I don't know why people think direct democracy is at all good. What evidence is there that the majority know what's best for them?

@ViciDraco Right, but an orthodoxy in the west is that "the right to vote" is some sacred, ever protected thing. Pretty much anyone who isn't a convict can vote, and I believe even certain convicts can vote (not sure about that tho). If you scroll through tiktok long enough, how and why can or would ANYONE with a functioning brain think these people should have a say in how society is governed? I'm not sitting around saying only people with high IQ's should vote; plenty of rich psychopaths are smart and only vote in their interest. But I do think people who cannot demonctrate some virtue shouldn't be allowed to vote.

@BRUUH I honestly think everyone should have a right to vote, including convicts cos each story is different.

@SatanBurger Why? My goal is to improve the wellbeing of the most people (who deserve wellbeing). And I personally see no reason to think that the majority opinion is the right one, thus I think voting should not be left up to the masses. I believe in the privilege to vote, not the right.

@BRUUH I think working out who is qualified to vote is an exercise beyond practicality, which is why democracy is generally regarded as better than other currently known systems.

@ViciDraco I respectfully but strongly disagree with you. I think it's very practical. There are so many government processes that take forever to get, yet people still do it. I don't see why voting is any difference. Bro, I scroll through tiktok and realize that a society that lets half these people vote isn't a meritocracy in any sense.

@BRUUH I think that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But my opinion wasn't aimed at you personally, I was just generally saying that I believe convicts should have a right to vote and that's my opinion. Since you mentioned them.

For me and this is only my view, saying that voting is reserved for only those who deserve well being is like picking and choosing who gets to vote.

I dunno about everything else but I do know that favoritism exists among those in charge so it makes it sound like that could be what would happen.

Like China punishes people for playing too many video games, their social credit goes down and that affects things like colleges and applying to jobs over there.

But like if you work 12 hour days, why can't you play video games? What's the limit of hours before one is declared as "bad for society" and so forth.

That's kind of the thing that I'd question

@SatanBurger Yeah, I know you weren't aiming that comment at me in a personal way. I didn't take it as such and am not mad at you. I still give hugs to you :)

I DO think we should pick and choose who votes.. based on criteria we deem makes sense; we and we should deem it sensible with logic and evidence. The view I'm espousing is not really much different than the ideas of government stated by Plato (the great philopher of the west) and Confucious (the great philosopher of the far east). I believe the affairs of men should only be ran by intellgent people with valor and compassion

@SatanBurger The thing is that lines are often imperfect. But it's still better to have them than not have them. China may go to far, idk. But why is a liberal democracy better than an occult fascist society governed by the learned and the initiated?

@BRUUH
Because one is not fascist and the other is fascist. I think that's fairly obvious why a liberal democracy is somewhat better. Absolute power and all.


It's impractical cos people are always imperfect, by what metric would a person be judged in order to be fit for voting?

You'd have to list out behaviors that are appropriate and which are unacceptable but that's not easy to do. What are you gonna have like a laundry list of "approved behavior" before you can vote? Even then that doesn't take into account people's individual situations and it still creates favoritism as it would be your metric of approved behavior cos someone has to write that law.

To hit on other points you made:


Yeah but the govt isn't effective. I've been a govt employee doing low paid contract work and I can honestly tell you from behind the scenes, they're not as effective as led to believe.

First off, they care more about paperwork than your individual living situation, they could care less, it's only about what's on paper and what isn't. They really are that way almost 100% of the time.

If you're combining that with a metric of judgement regarding people and voting, I don't see that as effective.


There are stupid people but on tiktok you're really only getting two minutes of a person's life. It's much more complicated than that

@SatanBurger To adress your first point: YES, we SHOULD have "approve behaviors". We already pretty much do. Like, if i'm not mistaken.. registered sex offenders can't vote, right? If i'm wrong about that, then that's fucked up that they can. People can say "social credit score" like i'm suppose to just take for granted it's a net bad for society. Yet "social credit scores" in more primitive forms, have always been a thing. In many tribal societies, you don't just become the chief or shaman by being a fuck boy; you earn that role. So, when everyone else in this comment section has said "oh, you want a social credit score" I think "well, in a way, yes".

By how compassionate, intellegent, and chivalric they are. Why would letting psychopathic idiots without honor have a say in how YOU are governed be what you wish?

@BRUUH and when people clash on what it means to be honorable or chivalrous, how does that get determined? Where do you draw the line on who deserves to live well and who doesn't?

@ViciDraco The same way we decide that all the time? Like, I honestly don't even understand the question even tho this is the rebuttle everyone has been giving me.

People disagree on what should be illegal, yet we have laws. People disagree on how money should be spent yet we fund things. Of course not everyone is going to have the same morale, but there are certain universals. For example, would we have a clash on whether a guy who tries to get out of paying child support for a kid he abandons, when it isn't out of poverty or desperation but genuine greed to buy fancy watches and gold chains? I don't think we would, but if we do, then I don't want the people who can't agree that's immoral anywhere near me. If that makes me elitist to avoid a huge segment of the population, then so be it; fuck the masses who don't condemn that. I don't want the masses on my side, I want the righteous, the noble, and the upright.

@BRUUH I think there's things that's obvious like registered sex offenders not being allowed to vote is perfectly fine but you still didn't answer as to other things like what other metrics would you use to judge whether a person should be able to vote or not.

As I said human behavior is complicated, we're not always good people and not always bad. Having a straight and narrow set of metrics to go by isn't as easy as 1,2,3 I think.

Plus as I said, you have to have a person writing those metrics in place which means their biases will also show up too.

@SatanBurger I thought I did answer tho? I said compassion, valor, intelligence, education, and chivalric conduct.

My question to you is why you think someone should vote if they think Cardi B is real music, Andrew Tate is a truly ethical person, The earth is flat, and men shouldn't pay child support when they abandon a woman they knock up? Why do you want such an individual making decisions over YOUR life? I truly don't understand..

@BRUUH we decide upon those laws, generally, through the democratic process that you are proposing we eradicate.

You keep throwing pretty easy scenarios out. What about the following...

Should it be legal to own firearms?
If yes, is there a reasonable limit to what kind?
Should abortion be illegal?
Should education be compulsory?

Very intelligent and compassionate people can argue until blue in the face on those topics every day and not come to clear answers. Heck, on the abortion topic alone both sides accuse the other side of lacking in compassion and would claim they should be disqualified from voting on that alone.

@BRUUH But how would we know who has had chivalric conduct or not? Do people rate you or what? What's the grading scale on that and can we trust people to give honest reviews?

And what's chivalric conduct even mean, not everyone deserves your compassion on an individual level, which kind of hits on what I wanted to say regarding compassion. How can we trust each individual situation that arises?

You can't have intelligence on the list cos there's like fifteen different types of intelligence and I don't see the grading scale making sense for that reason.

And what if a person had significant cognitive disabilities? Should they be discriminated against?

What if someone was smart but didn't want to go to school cos they found alternative means to make money? Does this exclude them?

Regarding education, is there gonna be an enforced method of education that would have to be achieved before being able to vote?

Which brings me to my next point. A lot of education is heavily dependent on area. Poorer areas are more driven by crime out of necessity and trauma, there's also less govt resources directed at poorer schools than suburban schools.

Which leads to other issues like if school choice and other things. There's laws that force parents to choose schools in their area and That's an issue that is heavily divided.

I don't see education being a factor cos sometimes there's a lack of opportunities for people who are more disadvantaged than others

I dunno so many questions there

@ViciDraco But we also can (and have) decided these things through nondemocratic processes. Like plenty of societies that weren't democracies would stone a man for doing what I said.

As to your questions: my point was that some people shouldn't be able to vote, based on criteria even you yourself agreed was obviously black and white. Now you're asking me about what laws I think should be in the land? Again my friend, I don't know what the point here is. I agree that those particular questions may be difficult; but that's WHY I say we should have people who we can nearly universally agree are upright decide on. Does that make sense?

That's why instead of us just arguing, I support the scientific method. Scientific hypothesis upgrade into theory when they are shown to have predictive capability. IQ tests or instances DO have predictive capabilities; it correlates to success literally more than inherited income. Empathy is also measurable. Brain scans can literally reveal psychopathy. We know what empathy looks like on a neurological level. If we are to live in a technological age, we should upgrade our systems accordingly.

@SatanBurger You're aware of the medal of honor, right? The Nobel peace prize? We already recognize people for virtue all the time. You're asking me how we'd do something we already do in other areas.

Depends on what that is. Someone with aspergers or ADHD can still vote on my island. Someone with psychopathy; the cognitive inability to posess empathy for others, should not vote for example.

Probably not. Like, if you can answer an extremely basic question about economics I think you probably should have the right to vote on economic issues. Like, the real question is: Why would it be good for the fate of the economy to be swayed by masses of people who couldn't even state the definition of inflation? Why would the person in charge of NASA's fundings be voted on by people who think the Earth is flat?

I'm pretty much not responding to the rest of what you said because I agree with you so I can't refute it. You're right about school choice. I personally think these areas NEED to be funded, ASAP.

@BRUUH So you want a representative democracy, where upright and educated people get to vote?

But the process of choosing who is upright requires a generally universal approval that said person is qualified to vote?

How do we figure out who is universally regarded as upright enough to vote?

If you feel like you are not getting understandable responses, it might be because your entire premise is outside the ability to practically apply.

@SatanBurger As it stands, there are thousands of men who believe the Earth is flat, believe Andrew Tate is a noble man, believe cardi B is good music, and believe they are in the right to abandon their child. These motetherfuckers are voting on how You, SatanBurgers life should be ran; like WHY Are you ok with that being the case? Why would you want these people to say how your land is to be ran?

@ViciDraco I don't think it is that hard or impractical. We use brain scans. We use IQ tests. We require proof of SOMETHING resembling virtue such as hours of volunteer work. I don't know why this is impractical.

Like bro, there is someone out there who think the Earth is flat who votes on how NASA should be funded. There is someone who thinks Andrew Tate is great and can vote on women's bodies. There are people who think Cardi B is real music and can have a say on nationally funded art museams. Why would you think this is good?

@BRUUH Instead of giving us examples of people who shouldn't vote, what are some examples of people who are worthy of the vote?

Identify some specific people and let's see if we can agree on anyone.

@BRUUH Because ambitious people can do volunteer work to cheat the system. Because high IQ is next to meaningless for how compassionate someone is.

Who are you to say Cardi B is not real music? (I am not familiar with her beyond knowing she's famous)

@ViciDraco Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, IF she had a brain scan proving she has higher than average levels of emotional intellegence, should have the right to vote. Joe Rogan, IF he could answer extremely basic questions about the issues, should have the right to vote. All I think is that you have to have a basic understanding (like, very basic), have high levels of empathy, and be a standard deviation of intellegence above average. Bro, i'm not even sure I would qualify.

@ViciDraco People could do volunteer work to cheat the system; that's why I advocated for brain scans. IQ isn't related to morals or selflessness, and I didn't claim it is. But it is related to the ability to make good decisions, and that's also important.