assume uses democratic decision making), have little to no say in what the group as a whole petitions, or even if it does.
You don't know how petitions work? You write what you would to see changed, find like-minded people to sign together then send it to whoever is in charge. It's just about the easiest thing today with our communications.

>But you don't want the group to get big. If it does your voice gets diluted to the point of insignificance.
Your individual voice is of little consequence (unless you are charismatic or insightful enough to warrant special attention, in which case you probably are something of a leader to whatever movement you are part of), as it would be desirable from the perspective of general society. People aren't reaching for you specifically, but for the goals that are shared by several other people.

If you want to get a spotlight get on a soapbox and preach. If your concerns are your own alone, why would anyone spare the time to fight for them?

Pure democracy is a mistake.

What about children of property owners? Do they need to wait for their parents to die so they can inherit and earn suffrage?

That or they can buy land or start a business. People who aren't tied to the nation in the way landowners are should not have say in the direction of the nation. They might not have its prosperity and growth in mind when they cast their vote.

>prosperity and growth

But would a landowner have a long term perspective, or maybe aim for more immediate benefits?

>They might not have its prosperity and growth in mind when they cast their vote.
Doesn't that apply to all taxpayers? Since they expect returns upon retirement and a safety net if their enterprises fall through?

Certainly more so than someone who isn't tied to the nation in the form of land. It's not perfection, but it's better than letting everyone have a voice.
>Since they expect returns upon retirement
How old are you? If you're under 40 and in the US, I have some bad news for you.
I think there's a legitimate argument in favor of only allowing taxpayers to vote as well. Let me think about it and I'll try to counter it in favor of landowners.

Wouldn't landowners simply pass legislature to make it harder for non-landowners to become landowners? Even if non-landowners didn't pay taxes to the central government, they'd still have to pay rent. And unless the central government actually restricted the economic freedom of the landowners a great deal, which it wouldn't make sense for it to do since it's controlled by them, landowners would pretty much have the non-landowners eating out of their hands.

So it would be a return to feudalism.

Not an US citizen, no.

They will also have quite an unhealthy vested interest in rising house prices, which is already a serious problem in many parts of the world

only the warrior caste and above should be able to hold any sort of power

These posts are probably right. I don't think this is a terribly defensible position. Sometimes I post things and see if people will challenge me and back me into a corner. If they can, then it's probably a stupid idea and I can drop it.

What about only letting taxpayers have a vote? It is in the same realm and I can't think of a way or even a reason why taxpayers would actively prevent non-taxpayers from gaining suffrage.

>What about only letting taxpayers have a vote? It is in the same realm and I can't think of a way or even a reason why taxpayers would actively prevent non-taxpayers from gaining suffrage.
Yeah, me neither. How about other sort of investments into society like military service or continuous community service?

democracy is a joke
you let literal retards vote but anyone below 18 can't have a saying in their nation's future path
which is pretty amusing since it's usually them who will pay for the decisions those before them did

thats why its called a fucking republic you moron

If you ask that today leaders, politicians and philosophers on the theme of democracy they would say no.

Some edgy kid, who took all the baits and tries to invent an opinion based on them.

>Also, outside referendums and elections, you can have your representatives address issues that concern your group through petitions.

^ this - this guy knows democracy well.

BUUT petition can be denied even if a great majority signs them - because it can be anti-constitutional or like this guy said it:

>If the majority voted for women not being allowed to vote, would this be allowed within the philosophy of democracy?

t. a 16-year-old

Or you can say it simple, no pure static ideology works because people are not static variables, they always change - and so does the definition and structure of the concept "society" or "public opinion".

If you say voting is a natural right obtained with adulthood, of course it is. And if you reject natural rights, anything is justifiable in the philosophy of democracy, because you can advocate any form of it that you want and the arbitrariness is irrelevant.

yes because all behind it - it's the philosophy of negative freedom also in this vision presidents should get less and less power over time and put trust into technological development - especially information technologies, computer and advanced statistics, there's the belief that there exist an unseen link between individuals, that doesn't need the agreement or disagreement of science - because it's a philosophical idea, yet an idea behind the minds of ruling leaders.

Since nature and us are connected in some mysterious ways - everything is self regulating tiself, hence this belief that - do w/e, the organic aspect of existence itself will balance everything.

Problem is even Americans noticed this is an illusion - and now we're in the direction of a new ideology being cooked up. It was acknowledged that there's actually chaos everywhere - and in nature if you remove on species from a forest, or there's a natural calamity going - the said "system" is not going to attempt a rebalance - it's actually going to change entirely.

Just like with genetic information - new one is not added, it's just lost - see what humans done with dogs over thousands of years - they've breed them, crossbreed them to drop genetic information - a big dog drop the genetic information of height but keep the skin code, resulting in pic related.

Ever since Adam let sin enter the world, universe is just going towards the nothingness it was made from, death is inside everything and there's only destruction. That's why also if we pay attention - Jesus is going to restore the world as He said, not just use it in the state it is on second coming, restore it trough fire - the sky will just vanish and all mater will be recreated.

Also Constantine I was thinking about something: let's make a website - where we attempt to collect all information we can find about history of orthodox church and only keep what's authentic and verifiable, but even if let's say a synod it's not recognized as of today - as ecumenical let's also mention it and give correct data - because I've found that there's lots of false data online, and there's not such an structured thing like what I proposed.