Removed by mod
I’m not having kids because billionaires have bribed, lobbied, misinformed this country, and by extension the world, to the brink ruin
Yeah but they are still having kids lol that’s just what they want
I really hope this guy loses everything one day.
Ah yes, “I don’t want to say gay and intersex people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but I do want it to happen.”
Anyways I’m sterile and drive the most fuel efficient vehicle practical, don’t eat meat, and have made other sacrifices for future generations to have a habitable planet. Musky here has a private jet and at least one of his kids hates him
This may come as a shock to him, but a gay person can have children.
Not if he has anything to say about it.
Gay parenting rights were a hard fought battle and are currently being eroded in some places like Florida and Italy.
Oh, he’s a piece of shit, alright. What where we thinking, holding this dude up as some kind of visionary?
Who is “we”. There are many who could Musk’s bullshit from day one. But I’m glad more people are coming around to seeing this asshole in his true light.
So does he want landed votes or wealthy vote only ?
Don’t forget white males only!
They took our ability to have children through monetary strain, caused by corporate greed, now they think we should lose voting rights lol…
That’s just what a world with exponential population growth and its causing environmental impact needs /s
I’ve heard people make this kind of argument before: ‘People with children are actively invested in the future of the nation. People without children are on a 100year free-trial.’
Its not unthinkable, tbh.
I have kids but this is such a dumb take. Some of the worst people that don’t give a shit about anything or anyone other than themselves have a kids. It’s not hard. The barrier to entry is super low.
On the other hand, some of the most genuinely thoughtful and kind people in the world have no kids whether by choice or otherwise.
This would be a horrible way to do things.
Fair enough. Its not my position, either… However this is the logic for the idea. Seemingly nobody even tried to rationalize this in-thread, lol. Its literally not-un-thinkable :p
There isn’t much to rationalize, it’s not a good idea at the surface level, you don’t need to dig deep to see that.
Lol, if you insist :p I take it you’ve never tried a Steelman?
I mean, feel free to fix the logic and then we can talk about.
First, let me steelman your argument :] ‘Having children doesnt automatically mean that you’re a good, responsible, person.’ Let me know how I did. Given the above–
Of course having children doesn’t imbue a person with extra knowldge or virtue. However removing such barriers to vite (like lower voting age, allowing non-homeowners, allowing some fellons, et al) also does not grant extra knowldge or virtue. If the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowldgable/virtuous, it becomes necessary to find ways to delineate the two. One metric could be education level, another could be Starship Troopers, another could be a threshold of tax expenditures (after +$x of taxes paid)… There are many, including selecting for only those with children. This option has a few benefits. Chief among them, IMO, is that (at large) they want their children to inherit a functional society. Thus they may be more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability. And, stability is good for society.
What evidence do you have that shows that the majority of people with children are more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability?
Also, why do you think the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowledgeable/virtuous? And why is limiting voting rights the best way to do this?
Shouldn’t the goal of society to be to promote education so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be knowledgeable and virtuous? I think you’d agree with this, but I know you’ll loop it back and say limiting voting to people with children would help this, to which I say again, where is the evidence?
It’s pretty damn unthinkable when it excludes most gay people.
True, but it also disquifies the incels. Probably balanced ;]
No. No it is not balanced. It is a blatant attack on gay people by a bigot.
Theres a lot of people that dont have kids. Theres a lot of kids looking for adoption… If the law is applied evenly then I see no conflict.
There’s a lot of people who shouldn’t be parents. Maybe we shouldn’t encourage child abuse. Just a thought.
Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn’t happen, but I think it’ll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).
but I think it’ll be happen less than more
Oh good, as long as it’s only some child abuse…
at this point I’m not surprized, he gives a GIVE ME ATTENTION vibe hardcore, everything he does is against cultural standard.
Hey why stop there? Let’s also not allow voting for people that have been disowned by their kids like musk has. And no voting for religious people who think earth is just a pit stop before heaven/hell so there’s no need to improve life on earth at all.
obviously sh*tty propagandawhat a ridiculous foolishness is he?What about spoiled billionaires who’s children despise him?
How about instead we eliminate the voting rights (and eligibility to hold office or judgeships) of those who are within 10 years of their life expectancy? Childless middle-aged adults have a lot more stake in the state of the world they are going to be living in for the next 40-50 years than the old farts who are about to die.
Wait till he finds out, that parents are an ethnically much more diverse group than the general public.
Is he racist or are you racist?
I don’t know about the person you replied to, but he’s definitely a racist.
Removed by mod
It’s an academic exercise discussing the democratic system and how most voters are not looking at the long-term health of the country that they are leaving to their children or the children of others. I find nothing objectionable to Elon expressing his opinion, which by the way was very short and to the point. What’s more concerning is how people get so riled up about these things and talking about Elon and how much they dislike him. The masses are being entertained and you are all falling for the bait.
It’s an objectively fascist belief to hold, there’s no need to tie it to the rest of Musks bullshit, because it’s disgusting enough on its own.
What I find disgusting is not anybody’s expressed opinion on anything no matter how objectionable I may find it. What I do find disgusting is a political system that no longer works for the greater good of the society as a whole. The voting system is there to give the voting public the illusion that they hold the keys to change. Government and its servants for the lost part can disregard those votes. What matters is $$$ and how these $$$ can affect elections by a voting public that for the most part is uninformed and falls easily for simple slogans that the $$$ get repeated often enough till people believe them to represent the truth.
And somehow restricting the right to vote even further towards those with a material interest towards maintaining the system as is, while disenfranchising those most negatively effected by the system, will lead to better outcomes for those disenfranchised and disaffected groups?
Well first this is never going to happen so the whole issues is academic. I would argue that it would not push the power to those with $$. The current system does that beautifully. You want the system of voting as watered down and in the hands of as many people as possible for $$ to have the highest impact on the outcome.
I don’t think that viewing the world through the else of “racist or not” is necessarily the best way to approach a thought experiment. There is an old, perpetually mis-attributed quote along the lines of “it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it”.
I happen to take personal objection with the notion that felons can’t vote in the USA. It provides a path to disenfranchise undesirable votes by perhaps abusing the law, or creating laws specifically to diminish the voting capacity of groups. I think that’s “facist”, but simply applying that label without a good faith explanation towards that “what” and “why” doesn’t lead to anyone learning anything about anything.
I’ve heard support of adding upper age limits on legislators under the justification of “they’ll be dead before they ever feel the results of their bad decisions”. I don’t see that argument as fundamentally different.
To be clear, I am not in favour of anyone’s vote getting taken away.
But I AM in favour of grown up discussions about how as a species, our ability to transform the earth has reached a point that our decisions can echo so far into the future, so far past our own lifespans, that it’s become way too easy to let future generations hold the bag.
We already see it financially. The boomers policy absolutely pulled the ladder up behind them buttfucking millenials and genz.
The headline isn’t"you must have children to vote", thats controversial and a bait solution.
Don’t fall for it. accept and consider the actually existant issue that the incentive model for legislation who’s effects push past the lifetime of decisioning stakeholders is broken… Because it is.
“A society is great when old men plant trees under who’s shade they will never sit.”
How do we make THAT happen?
There’s hundreds of years of experimentation with different democratic formations. We have pretty solid data on what does and doesn’t work. Put simply, the entire system we have works exactly as intended. Minority rule by private property holders and owners of capital is expressly the intended outcome of our system. If you want better outcomes, you need a system predicated on creating those outcomes, not one predicated on ensuring elite rule in perpetuity. We’ve reformed the system hundreds of times, we‘be got to accept at some point that you can’t reform a system away from the very thing it was built to ensure.
I could get into a discussion about alternative and significantly more equitable and representative forms of organization, but that’s not what Musk is doing here. He’s doing, as he always does, the work of the far right while masking his intentions behind bullshit transparent “I’m just asking questions” shtick that I don’t understand how anyone ever fell for in the first place, much less how people buy it now.
If the system is working as intended, but giving minority rule to large businesses interests, then I think we all agree that discussing alternatives is appropriate, no?
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking you need to involve Musk in this conversation at all. You don’t. I’m not.
So, it sounds like we agree: our system has flaws. There aren’t features in place that incentivise things like, not causing the planet to be uninhabitable in say, 150 years (when we’re all dead anyway so not OUR problem).
So, what would you do? I’m sincerely asking in good faith. You have a soapbox and I’m listening.
I am of the opinion that nothing short of a completely new constitution and reconstruction of our systems of governance will be sufficient. Complete dismantling of the Prison Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex, and the school to prison pipeline are entirely necessary. Justice should be predicated on restoring and rehabilitation, not imprisonment and punishment.
If we continue with a representative system, representatives must be tied to the will of their constituents, with removal and possibly criminal charges for going against said will.
I think that any system which enshrines the right to private property will inevitably suffer corruption as those with capital are able to leverage it into more capital, which can be used to inevitably buy politicians. So I think that while personal property is acceptable, private property should be abolished entirely, and all workplaces turned over to the employees. We live in a system that promotes itself as ostensibly democratic, but 99% of the institutions we interact with on a daily basis are oligarchies at best, feudal dictatorships more often. You cannot have a democratic society when the decisions of how to utilize resources are made privately.
What does personal but non-private property even mean? I’m having trouble conceptualizing this modality of ownership, and I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying before I start forming any kid of opinions
Ahh it’s actually a rather common conception, dating back to at least the 1700s, and espoused by individuals such as Adam Smith.
Essentially, the things you use in your life. Your home, your car, your toothbrush. If you’re an artisan, the tools you use to create your goods. Essentially everything you own falls under personal property.
Private property, on the other hand can be defined as follows: Modern private property is the power possessed by private individuals in the means of production which allows them to dispose as they will of the workers’ labor-power (that is, the ability of the worker to labor for certain periods).
One cannot utilize private property fully oneself, and must rely upon the labor of workers to transform the productive capacities of the factory and materials and machines into real, tangible products. No one man creates private property. Factory owners don’t create factories, laborers do. No man creates all the machines that run in a factory, other laborers do. But private property allows one to profit purely off of ownership. It is rent seeking at its height.
